User talk:75.108.94.227/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

multi-cites with variable quotation-portions

User:Huon advice from wikipedia-en-help , about Template:Rp and Template:sfn and friends
  • 75108> hello, I have a <ref>-tag question. In a situation where there are 5 sentences in the article, backed up by ref#7, and for 3 of those sentences the |quote=SomeStuff portion of ref#7 is relevant (but for the other two sentences it isn't), what is the best wiki-syntax?
  • Huon> I expect you'll have to use four different footnotes, three with quotes (presuming the quotes are different) and one without
  • 75108> for instance, something like this: Trump.<ref name=X>{{ |url=foo |quote=trump declined, gilmore unannounced, huck absent}}</ref> Gilmore.<ref name=X/> Huck.<ref name=X/> OtherFacts.<ref name=X/> OtherOther.<ref name=X/>
  • 75108> which makes a single nice one-footnote entry at the bottom... but downside, OtherFacts and OtherOther will hover-popup the unrelated bit about trump/gilmore/huck reasons.
  • 75108> Trump.<ref name=X>{{ |url=foo |quote=trump declined, gilmore unannounced, huck absent}}</ref> Gilmore.<ref name=X/> Huck.<ref name=X/> OtherFacts.<ref name=Y>{{same URL again}}</ref> OtherOther.<ref name=Y/>
  • 75108> that has the downside that you have two identical URLs duped in the refs now, just differing in that one has a |quote= and the other omits it
  • Huon> well, there's no way to make the same footnote display different content in different places in the article
  • 75108> okay yeah, that was basically my question. So I could get away with two, if the quotation was brief enough to be combined (in this specific case it was), but I'd need a dupe-URL-ref#Y for the other factoids.
  • Huon> at best there's a template that will add the quote inline, after the small [1] or whatever, I'm looking for that right now...
  • 75108> I found some ref-formatting-tricks that are used in articles where you quote from books a lot, but need differing page-numbers. They basically use a double-references-section, one for the pagenums, and a second for the book-cite-shared-details. Pretty complicated, and requires rewriting the article to use the double-sectioned style, that I could see (lot of work for one multi-quotation).
  • Huon> and that system to my knowledge does not support quotes
  • 75108> like this -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Wikilinks_to_full_references
  • 75108> but yeah, I wasn't sure it supported |quote= , and second, I didn't want to rewrite ALL the refs in the article already, to match the harvnb or sfn styles
  • Huon> styles can be mixed to some degree
  • 75108> closest thing I found to what I wanted was this: Trump.<ref>{{sfn|Smith|2005|loc="Trump declined"}}</ref> Gilmore.<ref>{{sfn|Smith|2005|loc="Gilmore unannounced"}}</ref> Huck.<ref>{{sfn|Smith|2005|loc="Huck absent"}}</ref> OtherFacts.<ref name=X /> OtherOther.<ref name=X>{{cite web |author=Smith |year=2005 |url=foo}}</ref>
  • 75108> which "works" but is an abuse of the sfn template (treating the "loc"==location param as if it were "|quote=" which it really is not)
  • Huon> don't forget the "ref=harv" parameter for the citation itself
  • 75108> yes correct, thanks. which would make the sfn-linkage function. but I'm not too comfy putting quotations-stuff into the "loc[ation]" field.
  • Huon> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rp is the alternative I can think of, but it's also not ideal
  • 75108> yeah the Template:Rp stuff is *close* to what is wanted, but different. That allows you to have a normal-ish sentence: Trump.<ref>{{cite web |url=}}</ref>{{rp:34}} which then prints as Trump.<sup>[29]:34</sup>
  • 75108> but I am looking for something semi-similar, which would be like this: Trump.<ref>{{cite web |url=}}</ref>{{popupQuote:"Trump declined"}} , which then prints as, Trump.<sup>[29](Q)</sup> or similar, and mouse-hovering over the (Q) would popup "Trump declined", while hovering over the [29] would popup the usual ref-footnote-details.
  • Huon> I'm not aware of such a template, sorry
  • 75108> no problem -- me neither. sfn-kludge might be close enough (for the article in question the problem was already solved another way however, so no worries). Thanks for your help, talk to you later
this would be kinda-nice, if it actually worked...


This looks like it should work, but does not actually work:

References

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^ a b Smith (2005). "FakeRefTitle". {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTESmith2005"Trump declined"" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTESmith2005"Gilmore unannounced"" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTESmith2005"Huck absent"" is not used in the content (see the help page).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Using_the_shortened_footnote_template Here is the closest thing I could come up with, to what was desired:

References

  1. ^ Smith 2005, "Trump declined". sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSmith2005 (help)
  2. ^ Smith 2005, "Gilmore unannounced". sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSmith2005 (help)
  3. ^ Smith 2005, "Huck absent". sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSmith2005 (help)
  4. ^ a b Smith 2005. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSmith2005 (help)

More References



Unfortunately, it requires adding the new subsection, and a new referencing-syntax, and is thus likely to be received with horror by anybody interested in Manual-Of-Style compliance and wiki-referencing-syntax consistency. Even worse, I'm taking advantage of a kludge, and putting 'quotation-materials' into the |loc= field of the Template:sfn portion, which stands for 'location' not for 'quotation' and is thus a template-kludge and maybe even template-abuse. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure that the closest-thing-to-what-might-actually-be-considered-to-work, actually is providing hover-popups... maybe since the <ref>...</ref> is no longer being utilized? Too bad. Additionally, there is the downside that one *actual* ref (used five places) gets puffed up to look like 4 refs (used 5 places), when it is all the same ref. If that is the case, almost might as well go with repeating the URL in multiple places, since that means you can stick with the more-normal <ref>...</ref> styling of the info. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Curiosity

Are you a fast learner or did you edit under a username or a different IP address prior to June 28? Writegeist (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Writegeist, see my earlier long-form answer.[1] Long-haul editor, but prefer to remain an anon, as a means of helping keep this "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", is the short answer. But I also -- preen preen -- consider myself a fast learner.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks IP. I like your prose style. Writegeist (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Sweet... I'm definitely framing that last quote for my wiki-epithet.  :-)     All the folks that say I type too much, can put *that* in their pipes, as the old saying goes. (I think my prose style is partly Freudian countertransference... which I just learned about today, from the good[citation needed] old 'pedia, so may well be mis-using the terminology... it is pretty hard to stay scrupulously neutral and formal in mainspace, so I tend to let my hair down in talkspace, I think a bit more than I otherwise would.) That said, now, dern it all Writegeist, you've been around long enough to know, that calling an IP, well, "IP", is not very kosher with pillar four. I prefer 75108 aka 75.108, if'n you don't mind, thankee kindly. I also answer to the singular they, or the southern singular they which is more flexible in terms of tenses and such. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies 75108. I must confess I’m not very good with pillars. (Samson was a distant relative. Or do I mean Homer Simpson?. I forget.) I’ve always rather liked “IP”, with its whiff of personal initials—like JR, or JC. Nevertheless content to address you numerically, so I’m grateful you clarified your preference. Y’all have a nice day. Writegeist (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
No apologies required; I realized no offense was intended, and o'course none was taken whatsoever. From seeing usertalk threads in the past, where objectification rather than initialism was the intent -- "Adminnn! That IP is looking at me again!!!" -- it just became a fairly strong pet peeve of mine.  ;-)    Anyhoo, drop in any time, nice chatting with you. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the circles

Sorry about the problemsYoursT (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No problems. I'm just curious about which particular circles you like. Do you like the circles in option#A better, or in option#C better, or in some other layout? I left a note on your talkpage, you can reply there or here. If you are busy, that is also no problem, I'll list you as voting for the circles.  :-)   Thanks, talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your request at Files for upload

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main FFU page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 05:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for your help at the Teahouse: this is appreciated. Rubbish computer 23:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, I am on a strict diet... and I ... I cannot... oh nohz... NOM NOM NOM.  ;-)       Delicious, but the bytes will go straight to my hyps, I fear. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll try something healthier next time --Rubbish computer 11:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

75.108, thanks for your attempt to clean up the Harry Braun article. I have a question for you on the talk page Talk:Harry Braun. I pinged you, but I'm also notifying you here because I don't know if pings work for IPs. In fact, please let me know if you got the ping and I will learn something! --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No, they don't work.  :-)     Like inability to create a page without asking for assistance, it is one of the minor petty restrictions placed upon us po' anons. There is a wiki-formal Template:talkback that some folks utilize, but I myself prefer the personal-note-approach, more friendly thataway. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Harry Braun article

Dear 75, Thank you so much for your comments. In getting ready for my Wikipedia article, I organized and scanned a complete published history of myself, which can be seen in this link.

I am a hard science person, and the significance of my published paper in the Chemical Engineering and Industry journal in 2008 was that I am the first investigator who has documented how to replace all of the fossil and nuclear fuels now being used in the U.S. with 5 million 2 MW wind-powered hydrogen production systems, that were first developed in the 1800's. This and the other citations I provided were all deleted for some reason, yet they document that the highly-toxic Oil and Nuclear Age, that is making the planet inhabitable, was never necessary. But more importantly, the global scientific community is desperate to mitigate the fossil fuel-induced climate change chaos that is part of the Sixth Mass Extinction event now taking place, and my proposal is the only one that documents that my Phoenix Project plan, that is covered in many of the linked newspaper articles about my two Congressional Campaigns against John McCain and Jay Rhodes in the 1980's. The articles are just a few of the many written, all discuss my proposals to mass-produce solar hydrogen systems and simply modify all of the existing engines and vehicles to use the only pollution-free and carbon-free "universal" fuel known, that is much safer than gasoline in the event of leaks or accidents.

I cannot understand why this information is not considered neutral and why it is not worth publishing by the Wikipedia editors, in spite of the fact that such actions will make it impossible for me to have my campaign listed on the Facebook and other social media sites. Please spend a few minutes scanning over my published citations, which are just a small sample of the total news reports of those campaigns, and let me know what I must do, if anything, to get a Wikipedia page approved. Thank you again for your detailed investigation of this issue.Harry W Braun III (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Harry. Since there is more than one 75.* on the 'pedia, please call me 75.108 as a compromise between ease-of-typing, and ease-of-unique-identification. Yes, through my own googling I ran across your PDF. That is where I swiped most of the 1980s references. The internet is a wonderful thing, but anything that happened prior to 1995, is effectively invisible to a lot of wikipedians! Luckily now you too are a wikipedian, so we can get the proper citations about your congressional races direct from the horse's mouth, as the saying goes.  :-)
    And yes, part of the reason I commented at the deletion-page, was that I've investigated thermal-oriented-solar-power. To be frank, I never had heard of you, but I knew that the stuff you were talking about was legit experimental work. Now personally, I'm not convinced that a few million sea-mount electrolysis engines is the silver bullet. I personally see cheap mass-produced hydrogen as more of spacecraft-infrastructure, rather than as something to run my washing machine with. I'm also not a big fan of massive governmental programs, even when the experimental science exists to back up such efforts; I've known way too many politicians!  :-)     No offense to present company intended, of course. In any case, here on my usertalk page, you and I are free to chitchat about solar power satellites, long shot presidential candidacies, seasteading, the hypothetical hydrogen economy, and a bunch of other topics. But wikipedia is not a website like any other, even though it might seem similar to the untrained eye.
why wikipedia is different... yet also eerily the same... as the outside world
    Please understand, though, most wikipedians are NOT hard-science people. They are not going to know about what you are talking about. They are going to be, quite literally, unable to distinguish between your solar power calculations, and somebody like Alex Chiu, who sells -- I kid you not -- rare earth magnet rings, as a means of achieving infinite human lifespans. Alex Chiu has a wikipedia page, because he is an internet phenomenon, not because his rings actually work. Harry Braun, as an encyclopedic topic, will also have a wikipedia page. (This is true no matter what the people bangvoting at the current deletion-discussion end up deciding amongst themselves -- I know wikipedia policy, and you pass wiki-notability pretty easily... which as I've mentioned, has no relationship to real-world-notability. It may not happen this month, you might get mistakenly shoved into draft-space, but everything on wikipedia is backed up to the nines, so we can easily retrieve what was lost, no worries about that. In the meantime, try not to stress out about it too much; all's well that ends well.)
    Here is what you need to understand, the nuts and bolts of the wiki-politics here on wikipedia: #1, first of all, wikipedia articles are very valuable commodities. Every long shot presidential candidate wants an article; there are several hundred of them. Most of them are not wiki-notable, which makes you an exception, that will naturally (humans being humans) be treated with a bit of suspicion. Wiki-guilty until proven wiki-innocent, unfortunately. So it is important you be as WP:NICE as possible, and do your best not to step on any toes, during the painful wiki-vetting process, if you can. That will not merely speed things up, it improves your changes of keeping the article... just like in politics, you want the wiki-voters to like you personally, even if they don't necessarily understand your policy-proposals (or in this case your wiki-notability).
    Similarly, #2, every scientist interested in future technologies, whether they be somebody like yourself or somebody like Alex Chiu, wants a wikipedia page to promote their latest theory of physics. The trouble is NOT that your theory is unsound; you aren't proposing a latest theory of physics, you are pointing to existing physics, and suggesting we use it. The trouble is that the average wikipedian cannot be sure that you know what you are talking about. There is an old ... well ... old by wikipedia standards, which is to say, a saying from 2005 or 2006 or something, back in the Ancient Times Of Wikipedia ... an "old" saying about wikipedia, that any form of actual expertise is a severe handicap, here on the 'pedia. If you know what you are talking about, wikipedia is incredibly frustrating, because 99.94% of the people you are working here with, will not know what you are talking about. As a presidential candidate, not just a hard science person, you have a better shot of understanding the situation here on wikipedia, than most of the people I try to help. How many of the registered voters in the USA, are likely to truly understand the difference between a program to seastead several million wind turbines, and a program to build the Keystone XL pipeline to import shale oil from the Canadians? If you think it is 1% of general-election-voters, you have a much less pessimistic outlook on humanity than myself. I would suggest the percentage is closer to one-thousandth-of-one-percent.
    That said, here on wikipedia, the chances are better; you have to be a bit of a nerd, or at least, a bit of a scholar, to think that writing encyclopedia prose is a "fun hobby" to do in your spare time. Thus, there is about a 3% chance, that any random wikipedian you run into, will have a basic understanding of the difference between your phoenix-project-proposal, and the keystone-XL-pipeline proposal, and be able to rationally discuss the pros and cons with you. But even when other wikipedians UNDERSTAND what you are proposing, that doesn't mean that we can suddenly change all the wiki-laws, engraved in stone back in the Ancient Days (of 2007 or thereabouts), when this place turned into a bureaucracy. There are a ton of stupid rules, and they all have to be followed. We have a rule, that any stupid rule, which prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, can be ignored. Anybody who follows THAT rule, and starts ignoring the bureaucracy, will quickly be blocked from editing. Sigh. So, rule #3 that you have to understand: there are a metric ton of wiki-rules, and there are a LOT of people who are sticklers for every single wiki-rule, partly because they LIKE bureaucracies... but mostly because, see #1 and #2 above, they use the wiki-rules as a way to make decisions, about topics which they as wikipedians don't deeply understand.
    Okay. You've had your lecture, about the three main things you have to know. Namely, that wikipedians see a lot of POTUS candidates, and treat them with suspicion by default. Wikipedians also see a lot of people proposing newfangled energy sources, and treat them with suspicion by default. You happen to be both, hence your especially-chilly reception.  :-)     Last but not least, most wikipedians use the wiki-rules as a decision-making crutch, so if you satisfy the wiki-rules, you will have smooth sailing (it is 'hard' but not by any means impossible), but if you violate the wiki-rules you must apologize profusely and then never dare such awful wiki-transgressions again!11!!! Or something. It's not really that bad, but sometimes it may seem like it; just keep your cool, and you'll be fine. Let us apply these three big rules to your questions, sentence by sentence:
exceedingly long responses, to your seemingly-simple questions.... click the button over here to see it all -- -->>
  • Dear 75, Thank you so much for your comments.
    • You are surely welcome. Wikipedians are supposed to be WP:NICE to each other, but be aware, not everyone follows *that* wiki-law. (It's the only one that is 'optional' as far as I can tell... but only for long-term wikipedians, it's not optional for wiki-beginners like yourself. Be nice to everyone, without fail, no matter how they are acting towards you.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In getting ready for my Wikipedia article, I organized and scanned a complete published history of myself, which can be seen in this link.
    • Yes, this was crucial to my AfD comment, and very helpful of you, thanks. It is also a violation of copyright law, which wikipedia takes very seriously, for us to link to that PDF. See WP:COPYVIO. So I've broken the WP:CONVENIENCE link that you offered. In order to get the Harry Braun article approved, we need exactly that sort of thing: newspapers, books, teevee, radio, peer-reviewed papers, government agency reports, that sort of thing. But please don't link to scanned clippings. Just give us the metadata: the date of the piece, author of the piece, title of the piece, publisher of the piece, page number(s), that sort of thing. See also, DMCA and SOPA and PIPA, which are of more concern to wikipedia (as a top-ten website that might be targeted by governments in many countries that are members of the international copyright treaty system), than they might be to a more normal sort of website that doesn't need to worry too much about getting explicitly censored by governments, for instance. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I am a hard science person,
    • This is very helpful to wikipedia, and of course, helpful to your own efforts... but as mentioned above, most wikipedians are not hard science folks, and won't understand it, any more than most voters. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • and the significance of my published paper in the Chemical Engineering and Industry journal in 2008 was that
    • You have published a paper. It was peer-reviewed. That means it is WP:RS. But wiki-laws are, that the significance of your own paper, cannot be left to your judgement. See WP:COI. See also my comments above: actually knowing what you are talking about, is a severe handicap. Until and unless a large number of other independent third-party sources with no financial/kinship/similar relationship to you and your work, have published their own pieces in WP:SOURCES reviewing that paper, and they call it significant... then and only then can wikipedia call it quote unquote "significant". To hard science folks like us, the ideas themselves are significant, and the publication is just something to verify the significance. But wiki-significance, and wiki-prose found in wiki-articles, has very little to do with real-world-significance... just as wiki-notability is very unlike real-world-notability. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I am the first investigator who has documented
    • Again, this is a bold claim. It assumes that no unpublished material exists. Remember the case of Mendelian genetics. Basically, even if this is true, wikipedia cannot say it is true. Wikipedia is about reflecting what the wiki-reliable WP:SOURCES say, in summary form, via neutral prose, just-the-facts. Is it a fact that you were first to achieve what you did? Maybe so. But if wikipedia is to say so, you have to WP:PROVEIT. I kid you not, back in 2001 some wikipedian wrote an article on the human hand, and said that most humans have, typically, five fingers on each hand. Six years later, in 2007 when all the wiki-laws started to be engraved in stone, some other wikipedia editor -- from an IP address inside U.C.Berkeley no less! -- challenged that basic fact of anatomy as being uncited. "Humans typically have five fingers on each hand.[citation needed]" The sad thing is, THEY WERE NOT JOKING, they really wanted all the wiki-rules to be satisfied. Nowadays, in 2015, anything uncited -- to a third-party independent newspaper/teevee/book/radio/scientificPaper/etc ... is just deleted outright. So when I say that wikipedia is neutral, boring, just-the-facts, I mean this: we can say, as a boring fact, that you published the paper. We can say, as a boring fact, that it was in CIEJ'08. We can say, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, that you were cited by ((a couple other people whose names escape me)), in their own papers, for that particular CIEJ'08 piece of yours. But until and unless there are outside commentators, that write stuff specifically about that CIEJ'08 piece, the wiki-rules tie our hands. Being wiki-neutral has little to do... as I seem to keep repeating with slight variations... with actually being neutral. See WP:NPOV, which can be summed up as, if MSNBC and FOX both agree some factoid is true, then it can be counted as a fact, but only if a mainstream university textbook has explicitly published that same factoid. (Recall the story about human hands having five fingers.) As of 2015, it is not yet the case that MSNBC and FOX and mainstream university textbooks are all in agreement, that you were the first. And for a judgement-call like that, it might be a couple decades before they final are all on the same page. In the meantime, wikipedia must neutrally reflect what the WP:SOURCES actually say; when the WP:SOURCES are silent on a matter, so must wikipedia be, to misquote (early) Wittgenstein. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • how to replace all of the fossil and nuclear fuels now being used in the U.S. with 5 million 2 MW wind-powered hydrogen production systems,
    • It is true that you have a plan. It is true that you have written it. The plan was published. The WP:SOURCES have given your plan some detailed coverage, even. But you must be hardened and realistic here: although they cover your plan, they often get the details wrong. Wikipedia has to reflect what the WP:SOURCES say, even when they are wrong. Moreover, it is simply the truth that, even when you are getting coverage of your energy plan in the media, you are not necessarily getting POSITIVE coverage. Usually you are getting skeptical coverage, and in a couple cases I noticed, negative coverage. The wikipedia article has to reflect that the sources, overall, are not specifically positive, and in some cases, are specifically negative. This is an unavoidable downside to the wiki-rules about staying wiki-neutral by sticking strictly to what the WP:SOURCES say... in cases where a very vast change is being suggested, most of the sources will NOT be saying how wonderful the plan is -- they will want to cover their butts, hedge their bets, and say only cautious things, stay on the conservative side, and otherwise downplay the long-term implications.
    This cannot be helped; even serious journalists -- or maybe especially the serious journalists -- are basically chicken. And of course, many of the media-sources that fully count as wiki-reliable per the wiki-laws, are in fact just entertainment slash infotainment: they are there to amuse their viewers, not to convey serious ideas. In such an environment, there will always be naysayers, but not only that, there will be people that turn your serious proposal into a joke. So, to be perfectly frank with you, any wikipedia article -- written in 2015 at least as opposed to 2025 or something -- about your proposal, is going to look not-very-good to your eyes. We are going to cover the cautious conservative things, yes... but we also have to cover the negative and foolish things, that count as 'news' in the media nowadays. We cannot, per the wiki-rules, give much of a rebuttal from you, or from your work, because that's not staying wiki-neutral. Thus, the wikipedia article will be invariably tilted against your plan, not because it is scientifically unsound, not because it is economically unsound, not because it is politically infeasible, but simply because -- just as with the average voter and just as with the average wikipedian -- the average media pundit, will NOT understand what you are talking about. Sigh. In any case, wikipedia is likely to be the fairest most-neutral summary of your plan, as reflected by coverage in the mainstream media (and alternative media and niche media and scientific publications). But it will only be that, and any big new idea, is going to have (on average) pretty slanted media-coverage.
    The only saving grace of wikipedia articles, is that they DO give the readership the links and the citations, so that the ones who are interested in learning more, can follow the links -- to your own website, to your own rebuttals, and so on. And of course, as more wiki-reliable coverage of your ideas gets into the WP:SOURCES, the contents of the wikipedia article about you and your ideas will improve, since methinks your ideas are fundamentally sound. But it might take a long time, and by that I mean years or decades, not months or weeks. If you were hoping for a glowing piece of presidential campaign propaganda, wikipedia is going to be zero help to you in 2016. Maybe by 2020 or 2024, there will be enough WP:SOURCES to write a truly fair and truly neutral (not just wiki-neutral) article on your policy-proposal, and on your technological-proposal, and such. I do think that the wikipedia article will be helpful to you in 2016 (and mayhap necessary), but be ready not to like what the wikipedia article has to say, in order to comply with all the wiki-rules. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • that were first developed in the 1800's.
    • Correct. It is because you are using old-school physics, that I can recognize you are not like Alex Chiu and his magic magnetic rings. But as mentioned, most wikipedians aren't hard science folks, and cannot tell the difference. This cannot be helped. Trying to educate all the wikipedians, will just be seen as "promoting your theory" here on wikipedia.  :-)     If you haven't read Joseph Heller, do so. My advice is that you not even try. Just concentrate on digging up the best, most wiki-reliable sources you can, and then pointing those sources out to the wikipedians that *do* already naturally have the science-background to understand the source. More on this later, but for the purposes of your Harry Braun BLP-article, instead of trying to convince wikipedians of the correctness of your proposal, or forcibly edit your proposals/candidacy/etc into articles, your best bet is to rely on Perison and MelanieN and myself. People that know the wiki-laws, and are wiki-neutral with respect to your proposals/candidacies/etc. This is slower and more awkward, but that's wikipedia for you. It does work, not too shabbily, once you get the hang of it. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This and the other citations I provided were all deleted for some reason,
    • No doubt you violated some wiki-law or another, and instead of helping you, the knee-jerk response is to just delete everything. The wiki-culture is terrible now, because we don't have enough editors to properly maintain the 'pedia... and in response, the wiki-culture has grown ever-harsher. Which of course, drives away potential new contributors... see also, vicious cycle. The work you did isn't gone, it can be undeleted in time, but for the moment, just accept that the wiki-culture is like a strange anthropological adventure. You are an article-candidate seeking wiki-bangvotes in the wiki-verse, and although there is some vague overlap with the real world, it is very tenuous. Try and find some wiki-natives to help you out, is your best bet. That's where Peridon and MelanieN come in. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • yet they document that the highly-toxic Oil and Nuclear Age, that is making the planet inhabitable, was never necessary.
    • I suspect you meant to say uninhabitable. I also suspect that 99% of the thrust of this comment will not make it into wikipedia-mainspace-articles, because it is definitely non-neutral, and also definitely not the sort of thing that journalists will say (in the journalist's voice as opposed to in a quotation of you). Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the WP:SOURCES say, in their journalistic-voice. If it is essential to you, that this sentence-fragment be inserted into wikipedia, then I predict insurmountable wiki-problems will ensue. Along the same lines, comments like these are why wikipedians are going to see you as here promoting your candidacy, and here promoting your political agenda, and in general unable to follow the wiki-laws about wiki-neutrality in prose, and backing up every last little bit of the least-controversial statements with impeccably-wiki-reliable WP:SOURCES. Make sense? I understand that this is the heart of your candidacy, and a strong motivating factor in your scientific research. But that doesn't mean that wikipedia is the place for talking like that. Wikipedia is a place for writing neutral just-the-facts prose summarizing what the wiki-reliable sources said. That goal is fundamentally incompatible with, say, the very different goal of using wikipedia to educate the voting population of the USA that sea-mount wind-turbine hydrolysis-factories are the key to energy independence by 2020. See WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:SPIP, and the rest. If you are here to push an agenda, and alter the way wikipedia works, you'll only have bad luck. If you can work within the existing wiki-laws, then it seems likely that the wikipedia-article about you and your ideas will exist. Whether that impacts your 2016 campaign positively or negatively, remains to be seen; but such external impact has no standing under the wiki-laws, which are a universe unto themselves. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • But more importantly, the global scientific community is desperate to mitigate the fossil fuel-induced climate change chaos
    • Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia. It's not the global scientific community. And even though you are a hard science person, much like myself, neither one of us can claim to speak for the Global Scientific Community, right? Basically, wikipedia articles cannot say any of this stuff, that you just said here on my usertalk page, without very solid WP:SOURCES to back each little bit up. See also WP:UNDUE; wikipedia reflects ALL the sources, not just the ones that you and I might think are the 'best' sources. Plenty of mainstream journalists, and wiki-reliable authors, do not agree with the claims in your sentence-fragment here. Wikipedia is NOT the place where such debates are decided aka fought; wikipedia is the place where such debates are described and summarized, by carefully and neutrally reflecting what the WP:SOURCES actually say, in summarized form, with cites to back everything up. Understand the distinction? It's essential to WP:5 that wikipedia not become a vehicle for promotion, but it is at least as essential that wikipedia not become a vehicle for propaganda-battles. That's one of the things that destroyed the Diderot encyclopedia-project, for example. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • that is part of the Sixth Mass Extinction event now taking place, and
  • my proposal is the only one that documents that my Phoenix Project plan,
  • that is covered in many of the linked newspaper articles about my two Congressional Campaigns against John McCain and Jay Rhodes in the 1980's.
    • Yes, the reason that you are likely (almost guaranteed in fact) to have a wikipedia article, is that you have received plenty of coverage; the bulk of your coverage was in the 1980s, and local to Arizona, so the bulk of your article will be about your political campaigns in the 1980s. You have a platform that has changed since then, but the essentials are unchanged, so this works out relatively well for you: although there is not yet much wiki-reliable coverage of your 2016 campaign, the platform-planks of your previous campaigns *are* covered in the sources, and thus wikipedia can say what those platform planks were, and give the reception of the WP:SOURCES at the time. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The articles are just a few of the many written,
    • The best thing you can do to help, is to dig up the sources that you have, and put the metadata onto Talk:Harry Braun in a new section (called 'additional WP:RS sources'). You should concentrate on sources that have *depth* and are *specifically* about you and/or your campaigns and/or your work. Being related to your work is not enough. Mentioning your name, but giving no substantive details, is not enough. Multiple paragraphs about Harry Braun, and about Harry Braun's ideas, and about Harry Braun's proposals, is what we need to pass the deletion-as-not-wiki-notable-enough phase. It is also exactly what we need to write the wiki-neutral wiki-prose, for the eventual article. Per my comment at the top about WP:COPYVIO, please do not just scan and upload entire newspapers/articles/magazines/books/journals/etc that have this kind of coverage: instead, just provide author/date/publication/pages/etc, and if the original publisher has the URL of the piece online, give that as well. The key to wiki-notability is to have a lot of sources, with a lot of depth (sentence-count), spread out over a lot of years. Since I've already found ... well, mostly you found them and then I copied your work ... since we've already got sources for 1982, 1984, 1986, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, and 2011, the most helpful thing to provide is coverage from other years: the 1990s are a big gap right now, when you were doing concentrated solar power work. Do you have newspaper/magazine/book/etc mention of your time working on stuff in the 1990s? Can be online or offline, English or Klingon or whatever, gratis or paywall, but must be WP:SOURCES type publications and must be WP:RS with editorially-selected and editorially-controlled output, plus independent of you and your employer (at the time) and your financial partners and your kinfolk and such. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • all discuss my proposals to mass-produce solar hydrogen systems
    • Yes, and therefore wikipedia can also discuss your proposals. Which is to say, we can summarize what the WP:SOURCES said, in neutral just-the-facts non-promotional wiki-prose. I've given a start to that effort, but will need to expand on it, see Harry Braun. You can click the 'view history' button at the top of that page, and see the recent changes people have made, and click on the 'diff' button to see what specific changes they made. By watching how MelanieN does her edits, for instance, you will quickly learn what is within wiki-policy and what isn't. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • and simply modify all of the existing engines and vehicles to use the only pollution-free and carbon-free "universal" fuel known,
    • Getting a bit promotional here, methinks.  :-)    Hard to be a presidential candidate, if you don't push for your platform-planks, though. Do try to tone it down here on-wiki, however, and stick to neutral just-the-facts discussion of what the WP:SOURCES actually said, rather than drawing *conclusions* ... even when the conclusions so drawn, are perfectly logical. Most wikipedians are not Aristotle, so wiki-policy simply doesn't trust individual wikipedians to draw logical conclusions correctly. Instead, everything in wikipedia-articles is supposed to be explicitly backed up by a source that directly says what the wiki-prose states. See WP:SYNTH, and contrast with WP:CALC, wikipedians can add 2+2 and report 4, but wikipedians cannot say IF X THEN Y, X IS SOURCED, THUS Y. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • that is much safer than gasoline in the event of leaks or accidents.
  • I cannot understand why this information is not considered neutral
    • So here we come to the most difficult part. Are you beginning to understand, why information -- which happens to be information that is beneficial to your presidential aspirations -- is not wiki-neutral? Wikipedia is not about information. Wikipedia is about verification, and about giving appropriate weight. See WP:5, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOTEWORTHY, and especially WP:THETRUTH, which is written sarcastically but has a crucial message. Wikipedia ain't the truth. It's not even about the truth. Wikipedia is just about reporting, neutrally and with as little bias as possible, what the wiki-reliable sources said... then letting the readership make up their own minds, what to believe. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • and why it is not worth publishing by the Wikipedia editors,
    • This is an easy one: because wikipedia editors are not publishers. Wikipedians are curators, of a historical listing of factoids, as reported by the WP:SOURCES. Wikipedians organize that dataset. Wikipedians have to, out of necessity, interpret that dataset in some cases. But wikipedians do not *argue* about the contents of the dataset, per se. Wikipedians are never supposed to contribute to that dataset, as wikipedians. We're supposed to reflect what the wiki-reliable sources say, neutrally and properly weighted. No more. No less. See WP:OR; wikipedians shouldn't be deleting things as 'unworthy' but they also shouldn't be publishing things 'worthy' because those are value-judgements that wikipedians ought not be making. The making of such evaluative decisions, is itself a violation of WP:NPOV. In practice, it is very hard to avoid such violations, but wikipedians are supposed to try. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • in spite of the fact that such actions will make it impossible for me to have my campaign listed on the Facebook and other social media sites.
    • As mentioned above, the wiki-laws are very purposely as disconnected as they can possibly be from the outside world. Decisions on wikipedia, are made with reference to the good of wikipedia, as an encyclopedia... and nothing else. We don't give articles to worthy causes, simply because they are worthy. We don't delete articles about evil dictators, simply because they are evil. Worthy causes get press-coverage. That is why they are bang-keeps. Evil dictators also get press-coverage. That is why they are also bang-keep. You've gotten press-coverage, so you will be bang-keep, and your article will reflect that press-coverage, in as neutral and unbiased a fashion as your fellow wikipedians can manage. I understand that facebook-policy is one of the main drivers of your thinking here; that's not fair, that facebook would abuse wikipedia's criteria for wiki-notability as a test of presidential mettle, but then, life is not always fair. One good thing about the wiki-laws, is that they DO in fact strive to be fair. Doesn't always work out in practice, but usually does, that I've seen; in the long run at least. Can be frustrating along the way, especially if you are the topic of the article, but try and keep your cool. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please spend a few minutes scanning over my published citations,
    • Yup, have done so. Please see what I missed (newspapers/books/teevee/radio/journals/governmentAgencies/magazines/etc) in the Harry Braun article, and provide a list of additional sources on Talk:Harry_Braun. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • which are just a small sample of the total news reports of those campaigns,
    • More sources from 1984 and 1986 are not necessary for demonstrating the wiki-notability of those campaigns; if you have more WP:SOURCES from *other* years, those would definitely be helpful, as long as they are specifically about the topic of Harry Braun, and have some reasonable depth (multiple paragraphs with substantial details). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • and let me know what I must do, if anything, to get a Wikipedia page approved.
    • Well, read what I wrote inside the green box just above, and take it to heart. But for your reading pleasure, here's your official twelve-step program(TM):
#1. continue to keep your cool.
#2. do whatever MelanieN and Peridon suggest, they seem to know what they're doing.
#3. dig up some more WP:SOURCES and post metadata (author/publisher/date/title/etc) onto Talk:Harry_Braun.
#4. don't try and directly edit Harry Braun yourself, just make suggestions on Talk:Harry_Braun, and when other wikipedians explain why they disagree, listen to what they say and read the wiki-policy pages they point you to.
#5. if you don't understand some particular wiki-policy, ask the nearest handy wikipedian to explain it to you, or use WP:Q venues like the WP:TEAHOUSE for a higher likelihood of instant gratification.
#6. don't try your hand at editing any political articles nor energy policy articles nor chemistry and physics articles, until you have a firmer grasp on wiki-culture and wiki-policies.
#7. do feel free to be WP:BOLD, and try your hand at areas where you are an 'amateur' with no vested interests and no special competence, just click Special:Random a few times until you see something that needs work (grammar fixes or added sources or overly-promotional or whatever), and get some experience being a wikipedian in the sense of working on the encyclopedia, rather than as a topic of the encyclopedia, which is more stressful in many ways.
#8. ask somebody like MelanieN or Peridon or the WP:TEAHOUSE folks to review your editing-attempts from step seven, and to critique your work, to see whether you really understand wiki-laws.
#9. read over the WP:5 pillars.
#10. read them a few more times, they are subtle, but they are the core of wikipedia.
#11. put three million dollars of funding for every active wikipedian including anons into your 2016 platform planks ...whoa... where did *that* come from? nevermind this step eleven, move right along to step twelve, the final step.  ;-)
#12. now that you are a wikipedian, you are given the WP:CHOICE of what you want to do with yourself. Maybe you will choose wisely, maybe you will choose unwisely. I'll be interested to see what you end up doing, either way.
  • Thank you again for your detailed investigation of this issue.
    • My pleasure. Sorry the wiki-jungle is such a jungle, but I expect you'll be fine now that you've gotten the crash-course. Best of luck with your campaign, and feel free to leave a note on my talkpage here, if you need anything, or just want to chitchat about the wiki-culture. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear 75.108, I just noticed my Harry Braun page has been posted, including on the list of announced presidential candidates, and I think it looks great!

I very much appreciate your detailed response to my confusion, and I now do have a much greater understanding of how the highly-sophisticated Wikipedia analysis process works. I would love to know what you did prior to your involvement with Wikipedia.

I do not recall any published reports on my work during the 1990’s, but I am checking to be sure. I was working on my book at the time, and given you mentioned you had an interest in solar thermal technologies, I was working at the McDonnell Douglas facility in Huntington Beach, California with a group of senior engineers led by Dr. James Blackmon, one of the original design engineers who had developed the world’s most efficient and cost-effective Dish Stirling solar concentrator system for converting solar insolation to grid-quality electricity, with an efficiency of just over 30 percent. Two of the systems that were in daily operation at the McDonnell Douglas facility for over 18 years continued to maintain their high optical performance and energy conversion efficiency. But given we were also under contract with Kockums in Sweden, who modified the flour cylinder Stirling engine they had developed for non-nuclear attack submarines in the Swedish Navy, as well as Sandia National Laboratories, much of our work was proprietary, thus I was not holding any press conferences.

I apologize for misspelling “uninhabitable,” but I want you to know that your detailed comments were exceptionally helpful, and I am now very much aware that I have much to learn about “The World According to Wikipedia.” However, I will do my best to be helpful to you and your many dedicated editorial colleagues at Wikipedia. I have spent my entire professional career being an objective and technical and research analyst, but when it comes to the political world, it is always a question of advocating one policy over another, and it is hard for me to be “neutral” about a mass-extinction event that is almost over.

As a clarification, my presidential campaign is indeed organized as an Article V Constitutional Convention because “Constitutional Convention” is the specific language that used in Article V that allows citizens to bypass the Congress in order to pass and ratify amendments. And given the Article V Citizen Ballot on the Democracy Amendment USA website can be downloaded as a verifiable paper ballot, once a voter completes the ballot and mails it to their respective Secretary of State, the ballot can then be verified, counted and archived. And when the majority of citizens in two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 states) send in their signed ballots, the amendment will be passed, and when the majority of voters in three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 states) send in their signed ballots, the amendment will be ratified.

This is in contrast to the existing computer-based elections by private corporations (primarily ES&S) that are absolutely unverifiable. I wanted to use the famous quote by Joseph Stalin “It’s not the voters who count, but who counts the votes,” but I was unable to locate a “proper” citation.

In any case, it is possible that the Democracy Amendment could be ratified before the next presidential election in November of 2016, assuming enough registered voters are made aware of the amendment, which is a primary objective of my presidential campaign. Thus my presidential campaign is indeed serving as a Constitutional Convention that is focused on passing and ratifying the Democracy Amendment, because none of the fundamental changes I am calling for, such as ending the Oil Wars and shifting from an “Oil Economy” to a “Hydrogen Economy” could take place, even if I was president, in the lobbyist-based American Republic that now exists.

Please note that I am in the process of finalizing and initiating my national Press Release email campaign to virtually every newspaper, television news show and radio talk show in the United States, the UK, Germany and Austria, with the push of a button on my computer. Thus I hope I will soon have some significant and current Wikipedia-NPOV-approved press coverage to provide. Let me know if you want to be on my email list. I can also be reached at 770-905-7000 if you want to chat. Thank you again for your many insights, and I very much look forward to working with you in the future. Harry W Braun III (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Harry, glad that you are taking the wiki-culture in stride. It can be a bit of a jolt, to say the least.  :-)     And although it is true that wikipedia sometimes has a sophisticated analysis process, it is equally true that more often than not we drop the ball, and just barely manage to muddle through. As for what I do outside wikipedia, as you probably noticed I'm one of those people that edits wikipedia without logging in, for anonymity. Needless to say, I'm a bit of a private person, and can afford to be since I'm not running for president. In the past, I used to ride around on my pet dinosaur, fighting evil and defending all that is good and true. After founding the first inhabited colony on the Jovian moons, I left the aerospace industry to invent the internet, which in those days was constructed mostly out of pigeons and duct tape. Recently I've become fabulously wealthy and even better looking, yet remain humble to the core, so I keep quiet about all this stuff, unless somebody asks, and spend some of my spare time improving wikipedia articles and helping out my fellow wikipedians like yourself.
    So, as for the business at hand, we have a couple of published papers from the 1990s where you were co-author, and cites to those. But we don't have many sources that are talking about the details of your work with the Stirling-plus-dish systems at McDonnell Douglas in Huntington Beach, and wikipedia does not have an article on Dr. James Blackmon as yet. Maybe you can help us fix that, if enough sources can be discovered on him. Now of course, this type of stuff isn't what can be put into mainspace, without cites: "we were also under contract with Kockums in Sweden, who modified the flour cylinder Stirling engine they had developed for non-nuclear attack submarines in the Swedish Navy" ... but it *is* very interesting stuff, and if we can find a WP:SOURCE that mentions you were working on such a project (even if the details are not publicized), then we can mention it as WP:NOTEWORTHY. Along the same lines, if we can find WP:SOURCES that talk about the relationship between the Stirling Engine Systems project, and the Swedish military folks, we can improve *that* article, if not necessarily add the stuff yet to the Harry Braun article. But yeah, when you are doing work that is considered quasi-classified, it is rare for the press to pick up on it at the time, and often enough, pick up on it later. We did have one cite from 2008, which was talking about the various people in the SES group, and what they were working on, but it is a bit skimpy on details.[2] I'm not sure that UsaToday source has been integrated into the article yet, either... if not, please open up a Talk:Harry_Braun section, and suggest what wording we should use to describe your role in that stuff, please.
    You didn't misspell uninhabitable, you just accidentally said inhabitable, when from the context you clearly meant "un".  :-)     About the organization of your 2016 campaign, and the way you are dovetailing it to sumultaneously be an art-5-constitutional-convention, there are a couple of things that we need. First, can you point me to a place on your website, where you explain that the campaign-organization is intended to double as an implementation of the clauses in the constitution? Then we can remove the citation-needed tag from the sentence in Harry Braun. This is one of those rare special cases, where we *can* just directly reference your own website, because the way you are organizaing your campaign-effort, falls directly under WP:ABOUTSELF, and need not be noticed by a newspaper journalist or whatever, since it is a cold hard dry boring neutral fact, specifically about the subject-matter of Harry Braun, that is appropriate for wikipedia to mention. Usually, of course, the wiki-rule is plain, that if some third-party independent journalist did not find a factoid WP:NOTEWORTHY, then wikipedia should not mention that factoid, until and unless a source can be found. But for basic details, such as birthdates and such, WP:ABOUTSELF is allowed.
    So then, the next question that comes to mind is, are you planning on seeking to win the caucus and primary votes, held as part of the Democratic Party nomination process? Or are you specifically aiming to convince citizens to use the art-5-ballots, and not worry about the party caucus-and-primary ballots? Along the same lines, are you planning on running a 50-state-campaign, fundraising permitting, or are you planning to focus on the 38 states where you think your art-5-approach has the best shot of success? (And yes, we cannot use the Stalin quote in your article, because it's not germane to *your* article aka the article about you, the topic of Harry Braun -- Stalin was talking about his own vote-counters in the USSR, not about the vote-counters in the Democratic nomination race of 2016, so although the quote is related -- in the same way that material about the generic production of hydrogen is related -- both of those topics are already addressed in other articles, namely Joseph Stalin and production of hydrogen respectively, which means covering them in the Harry Braun article would be seen as incorrect-duplication-of-existing-topics.) And of course, as new press-coverage comes to light, please bring it up on Talk:Harry_Braun, and somebody will get the stuff mainspaced in neutral just-the-facts fashion. Talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your response to op-ed

Nice spoof! RockMagnetist(talk) 01:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, like yourself in your own mind, I responded somewhat badly (in my own mind with respect to WP:NICE) unto the inherently-insulting prose that was being presented as academic research, but with cites stripped out and insinuations left in. As you pointed out, it was primarily intended as a smear, at least unconsciously, and 99% was a misguided smear, at that. For my own part, I'm particularly unhappy, because I actually agree with Bryce that the wiki-policies are unfriendly to beginners. Where my own view, and Bryce's ideas on the topic, part ways such that never the twain shall meet again, is that Bryce believes wiki-culture and wiki-policies are some kind of white male conspiracy, best fought with academic deconstructivist gobbledygook heavily informed by what works to scare off non-liberal-arts-profs in the faculty lounge. In wiki-reality, though, there is no cabal, as the saying goes; I don't believe there is any sort of conspiracy. I do believe we've painted ourselves into a corner, and built ourselves a nice WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY double-speak... plus I don't have much hope of wikipedians overcoming the wiki-policies we have painted ourselves into that corner with. But it gives wiki-reformers like me a bad name, when critics like Bryce are blaming everything on the hegemonic discourse of blah blah blah... especially when the distinction between votes and bangvotes is conflated, and other relatively 'basic' mistakes (if we go with the assumption that anybody with less than 10k edits is a 'beginner' ... sigh). Anyways, I'll go ahead and ping User:Thebrycepeake, since I've brought their name up here, and wiki-honor demands they be allowed to respond, if they wish. Bryce and I agree on the problems, largely, and even on the symptoms of the problems, for the most part; we just disagree on the existence of the hypothetical underlying collective-motive, that led to the problems... and therefore of course, we disagree on the correct solution(s). p.s. Your username is pretty cool; I had a friend with a t-shirt that said, simply, STOP PLATE TECTONICS. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Certainly, if Wikipedia policies put any group at a disadvantage, it's beginners. Yet, when I was a beginner, Wikipedia seemed quite welcoming. I made some mistakes, but people were nice about it. If you're editing noncontroversial material and write good, well-sourced prose, it's a pretty stress-free experience. If the content is controversial, policy is probably needed to resolve disputes. I'm not sure there is any way around that. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, see when I was a beginner, I read the five pillars, laughed, and then went about improving the encyclopedia. But that's the born-a-wikipedian phenomena. There are many other beginners that are good faith contributors, but not necessarily born-wikipedians, who get driven away by the bureaucracy. And having worked in the controversial articles (mostly politics stuff ... but you would be surprised how heated a borderline-notability debate at AfD can get over corporations or video games or whatever), I can say without qualification that the wiki-policies are abused to drive away beginners and wiki-win the content battles. So while I agree wiki-policies are needed, I disagree we have the correct wiki-policies; at the moment, we have competing pressure-groups trying to get their preferred version into mainspace by attrition, in a large number of controversial topic areas ... and many of them seemingly-peaceful to the unwitting beginner, who steps into a content-minefield without realizing what they are doing. Anyways, I think that your story of becoming a wikipedian ('I made some mistakes but people were nice about it') is relatively rare nowadays. I'm not sure what to do about the problem, of making that story repeat itself more reliably and more often, but that's my long-term goal. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Evidently you have experience far beyond the contribution record of this IP. Do you find using an IP changes the attitude of other editors? When I am looking at my watchlist, I tend to look carefully at contributions from IP addresses. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, funny you should ask, that is one of the big reasons *why* I edit as anon, because I'm interested in keeping this "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". As you prolly know, statistically speaking us anons are not very filled with clue.  ;-)     So not only do I find that being an anon changes the attitudes of other editors, I'm editing as an anon *to* change those selfsame attitudes. I recommend it, if you don't mind the loss of edit-count-itis. If you do decide to moonlight as an anon, however, be sure not to accidentally interact with "yourself" aka post as an anon and then later post as User:RockMagnetist in the same conversation-thread, that is WP:MEATPUPPET. But if you want to get a feel for how the wiki-culture is, really and truly, log out, click Special:Random a few times, and then try pulling a few WP:IAR maneuvers. Personally, I've always hated needing to remember passwords and such, so have always edited as an anon (I once created an account called tmepThisIsDumb30952 or something like that... about five minutes before I figured out there was an AfC wizard... so I ended up not having any non-anon edits), but it's allowed for username-holding editors to also edit as anons, though frowned upon unless there is a "good" reason for it. If you do decide to regularly anon-edit in parallel, you should probably link your username to your IP address usertalk(s), so you don't get accidentally into hot water with the checkuser folks. As for doing any full-time-anon-editing like I prefer, the main constraint is that you have to edit from a single physical location, since obviously, your IP at the office and the library will be different, so I tend to pick a single PC to use for wikipedia and only edit from that one place. Anyways, the short answer to your question is that yes, there is a 'tude problem, though I find the WP:ABUSEFILTER far more attitude-deprived than other human editors for the most part.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
My computer remembers my password, so there is no way in which using my IP would be more convenient. And you are greatly outnumbered by IPs who are vandals or clueless, so changing the perceptions sounds like an uphill battle. Still, I admire your stand on this - good luck! RockMagnetist(talk) 17:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh no, I don't recommend it as more convenient. (It is more difficult and annoying, nowadays, than ever. Back in the dayTM it was ever so slightly "more convenient" for me personally, but that was years ago. I've kept editing as an anon for philosophical reasons, and out of mule-headed stubborn-ness, not for any imagined convenience!) That said, I do recommend briefly logging out every few months, as a more realistic way to assess the state of wiki-culture that the beginner will actually see, not as a way to make wikipedia easier for yourself.  :-)    Pleasure talking with you, see you around. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your comment about my computer

I asked about upgrading my Internet access and decided it wasn't worth the cost. For most of what I do at home, once I access each site for the first time, it's fast enough, and I do everything else at libraries.

Thanks for your comments.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. I also just get the cheap internet package, and when I need high bandwidth, walk across the street. It does seem odd that your connection is slow on the first load, though, and then after that faster... it *could* be just browser caching speeding up the images and such, but it could also be some kind of spyware, theoretically at least. Anyways, figured I would suggest a virus-scan, just in case your slow-internet issues were not inherent, I've seen cases where malware caused internet-slowdowns in the past. In any case, thanks for stopping by, talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I scan every week. Nothing ever comes up.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 75.108.94.227. You have new messages at Timtrent's talk page.
Message added 16:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert Bloom BLP

I answered your !vote there. I did consider simply accepting it instead of suggesting deletion. On balance the major edits could happen in the Draft: space, too. I'm away for a couple of weeks after tomorrow, and I look forward to it with wry amusement. Fiddle Faddle 17:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy vacation, and yes, I think that accepting-and-tagging-and-stubification might be the fastest way to a teachable moment. But I'm happy for the stuff to be left in draftspace if the COI editor can be made to listen to reason more easily thataway. I'm a big fan of letting the BLP participate in their own article-composition, as long as they can be reasonable about it. If they remain unreasonable, unable to separate their desires for what wiki-policy ought to be rewritten to be like, and the current state of said wiki-policies, I'd prefer mainspacing the content, so that they would be enforcibly in violation of COI when editing (hard to get WP:NICE blocks for making fun of usernames). Anyways, I suspect it will all work out for the best in the end, one way or another. Talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

more Braun'16

Hello 75.108.94.227. I am following the discussions, and regarding Article V, it is important to note that with my citizen-sponsored amendment, there is no need to hold a Constitutional Convention to draft the amendment because it has already been written and proposed. As such, it only needs to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures OR State Constitutional Conventions. Note the specific language below in Article Five that is bolded:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification..."

The key point of the language in Article V is that no matter how an amendment is proposed and passed, it can only be ratified by either the legislatures or "conventions" in three fourths of the states, which is why my campaign is organized as a Constitutional Convention. Moreover, unlike the existing elections that are unverifiable, our Article V Citizen Ballot uses a verifiable paper ballot that will be mailed by registered voters to their Secretary of State for verification, counting and archiving. The whole point of the Democracy Amendment is to allow the majority of citizens to be in charge of interpreting the language in the Constitution, and if the majority of citizens in three-fourths of the states mail in their Article V ballots, the amendment will be ratified.

The primary problem I have is making the American public aware of this amendment, which is one of the primary objectives of my presidential campaign, especially given the lobbyists-based federal government and state legislatures would never vote for such an amendment. I very much hope this ratification occurs long before November of 2016, and if it does, there will still be an election, but this time it will be completely verifiable with paper ballots that will be counted in public.

I am in the process of updating my BraunforPresident.US website, which should be up later today.Harry W Braun III (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Howdy again Harry, please call me 75.108 if you like, a bit easier to type.  :-)     And yes, although MelanieN is correct that your article-five-plan is outside the letter of what the Constitution allows for, I do think that if you manage to get the majority of voters in that many states to affirmatively submit paperwork to their state officials, the end result will inevitably be the enactment of your proposed amendment, because those motivated voters will demand it. Although I'm quite sure your specific campaign organization will not, as such, be recognized as an 'Officially Valid Constitutional Convention' under the Constitutional provisions related thereto, I'm also quite sure (engaging in a bit of WP:CRYSTAL here which is permissible on usertalk but verboten in mainspace) that if you do manage to get a strict majority of registered voters backing your amendment, in the required number of states, the state legislatures and the federal legislatures thereof will not dare to refuse to take action.
    In a way, your plan has the very specific advantage, not often seen with art-5-plans I'm familiar with, that your approach mostly avoids the risk of a runaway-art-five-convention; it does not offer the voters the ability to *call* for an open-ended convention, it merely asks them to submit a piece of paper affirming that they believe the very-specific DemocracyAmendmentUSA language is a good idea... and thus leaves the door open for the legislature(s), if they so wish, to recognize that and only that language as being affirmed, and shut the door on other amendments of unspecified type (for instance a common nightmare-scenario is that well-meaning but economically-untrained art-five-convention-delegates pass a new amendment that the minimum wage is henceforth $543.21 per hour... see tyranny of the majority).
    So, yes, fundamentally the problem for the Braun'16 campaign to solve, is that you have to get your message out, and get people to understand it, and act upon it, by submitting a paper affirmation-ballot to their secState. Along the way, convince those same voters to register as democrats, and vote for you in the caucuses and primaries. As you now are aware, wikipedia is pretty much incompatible with that goal; User:MelanieN is going out on a bit of a limb, with the dedicated section to a constitutional amendment, since there have been relatively few press-coverage mentions of your amendment-related work. As a long-haul editor here, with respected judgement, and no personal stake in getting your message out to the masses, she is given leeway to do this, whereas you yourself are not. As it happens, I agree with her, that your push for a constitutional amendment is an encylopedically-interesting factoid about your campaign, and not something new in 2016 for you, either. (There are also several other candidates that have pushed for various forms of constitutional amendments, that are running this year: Kasich and balanced-budget, Paul/DeMint and term-limits, Huckabee/Santorum and marriage-definitions, Sanders and CitizenUnitedJustForUnions, et cetera.) So the topic is germane, for a subsection of Harry Braun, but although you can make talkpage suggestions, and supply talkpage-sourcing, you should avoid editing the article directly yourself, generally speaking, to avoid the appearance of violating WP:COI. Same story for the article we have about List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, don't add yours, but if you wish, you can propose it on Talk:List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, when and only when you have the sources in hand, to WP:PROVEIT was considered wiki-noteworthy by independent journalists/editors/publishers/etc. Make sense?
    And on that note, to return to the usual topic of our conversations... grin... do you have any local press-coverage, newspaper/teevee/radio, of your earlier push using P3 for statewide ballot initiatives in the various southwestern states? That would help flesh out the constitutional-amendment section. They can be online or offline, English or Spanish or Klingon, uploaded clippings or no uploaded clippings, so long as they are respected publications with editorial oversight and some kind of fact-checking department, and the authors/editors/publishers are unrelated to you and your various corporate and political entities. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

other TBD efforts

  • get fundraising 2016 article out of under-construction status , for q2 info at least
  • rescue c.j.pearson from mistaken A7
  • finish david coleman rework , check up on purple strategies
  • finish discussion with metro90 about christie-backgrounder vs other-backgrounders, debates table-width, and redlinks
  • clean up endorsements-page per 'temporary' two-way consensus with bearian , retrieve deleted materials and footnote-ize them
  • endorsement list-of-names from ron (sources optional... once I have the names I can easily google for the sources)
  • Ron Schnell draft && sources discussion
If you get around to this draft, consider adding me to WJPZ-FM#Alumni Ron Schnell 20:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
(First, an aside... no wonder the queue is stuffed up. What a mess. I'm gonna call for help on the IRC channel, not for your request, but just a general set of eyeballs-needed-on-the-coi-queue-request. Actually, this is some noticeboard for that, COIN is the name I think. Crikey.) Second, what do your wiki-eyeballs tell you about that article, and that subsection? What would User:czar think, were that article to appear under the project-video-games banner? WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:N are the bailiwicks of wiki-honor. Can I add your name to that list? Maybe, if some newspaper printed that you were a staffer, in the same way that some newspaper printed a story about you being a staffer at NYU, for instance. (After you're done with the wiki-eyeball-training exercise, and have counted the number of WP:SOURCES in which the WJPZ radio-station and its operations are specifically and in depth covered, and counted the number of names for which WP:NOTEWORTHY mention doth exist in the wiki-reliable sources... hark back to WP:IAR. This is the more subtle koan of indeterminacy: if literally nobody on that alum-list is backed up by WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in the wiki-reliable sources, and literally ZERO WP:SOURCES are given to prove that the topic passes WP:N ... which is it the case, that I can say with 100% certainty deep in my wiki-heart, that should WJPZ-FM foolishly be taken to AfD, it would survive with flying colors, Speedy Keep and Snowball Close.  ?  ?? ??? ...... the answer has little to do with the FCC, is your hint. What about the article WJPZ-FS is good for wikipedia, so much so that WP:IAR is used to bang-keep the topic, even when WP:N is so blatantly obviously violated? Here endeth the lesson. Thou shalt not count to four. Five -- is right out. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Ping (I thought you were *my* anon!). You are in high demand now, so I have to keep your attention. Ron Schnell 22:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • book-review-related sources
  • additional "forum"-dates that might be scheduled , similar to the C-SPAN/ABC/NBC/CBS one August 3rd, only quasi-sanctioned by the RNC, albeit on a technicality
  • loose ends about video-embed chitchat about bugs & legality
  • which polls are 'qualifying' in terms of debate-invites?
  • artspeak & logo in Computer Art(sp?)
  • see if maclisp'83 backup-tape of MIT-EECS or MIT-OZ can be located
  • have Sophia request cleanup of User account Theparadoxuk
  • pass along this[3] to phil&sophia, but note "BandX is da best folkmusic in Denver" is only slightly worse than "BandX is well-regarded important contributor to Denver folkscene" , and until & unless you have wiki-reliable indep src that says EXACTLY such things, simple boring just-the-facts prose is mandatory: "BandX is a folk group in Denver" is unlikely to be challenged, whereas best/regarded/important/etc is WP:PUFFERY unless backed by WP:SOURCES
  • check michael elliott and ONE for spamvert insertions
  • fun: revive SETL codebase, possibly port to Arc/Clojure/similar, automap or breadcrumb for python port , convert python port into browser game, upgrade python port to handle text-to-speech && voice commands as an APK
  • old stuff, July ~1st thru August 12th == https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.108.94.227&oldid=675861181
  • useful link , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects , hat tip to Howicus
  • welcome to wikipedia: afc, afd, ref, jpg, oh if only 'twere so
  • sanity check. [4]

I apparently left this message in the wrong location.

Hello 75.108.94.227. My last comments about my "perennial" candidate status and my being from "Arizona" instead of Georgia was not on Facebook, but Wikipedia under the title "Democratic Party Presidential Candidates 2016."

I initially left this message just below your comments on my talk page, but I noticed the message I left was signed (Redacted). I have never been sure as to where to respond to your comments, so I am leaving the comment here. Is that correct? Sorry for my lack of knowledge. Harry W Braun III (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, as you know, wikipedia is a bit confusing.  :-)     One of the confusing things is where to leave messages, since there aren't clear rules, just wiki-traditions. Here is the usual procedure.
  • Step#0. Don't hold conversations in the form of making edits to mainspace, and in edit-summaries alone; if you have a content-question or a content-dispute, take it to the nearest talkpage (matters little which one)
  • Step#1. Reply to a message, where the conversation is actually taking place. If there is already a conversation, about something, then reply on the page where that conversation is taking place.
  • Step#2. That said, sometimes people forget. If you reply, and it looks like you are getting ignored, probably you aren't getting ignored, but the conversation itself was forgotten.  :-)
  • Step#3. If you've waited a bit for a reply (how long depends on the venue... and on the urgency-level of the request... see WP:NORUSH and contrast with WP:COPYVIO for instance), you can always nudge a person on their own user_talk
  • Step#4. Generally speaking, if you are in conversation with somebody, and they stop replying, and you nudge them on user_talk, and they *still* don't reply, maybe they're on vacation (or running for president or whatever) and haven't responded because they haven't managed to find the time, but it is also possible that they are just on wiki-break (either from wikipedia entirely or from particular topic-areas), or have lost gumption, or whatever. This is perfectly okay, they don't have to talk to you, or work on a page with you, or do anything or NOT do anything, as long as they are within WP:5 then it is their WP:CHOICE how they spend their time here on wikipedia. Same goes for yourself, of course. Anyways, you might not get a reply, even after a polite nudge, and that's okay.
  • Step#5. If you decide that you really do need some input from SOMEBODY about the conversation, then it is usually okay to ask another wikipedian for their thoughts. This can be done in an acceptable fashion, such as, you've been working with three people on a particular page (75.108 + Harry + Melanie), and after you and 75.108 have a two-way conversation about something, you want to also here what Melanie has to say about the subject, so you ask her to participate. Other acceptable ways to broaden the conversation, when nobody is replying and you're not sure how to proceed further, are to ask for some input from WP:TEAHOUSE folks, or using the live-help-chat click-here-to-chat-in-the-browser-right-now button over at WP:Q. Something that is NOT considered okay, is using your real-life powers, to try and improperly influence (as opposed to properly improve) wikipedia conversations. For instance, if you notice that the article International Hydrogen Energy Association needs to be written, then it is okay to contact somebody in real life, and ask them for assistance. However, it is very much NOT okay to email every member of the IAHE, and instruct them all to please come bangvote a certain way in some on-wiki discussion related to the IAHE article. Do you see the difference? The first real-life request is improving wikipedia, but the second real-life request is trying to win a debate by sending in a mob. Generally speaking, just like wikipedians are supposed to try and stay neutral when the write prose in mainspace, wikipedians are ALSO supposed to try and stay neutral when using talkpages, and when using their real-life connections. You were fine to contact me about fixing up something that looked non-neutral to you in mainspace. You were also mostly fine to contact your friend at the IAHE, to suggest they gather up some press-coverage, and help improve wikipedia's articles (IAHE/WHEC/IJHE) about that organization. But there's a subtle line, albeit one which is very clear if you look for it, that marks the distinction between asking neutrally for honest opinions-slash-help, versus actively campaigning to sway the outcome of some kind of on-wiki discussion. The first is encouraged. The latter is verboten. Basically, when doing on-wiki work, try to think like a hard scientist; if you run into a conundrum, you are free to ask the nearest savvy helpful fellow wiki-scientist for their input, in an open and honest fashion, sincerely trying to get their true thoughts on the matter. By contrast, try very hard NOT to think like a political candidate, drumming up support, pushing out a message, swaying the hearts and minds of the bangvoters, and that sort of thing.
Anyways, in a nutshell you are free to contact anybody at any time, but make sure you are doing so only to improve the encyclopedia, and never in a promotional fashion (of yourself or your platform planks or your side in some on-wiki bangvote or whatever). As for me, you can always nudge my talkpage, I don't mind. Helps me stay on top of things actually. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, don't feel bad about your lack of knowledge of the bazillion byzantine wiki-rules. Just like the labyrinthine federal tax code, nobody has *truly* plumbed the depths of wiki-policies. And you don't NEED to know all that garbage, either. Just concentrate on being WP:NICE, writing your own sentences from scratch to avoid WP:COPYVIO, sticking firmly to what the WP:SOURCES say and summarizing them in a neutral WP:TONE all per WP:NPOV, and improving-qua-improving the encyclopedia-qua-encyclopedia. If you make a mistake, somebody will fix it, or at least, politely point it out so you can fix it. That is what it *means* to be the encyclopedia-anyone-can-edit, after all. So no more apologies. Just keep on keeping your cool, and keep on trying to do the right thing by wikipedia, and you'll be fine. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 75.108.94.227. You have new messages at Peridon's talk page.
Message added 12:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

given comment regarding good faith involvement in discussed articles. samtar (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thank you :) samtar (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks samtar, much appreciated. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Profound Philosophical Statement

Continuing here as that thread is long enough without me being nosy about your (lack of) username choice! I must admit, I am guilty of having a lower initial opinion of IP editors but you've definitely raised the bar for my future expectations. Thanks for being an absolute pleasure to speak with and happy editing :) samtar (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's mostly stubbornness, in addition to having some philosophical stance behind it. I expect everyone will edit as anons in the future, since it's so much more comfortable thataway. At which point I will no doubt register a username, just to prove *another* profound philosophical statement, that pseudonymous editing and anonymous editing are both compatible with the 'pedia. Sigh, a retail philosopher's work is never done.  ;-)   75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Further consideration ref. discussion on Peridon's page

Just thought I'd bring your attention to Long-term abuse/Orangemoody - seems to fit in with what you were discussing on Peridon's page? samtar (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, good find, thanks. Yeah, the similarities are pretty close, albeit not exact. Seems likely that User:Gorkemcetin74 got that exact kind of shakedown, after getting an AfC decline. There is no mention of the OrangeMoody socks using mainspace-to-draftspace redirects like the Countly-->>Draft:Count.ly, but there *is* mention of a lot of redirect-shenanigans. Anyways, close enough that I will see if one of the people mentioned in that AN/I thread will take a peek at the Countly/Count.ly stuff, and see if that turns out to be the same bunch, or just another bunch of bad apples imitating the technique. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Turned out to be exactly that. User:Jinlizzy was blocked, as part of the block-bot, mentioned in the AN/I thread you linked unto. I actually asked on IRC about whether somebody who knew about the OrangeMoody socks, could please take a peek at the User:Jinlizzy account, as a possible imitator, and was told that User:Jinlizzy had already been blocked as an OrangeMoody sock. So I felt a bit foolish, for not checking the Jinlizzy page again before I asked for help on IRC, but since it only just was blocked today I guess I don't feel *too* very foolish.  :-)     Anyways, looks like a happy ending. NTA is getting a cleanup, and with luck Countly will get moved to mainspace. Thanks for pinging me, and good eye, they were the same bunch of bad apples. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Good to hear! I have a bit of an eye for WP:Duck spotting, if I do say so myself ;) Happy editing, and I look forward to seeing you around. samtar (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Harry Braun Talkback

Hello 75.108. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Let be begin by saying your summary of avoiding the chaos of a typical open-ended Constitution Convention was as good as it gets. Can 75.108 be quoted? Speaking of "mob rule," there is one country with four official languages that has been operating as a Constitutional Democracy since the year 1291, with no Mob Rule or Wars, and that country is Switzerland (where the world's first hydrogen-fueled automobile was built in 1807). Since few Americans are aware of this fact, could it be included in section on the Democracy Amendment?

By the way, I tried to leave this message on the User talk page but when I previewed the text I noticed a different editors number (Redacted)(talk) signed my response. As such, I removed it and reinserted the message here. Hope that was OK. However, when I previewed this response, I noticed that (Redacted) (talk) is still the signer. But it is really me.

I agree that the references to H2Pac and P3 should be deleted because neither organization received any published citations and neither of these Pacs funded any campaigns, or were registered with FEC. However, the Democracy Amendment USA Pac has been registered with the FEC for the 2016 election. The BraunforPresident.US website is now been published, and I hope to be able to launch our daily email Press Release campaign this week. In this regard, do you happen to know when the "Harry Braun" article (which I am very pleased with) will have its potential deletion flag removed?

I plan to contact Nejat Veziroglu, the editor-in-chief of the IAHE Journal regarding the citations he would recommend for his personal Wikipedia article, which I would like to forward to you for your analysis. I would also like to send you (and any of your fellow interested Wikipedians) the text and citations I would like to add to the Wikipedia "Photobiology" Article for your review. (The Harry Braun Article is linked to this article). Many thanks for the corrections on the presidential page. It is an honor to work with you and such a distinguished team of editors. Harry W Braun III (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so now that we have the logging-in-thing figured out. you had a long series of other questions. I will reply to them in order, with individual bullet-points, so you can reply-to-my-reply under each of the bullet-points, should the need arise. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Q#1 , can usertalk info be quoted elsewhere? four answers

Question#1A, can information on a usertalk page, be quoted in wikipedia articles? In this case, my usertalk-analysis of the problems with open-ended article-five-conventions. The answer is, it depends. First of all, my usertalk-analysis CANNOT be quoted in wikipedia mainspace. Everything I said is 100% true and correct, but wikipedia-usertalk-pages are not "publications" in the WP:SOURCES sense of that term. You cannot cite something in a wikipedia-article, to something somebody said on a wikipedia talkpage. If sometime later, I call up the National Journal or the Daily Kos, and ask them if they will publish my original piece on article-five-conventions, THEN that info becomes published in a wiki-reliable sense. Until then, no, 75.108 cannot be quoted, because 75.108's wise saying on usertalk is not WP:RS, see the very useful WP:OR which explains why usertalk-conversations are not wiki-reliable, whereas almost the exact same information, once published by National Journal or the Daily Kos, suddenly becomes wiki-reliable. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  Question#1B, can information on a usertalk page, be quoted by off-wiki websites? So, as explained above, my analysis of art-5-pitfalls CANNOT be posted into mainspace (like the Harry Braun article or the Constitutional Convention article), until and unless I were to publish my analysis in some wiki-reliable WP:SOURCE. However, wikipedia content, including usertalk-page-content, *can* be copied and re-published elsewhere, as long as the CC-BY-SA license terms are followed. So for example, while it is ALLOWED for you, Harry, to cut-and-paste some of the usertalk discussion here on wikipedia, into one of your own websites, it has to be done properly. In particular, you are free to make brief quotations (of a dozen words or so), which is allowed for any copyrighted work, see fair use. Wikipedia articles often rely on fair use, for instance, we quote an MEP about some political issue in the EU, and give the name of that MEP, plus the WP:SOURCE where that MEP was quoted originally. So, if you want to quote some brief bit from wikipedia, you can just quote it, and say it was "from a userpage on wikipedia" as the source. You cannot say that "75.108.94.227" wrote the information being quoted, however, because as I explained with great detail in the logging section, my real name is not 75.108.94.227 -- that's just my computer's name. Also as explained, it is possible to connect a physical location to such dotted-quad-numerals, so I would very strongly prefer that, if you want to quote some of the juicy bits of our usertalk conversation, out on your other websites, that you simply say that you got the information from wikipedia talkpages. Fair use law doesn't require detailed cites to an exact URL, when you are just snarfing up a dozen words here and a dozen words there. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  Question#1C, can BIG chunks of information on a usertalk page, be quoted VERBATIM by off-wiki websites? Despite the answer to question#1B which is talking about BRIEFLY quoting a dozen-word-snippet from time to time, if you are thinking about copying *LARGE* chunks of text, verbatim, then the question becomes trickier. Wikipedia does allow it. But you have to retain the same copyright license. If you want to copy a bunch of wikipedia-content onto your website, and then write at the bottom, "this content is copyright h.w.braun 2015 all rights reserved" then you CANNOT do so. You also cannot just copy the wikipedia-content onto your website, and leave the legalese-stuff at the bottom of the webpage BLANK, because in the United States, there is a thing called an implicit copyright claim, and by putting wikipedia-content on your own website with a blank footer, you are implicitly saying "this is mine all mine" in a legal sense. Thus, the only way that you can put a BIG CHUNK of wikipedia material onto your own website, is if you explicitly put at the bottom of your website page, the correct copyright notice, which is the wikipedia-copyright aka the dual-licensed CC-BY-SA-plus-GFDL. If you are trying to do this, verbatim copy of a big chunk, let me know and I'll give you more details about the exact license-notice-legalese that is legally required, and such. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  Question#1D, maybe you are asking something else, that I didn't cover above. In a nutshell, 75.108 cannot be quoted, that is my computer. Anything on usertalk, just like anything on facebook and other personal webpages, cannot be cited as a reference, because usertalk/facebook/etc are not considered wiki-reliable WP:SOURCES. If you are wanting to copy a dozen words from wikipedia onto your own external websites, that's fine, but please don't credit my computer, just credit "wikipedia talkpages". If you want to copy LARGE CHUNKS VERBATIM, that is actually quite allowed, but requires some special handling to get all the legalese done properly, ask if you need. But maybe I misunderstood your question, and if so, please clarify specifically what you are trying to do, and preferably why, so I can give you a good answer. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Q#2, here are some interesting factoids about Switzerland, which article on wikipedia should mention these facts?

Question#2A through Question#2M.

  • #2A. Switzerland has never experienced mob rule, at any time, from 1291 thru 2015.
  • #2B. Switzerland has four official languages
  • #2C. Switzerland is a Constitutional Democracy, as of 2015
  • #2D. Switzerland became a Constitutional Democracy in 1291
  • #2E. Switzerland has never been in a war, at any time, from 1291 thru 2015.
  • #2F. the world's first hydrogen-fueled automobile was built in 1807
  • #2G. the world's first hydrogen-fueled automobile was built in 1807 in Switzerland
  • #2H. as of 2015, few Americans are aware of these interesting factoids
  • #2J. Harry is aware of these factoids
  • #2K. 75.108 is now aware of these factoids
  • #2L. should we share our knowledge with the universe?
  • #2M. if so, which specific wikipedia article (or articles), would be the appropriate place to do so?

Answers: we have an article on Switzerland, and that is where #2B, #2C, #2D should be covered. And probably already are. It would... if there is an impeccably-solid WP:SOURCE backing up the claims ... also be the correct place for #2A and #2E. However, claiming that Switzerland has four official languages, is a pretty boring claim. Claiming that Switzerland has never in any fashion been involved in a war since 1291, is a VERY STRONG and very likely to be contentious claim, that would need to be backed up by respected-history-textbooks, peer-referred respected-journal citations, or similarly strong sources, see WP:PROVEIT and see also WP:UNDUE (just because one source says something doesn't mean they all agree). Same thing for the claim about never experiencing mob rule, or never experiencing some kind of impact from the tyranny of the majority, any claim spanning 700 years is a VERY strong claim that needs to be very strongly backed up. Can we put a bunch of factoids about Switzerland into the Harry Braun biographical-article, or specifically into the Harry_Braun#Proposed_Constitutional_amendment subsection, since after all, those factoids about Switzerland are tangentially related? The answer is, almost certainly not, because there are no WP:SOURCES which have been written, specifically comparing your proposed amendment to the USA constitution, with the existing operations of the government of Switzerland. Until and unless some history professor (or even some history-magazine-contributor) writes up a piece titled something like "Comparing Braun's Proposed Amendment To the History Of The Swiss People" and publishes that piece in a wiki-reliable source, then wikipedia cannot say anything about the relationship between YOUR proposal at Harry_Braun#Proposed_Constitutional_amendment and the existing system of government covered at Government of Switzerland. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  More profound answer. Sure, they are related topics, the Constitution of Switzerland and your Harry_Braun#Proposed_Constitutional_amendment, but they ARE NOT the same topic. The connection betwixt the topics, if any, HAS to be documented in the WP:SOURCES, before mentioning that connection in mainspace is appropriate. See WP:OR and especially WP:SYNTH, even though logically *I* know that your amendment-proposal is tangentially related to the constitution of Switzerland, that does not mean that I can go into mainspace and write up a bunch of sentences about the connection, because sources are required (published wiki-reliable sources not just usertalk conversations). The same reason that 85% of your original article was deleted, is why we cannot mention Switzerland in the article today: the article is supposed to reflect what the sources actually say, and there aren't any sources saying anything about your constitutional proposal, as compared to the government of Switzerland. Make sense? When the press-coverage exists, or the peer-reviewed scientific scrutiny, then wikipedia's article Harry Braun can mention such connections, but until then, wikipedia mainspace cannot, because mentioning it (even when it is true!) would be WP:UNDUE mention and WP:SYNTHesized statements and in some cases WP:OR aka copying-and-pasting-from-usertalk-to-mainspace. This is one of the more subtle aspects of the wiki-policies, but it is fundamental to WP:5 and especially pillar two: wikipedia has to be neutral and impartial, and that means, has to reflect what the sources actually say, no more but also no less. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On the question of the use of hydrogen as a fuel, and that an automobile of that nature was built, and that it was in 1807, and that it was in Switzerland. None of that stuff can be mentioned in Harry Braun, because you didn't build the automobile, you weren't alive in 1807.  :-)     Wikipedia should cover the history of the automobile, and we have an article on that. But should that article mention the 1807 experiment? Maybe, but probably not, because 99.9999% of automobiles nowadays, and in times past, run on petrochemicals, not on hydrogen. (There is more of a case to be made for CNG and LNG powered automobiles, as an example of an in-between-scenario.) Wikipedia also has an article on hydrogen fuel, which is almost certainly where the 1807-in-Switzerland factoid belongs. But only if there is a WP:SOURCE that explicitly says, 1) that the invention was actually built, 2) that it was an automobile, 3) that it was hydrogen-gas-fueled, 4) that it was built in 1807, and 5) that it was built in Switzerland. Make sense? If there is a source which says that a 'transportation device' was built in 1807, powered by hydrogen, in Switzerland, wikipedia CANNOT call it an 'automobile' since we have to stick with the sources. Similarly, if the source explicitly says 'automobile' but goes on to say it was 'partially' powered by hydrogen, and partially pulled by a team of oxen, wikipedia CANNOT say it was 'the first hydrogen-powered automobile' because again that is not what the source says. By contrast, if the source says that the first hydrogen-powered automobile was built in 1807 in Geneva, but the source does not specifically say that it was Geneva in Switzerland, it is pretty much okay for wikipedia to say 'in Switzerland'. But hey, if the source says Geneva, then wikipedia should say Geneva, right? Right. So in that scenario, we would say that it was in Geneva, and if the reader didn't know that was in Switzerland, they are just one click away from finding out, thanks to the bluelink. Make sense? Do you have a WP:SOURCE that specifically says something about this 1807 invention? If so, please post the URL here, and I will take a peek at it. Sounds like a juicy factoid for the hydrogen fuel article. Actually, looking at the article there, we have a subsidiary article called hydrogen vehicle, and in the Hydrogen_vehicle#Internal_combustion_vehicle subsection there is this sentence:

References

  1. ^ "H2Mobility - Hydrogen Vehicles - netinform". Retrieved 30 May 2015.

So not only does wikipedia have the factoid, we actually have a full-fledged article about the De Rivaz engine. There are some additional articles hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle, and also the list of hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles. Because you are a presidential candidate, running your campaign around the idea of a constitutional convention, you should not be editing the article about the United States Constitution, until you have learned more about wikipedia at least. By the same token, because all of your research is on renewable energy and the generation of hydrogen, and because one of your key political platform-planks has been the use of hydrogen as a replacement for fossil fuels, you also should not be editing hydrogen-vehicle-related articles directly. Better to stick to Talk:Hydrogen_vehicle, than to directly edit Hydrogen_vehicle yourself, just like you are learning to do over at Talk:Harry_Braun. And actually, I have an unanswered question over there for you, when you get a moment. But on the hydrogen-vehicle-in-1807-in-Switzerland question, it looks like wikipedia has a gap. Even in the specific article on the subject, we don't say WHERE the 1807 vehicle was actually built and tested. We say that the 1813 prototype was tested in the Swiss town of Vevey, and we say that the 1807 vehicle had a patent filed in France and another patent filed in the Canton of Valais, plus we also say that Isaac de Rivaz was of Franco-Swiss ancestry. But we don't say, one way or the other, specifically where the 1807 vehicle was built and tested. Do you have a WP:SOURCE that specifically gives the city where the 1807 vehicle was constructed and/or tested? If so, let me know, and we'll get the fact into the appropriate article. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

But as I hope this tour of wikipedia's coverage of hydrogen-fuel-technology and the history thereof has begun to make clear, we shouldn't be putting a bunch of stuff about the 1807 vehicle into the Harry Braun article, because although both are related to hydrogen, they are not the same topic, and wikipedia needs to stay *on* topic within every wikipedia article, otherwise we'll balloon them into page after page of information, which is only tangentially relevant to the article-title. Wikipedia is written as a *bunch* of articles, each about a specific topic, and with wikilinks from one to the other, when WP:SOURCES justify making the wikilinks. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Q#3, on the subject of super-PACs and quasi-PACs

Other questions, with quicker answers:

  • references to H2Pac and P3 should be removed from Harry Braun
  • neither organization received any published citations
  • neither of these PACs funded any campaigns
  • neither of these PACs registered with FEC
  • Democracy Amendment USA PAC has been registered with the FEC, for the 2016 election.

So, although H2PAC and P3 are not currently in mainspace at Harry Braun, they will be put back in at some point, removal was just temporary. There actually are some media-references to the earlier PACs, in particular, I know that NPR mentioned the H2PAC, and that IAHE mentioned P3. We've removed mention of the earlier PACs from mainspace, because we want to get the details straight (to avoid confusing the readership with misinformation), and in particular get it worked out which source specifically mentioned H2PAC, and when. Plus, wikipedia should cover the transitions between the various fundraising organizations, and so on.

  But WP:NORUSH is the rule there, at the moment we have the FEC wiki-reliable source about the DemocracyAmendmentUSA.net , showing that it is an affiliated PAC, and the aboutself information that the PAC's goal is going to be a focus of the POTUS campaign Braun'16, which is being organized not merely as a quest to win the nomination of the Democratic Party in their caucus-and-primary ballots, but also as a specially-structured Article Five Constitutional Convention, in spirit if not in letter.

  But my question about the 2004 campaign, is whether the H2PAC or the P3 were involved with the effort, even though they weren't officially-FEC-registered. Were they registered in the state of Arizona, or something? Did they actually accept cheques made out to H2PAC, or made out to P3, specifically, or when people called to donate to H2PAC, did they actually write pay-to-the-order-of-Phoenix-Project-Foundation, or what exactly? Part of the reason we pulled the mentions from the article, is that I'm having trouble figuring out what is going on.  :-)     Please give me the step-by-step explanation of when each of the fundraising vehicles was founded, what is was used for (year by year), when it went defunct, and what the cheques actually said, aka which fundraising organization was a 'brand name' and which fundraising organization was actually a 'legal entity'. Quite frankly, I expect your long history of fundraising will be easier to understand than some of the other 2016 candidates; there are some REALLY nutty super-PACs-structures this election! 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Q#4 , BraunforPresident.US website is now live

  Okay, so I had already noticed that http://BraunforPresident.US , was live on the internet. Is it your official Braun'16 campaign website, going forward? You plan to keep it up and running, between now and November 2016, as the main website of your presidential campaign, in other words? If so, I will change the link on the Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 page, which right at this moment points incorrectly to the PAC website. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • do you happen to know when the "Harry Braun" article Harry Braun (which I am very pleased with) will have its potential deletion flag removed?
Q#5 , how fast do the wiki-wheels of wiki-justice turn?

  Glad you are satisfied with the state of the article. It was a bit of work to get it into shape, but I also think it is a pretty decent facsimile of an encyclopedic article, though it still needs MORE work.  :-)     As for the being-considered-for-deletion-tag, there is no specific deadline. The Harry Braun article (under the original title Harry Braun, Democratic Party presidential Candidate, 2016 however) was originally listed on August 18th, and the usual week of discussion ended on August 26th. At that point, the discussion was "re-listed" aka started over again, by the wikipedia administrator Juliancolton, who said that they wanted to get more opinions from additional wikipedians during the next "few days" (but did not say how many days would be enough). Since then, five other people have commented, MelanieN saying she would still argue that, based on a strict reading of WP:NPOL, the 1980s coverage ought not be counted towards demonstrating wiki-notability, and four others saying that the biographical-article is worth keeping, now that most of the WP:NOTPROMOTION stuff has been pruned. The most recent comment was on the 29th, and now it is the 2nd, so I would guess that some administrator will close the discussion any day now, and leave a final decision.

  Administrators are given a lot of leeway, and I mean they are given ABSOLUTE leeway, when 'closing' the bangvote discussion. The wiki-rules specifically say that the person counting the votes should *only* pay attention to the ones backed by wiki-policy and the spirit of the wiki-pillars, and should NOT just count noses. Stalin would have been jealous, eh? On wikipedia, not only do we give all the power to the person counting the bangvotes, but we explicitly say that bangvotes are NOT actually votes! But in practice, the vast amount of leeway, works really well, because only serious careful long-haul dedicated wikipedians can become admins, people like DGG and MelanieN and Peridon, who rarely make mistakes, and don't have an abusive lust for power and world domination, which Stalin suffered from. There are about 1200 wikipedia admins, and they are all pretty awesome, wikipedia is lucky.

  Anyways, if the closing-administrator-person, finds the policy-backed interpretation given by MelanieN more convincing than the alternative-reading-of-policy interpretation given by myself, then absolutely they might decide to delete the article. We're not out of the woods just yet. If that turns out to be the case, then we would have to temporarily move the contents of Harry Braun over into Draft:Harry Braun, and submit it for re-creation, which usually takes about ten days, though in this case I'd probably try and jump the queue per WP:IAR, so it might only take two or three days. It would then be nominated for deletion a second time, which would take another seven days, assuming no re-listing was necessary. That being said, it seems vastly more likely that the Harry Braun article will be retained, and the tag removed.

  Nobody knows when, it could be today, or it could take another week, maybe longer, but if I had to guess I would say it will be closed sometime before the 10th of September, which would be two full weeks worth of "a few days". More likely is it will be closed on or before the 5th, which is ten days worth, or maybe even today, since we're at the one-extra-week point-in-time. But as I said before, it is indeterminate; could be today (actually not that unlikely), could take all month (very very unlikely), theoretically might even end with an admin-supervote to delete (though that seems very unlikely). Anyways, see WP:NORUSH, wikipedia is meant to be a history of ideas, and is designed to last for the ages. It's not a good campaign-vehicle, in other words. Partly that's because WP:NOTPROMOTION is the wiki-law, and partly that's because encyclopedias like wikipedia inherently move at a slower pace than a presidential campaign would like. As a contributor to wikipedia, you have to think long term, and think like a hard scientist, and avoid thinking of wikipedia as Yet Another Way To Promote Braun'16 And The Wonders Of Hydrogen. 'Tis hard, at first, but easy once you get in the habit, plus absolutely necessary. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Question#6A thru #6 about creating new articles:

Likewise, it's been a pleasure working with you, as well. However, you need to remember that you too are a wikipedian now. User:Harry_W_Braun_III: wikipedian in good standing.  :-)     You can put that on your campaign-literature if you like, unsurprisingly, there are a lot of politicians who have been blocked from wikipedia over the years, for editing the wikipedia-articles about themselves, and refusing to listen. You are one of the few, proud survivors, that made it though AfD (almost anyways since it's not officially closed yet), and managed not to be blocked for disruption. Good work.  ;-)     But as I was saying up above, you *are* a wikipedian now. You can be WP:BOLD and make changes, that will improve wikipedia. That's not to say that I recommend you start editing Harry Braun again! You are a wee bit too closely-connected to the topic of that particular wikipedia article, to be neutral in your edits, methinks.

  But you can edit Talk:Harry_Braun, and make suggestions there. Please do. You can also edit Talk:Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 and the other pages where you might be mentioned, or could conceivably be mentioned, if someone agrees. Usually faster than asking me, will be going straight to the talkpage of the article with the problem, and making a suggestion there. (Feel free to also ask me, by pointing me to your suggestions, with a wikilink to the new talkpage section you created.) Same answer for photobiology, since you ARE actually publishing papers in the photobiology field, you should probably stick to making suggestions on Talk:photobiology, rather than directly editing photobiology, yourself. But you don't have to go through me, or through any special gatekeeper. Just go straight to the talkpage that needs fixing, and make some suggestions; if you have some sentences, backed up by specified sources, to go into the photobiology article, then just click Talk:photobiology, click 'new section' at the top, make a specific suggestion like "I suggest we change X to Y" or maybe "I suggest we insert Z into the 'history' section of the article" , and then wait to see what other folks say.

  If you get stuck somehow, or have questions, or need something explained about the wiki-laws, feel free to ask -- you can leave me a note here, or you can use WP:Q and follow one of those links, or you can just ask the other wikipedians you meet on the appropriate talkpages, if you don't understand what they meant. Just keep your cool, and listen to what the other people say, and follow the five pillars, and stick to neutrally reflecting what the WP:SOURCES actually say, and you'll be fine.

  Besides making suggestions on existing articles, you can also create brand new articles. Since you are an IAHE member, and since Nejat is the IAHE chief editor, you both should stick to making suggestions on Talk:International Association of Hydrogen Energy, to avoid the appearance of unduly-promotional editing, right? But what if there *is* no article by that name yet, and thus there *is* not such a talkpage? Well, no problem, you can simply create the article, and edit it in draftspace, then later submit it for approval by an experienced wikipedian. Click here, and create the article, if you like: Draft:International Association of Hydrogen Energy. If you are too busy running your presidential campaign, Nejat can click there, and start working on the article. It's okay to make suggestions on talkpages, and to work on preliminary-articles in draftspace, even though he's tightly connected to the IAHE. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

explanation that User:Harry_W_Braun_III is Mr. Braun logged in, and (Redacted) is Mr. Braun logged out

Harry.

Howdy.  :-)

You are not logging into wikipedia. That is why, when you click 'preview', you see (Redacted). You have to *first* get logged into your wikipedia-specific-username-with-your-wikipedia-specific-password. Details follow.

BEFORE you click 'edit' you have to first click 'Log in' and then type in your wikipedia username, which is Harry_W_Braun_III, followed by your wikipedia password, which is WhateverPasswordYouPickedForWikipedia.

AFTER you have successfully logged in, you will no longer see the little blue 'Log in' button anymore, because by then you will ALREADY be logged in.

IF you see the little blue 'Log in' button, then you Are Not Logged In, and if you are not logged in, and you click 'edit', and you type a note, and you click 'save', then (Redacted) will "surprisingly" appear.

WHO is this dastardly (Redacted) , you ask?  :-)

Good question, (Redacted) is your COMPUTER'S INTERNET ADDRESS, aka the numeric 'internet-zipcode' or maybe the numeric 'internet-phonenumber' or most properly the 'internet-protocol-dotted-quad' assigned by the company that you pay every month for keeping your computer connected to the internet. Computers communicate electronically with each other, using those numbers, that is how *your* computer can talk to wikipedia *server* computers, over the internet. *Every* computer, that is connected to the internet, gets a number like (Redacted) , and because wikipedia is the encyclopedia WP:ANYONE can edit , even people that don't have letterAndSymbolsStyle wikipedia username yet, wikipedia DOES NOT FORCE YOU to first login as User:Harry_W_Braun_III before you click edit. Make sense? The website at http://en.wikipedia.org , unlike 99.4% of other websites, does NOT force you to log in, you have to remember to do it.

Example#1, if you are in your house, and you wake up, and you go to your computer, you can CLICK EDIT IMMEDIATELY without logging into your wikipedia username. What happens if you *do* click edit, before logging into wikipedia as User:Harry_W_Braun_III, and you then *do* click save, is that wikipedia assigned your computer's Internet Protocol address as the quasi-anonymous 'username' which in your case is (Redacted) because you are in (Redacted).

Example#2, if *I* am wanting to edit wikipedia, I go to *my* computer, and since I never bothered to create a LettersAndSymbols wikipedia username, I just click 'edit' and type something and click 'save', and then my edits show up under my computer's internet protocol address which is User_talk:75.108.94.227 , which is the only thing I use for wikipedia.

Okay? Okay.

You *do* have a wikipedia username, User:Harry_W_Braun_III, but you are not logging in and actually *using* it most of the time, recently. Here is what you need to do, *every* time, before you save something on wikipedia.

  1. wake up , no using wikipedia whilst you are sleepy
  2. go to the nearest computer
  3. open your favorite web browser to begin using the internet
  4. use your web browser to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Harry_W_Braun_III
  5. BEFORE you read anything, and certainly before you write and then 'save' anything, look in the top-right-corner
  6. IF you see the little blue 'Log in' button then YOU ARE NOT YET LOGGED IN, and you should click 'Log in'
  7. HOWEVER if you do NOT see that little blue 'Log in' button then you are already logged in
  8. ONCE you are properly logged in as User:Harry_W_Braun_III your wikipedia-username , by having entered your wikipedia-specific-password ,
  9. THEN you can begin reading messages people have left you
  10. ALSO you may reply to message should you wish
  11. BEST of all , when you click 'edit' then type a note then click 'preview' you will clearly see that your message will be saved in the name of User:Harry_W_Braun_III
  12. WHEN you click the 'preview' button (before you click the 'save') button, if you instead see User_talk:67.141.168.191 "somehow" signing the message you just wrote, there is no mystery what happened
  13. BECAUSE UNLESS you see User:Harry_W_Braun_III after clicking 'preview' , you simply must have messed up one of the steps above, and are NOT actually logged into your wikipedia username (which is User:Harry_W_Braun_III)
  14. THUS go back to the beginning of these steps (use caffeine to wake up should that be needed), and then START OVER and TRY AGAIN to get properly logged in, since you need to login properly before you click 'save'

Clear as mud? Your username User:Harry_W_Braun_III is not like magic. You have to *tell* wikipedia who you are, by logging in. If you do *not* log in first, to tell wikipedia who you are, your changes are saved under your computer's internet protocol address which is (Redacted) , and that is NOT what you want.

Hope this is all beginning to make sense. If so, please log into your proper username right now -- which is User:Harry_W_Braun_III -- and then reply to me here, so that I'm sure you've got this logging-into-wikipedia-thing 100% figured out. Then, I'll have somebody come along and fix up the wikipedia-history for you, so that the edits you made will appear properly as if they were made by your actual wikipedia username User:Harry_W_Braun_III. Once we get that straightened out, then we'll discuss the larger issues that you brought up, but I'd like to get this straightened out first. So one thing at a time, can you follow the steps above please, and follow them *every time* you use wikipedia, most especially if you use wikipedia from a *new* computer such as in a hotel or something, the computer is not going to figure out who you are, you have to *tell* wikipedia who you are by logging in. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello 75.108, and thank you for a crystal clear explanation for my confusion. I had not even noticed that I was not logged in, and I did not realize how important it is for communicating properly. I was also using two different computers, which I will no longer do. Many Thanks.Harry W Braun III (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No problems.  :-)     And yeah, I figured you maybe were switching between system#1 with the password saved into the browser, and system#2 with no such thing. But as I said, Wikipedia is a bit weird; most websites either *require* that you login, or do *not* let you login, but wikipedia can go either way... and is horridly confusing when you see "somebody else" somehow swiping your comments, practically as you save them.... but it all makes sense, once it gets explained. For myself, I do just edit from a single system. Since you might be doing a lot of travelling during the coming year, I recommend that you get in the habit of checking that top-right-hand-corner, and making sure you are logged in, before you click edit. Once you get used to that double-check, it will become a habit, and you'll be able to edit from any system you like. For password-security reasons, it is better usually not to stick your password into a random system, so if you have a portable system like a laptop, my advice is to stick to editing from that laptop most of the time. Will answer your other questions, up above. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in community discussion at User talk:Doc James subpages or elsewhere

Hi there, 75.108.94.227 made a very good explanation of the chain of events that led to my unfriendly and unfortunate introduction. For which I apologize with the caveats that impersonation is becoming increasingly common here, as is nefarious collusion esp. between COI registered editors and anon editors, so I hope you understand. Also, I didn't just slap this case up at WP:COIN so maybe I deserve a little bit of credit for restraint in that respect. That being said, this would probably be a fruitful discussion at one of the active discussions on reactions to the Orangemoody and other scandals, which you can perhaps most easily find via my recent edit history. Wikipedia's established community (includung the "COI cops" and others) is going through some deep introspection right now so a new voice would be welcome. Cheers — Brianhe (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Brianhe (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, no problem, please speak softly and carry a big stick, in the future. It turns out that Aviators99 and myself are involved in Farious Collusion with the goal of Improving the Encyclopedia.  :-)     In related news, I personally caught the orangemoody sockmaster myself, it was User:samtar! Or so I feared... it turned out User:samtar is a perfectly fine and upstanding wikipedian, and a good sport about the whole thing too. They were just responding to off-wiki OTRS requests, and off-wiki IRC requests, and luckily they did not take offense when I called them to the Peridon talkpage, asking about why they left a mainspace-to-draftspace redirect, and how they knew to interleave their own editing with another editor over on the NTA page. So, not only do I understand perfectly why you're on-edge, I'm also on edge, that orangemoody stuff is bleepity bleep scary. Will peek at the DocJames talkpage, but I'd rather that DocJames work with me on the section-layout of abortion than piddle around trying to ban all paid editing, which I see as tilting at windmills, and arguably counterproductive (needlessly heightens tensions). In any case, I will troll your edit-history a bit, and see if I can make useful comments at the orangemoody-fallout-discussion. p.s. Brianhe, orangemoody is the sockfarm... OrangeMike is a good-apple longstanding admin, who helps clean up political articles and other such things, and is not in any way related to orangemoody-the-recent-sockfarm. I've edited your comment to correct the record, hope you don't mind. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
And yes, I did notice you didn't just noticeboard it immediately, which is probably the key (plus Ron's staying cool and polite iff definitely miffed) that it didn't balloon out of control. Usertalk is always better than noticeboards, but WP:NORUSH to leap to conclusions. Sometimes anons are not the droids you are looking for, after all.  ;-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Mwahahaha! Indeed I am the Master of Socks! samtar (msg) 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Dern you, samtar! You shall not escape my wiki-wrath! Oh nevermind...  :-)     Sorry, carry on improving the 'pedia, nothing to see here. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
For those talkstalks who might dislike youtube, a fair use summarization... the video samtar linked was a parody of the Metallica song Master of Puppets, in this case covered by an animatronic-sock-puppet-band, with yarn for hair, and lip-syncing slash air-guitaring to the slightly-revised lyrics:
  • end of laundry day
  • folding me away
  • lost in the depths within this dresser
  • no other stripe in sight
  • begin this lonely fight
  • mismatched sock with just one purpose
  • unfold me you will see
  • find a use for me
  • dedicated to
  • being worn by you....
  • (insert long guitar solo, with much yarn-hair-based headbanging by the sockband)
Kinda catchy. They've got their own twitterfeed. But if they ever get famous enough to get a wikipedia article, we're gonna see a lot of usernames banned: User:MetallicaSock, User:SocksAreTheBest, and so on. Sigh. WP:EVERYTHINGISVERYSERIOUSHERE will not remain a redlink much longer, methinks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Cool, feel free to jump in wherever, User:Doc James/Paid editing is where the regulars are very active right now discussing remedies; it looks like two of these are developed enough to go through an RfC for formal adoption. If you're interested in machine learning I'll make a plug for my idea, Score articles on "sockiness" which maybe could use feedback from people with experience in the field (foot stomp), especially if you have ideas on negative correlators, given this discussion. There's also WT:Conflict of interest for general discussion of COI on Wikipedia, and WT:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard which might be appropriate for discussion of the COI investigation process itself. — Brianhe (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, editing as anon has made me personally very redacted familiar with the violation of the elided redacted operations of the WP:ABUSEFILTER, which is a bunch of half-assed regex scripts that block people from editing. I've got some off-wiki experience with machine learning, and I can tell you straight out, if you build what you are trying to build, it will be abused, and will hurt wikipedia. Even if you, personally, don't think that the machine-learning-detect-a-sock system should be used to perform automated insta-blocks, I can pretty much guarantee that it WILL be used in that fashion, within a year or two of being put into operation. This is the law of unintended consequences. I've also seen User:Doc_James and User:Judas_Fax having their discussion of trying to ban all paid editing at WP:COIN, using orangemoody as an excuse to kick out User:CorporateM and the other long-haul good-apple people, who are getting paid to Improve The Encyclopedia. Which is, once again, a counterproductive idea in the long run: forcing disclosure of the middleman-corporation, will simply lead to the creating of holding-corporations and shell-companies, just like in political donations via super-PACs. Making paid editing "wiki-illegal" will just mean that 100% of paid editing is undisclosed and undetectable. Deleting material at the least hint, that anybody might have been paid, sometime somewhere, or otherwise benefitted from the material, is fucking nuts, and will mean that wikipedia gets a successful hostile takeover from WP:GOOG. They already tried once, with Google Knol, and good-faith but foolish infobox-on-every-article wiki-cops are making it easy for google to do so once again. Crackdown on ALL paid editing, even that which IMPROVES wikipedia, might just be the notch in wikipedia's armour, through which google will happily insert a nice little dagger to bleed the 'pedia dry. I don't think I'm exaggerating here. Anyways, part of the reason I don't contribute to policy-talkpage-discussions, is because I've read the Book Of Mastcell, and am a pessimist -- they invariably turn out to be people with an axe to grind, trying to "fix" the wikipolicy so that it corresponds with their particular bias. Anyways, I'll try to respond politely to the suggestions I'm sure I'll find at the DocJames page, that we should ban all editors that ever contribute to their own wikipedia page, force everybody to register and get identity confirmed by mailing a cheek-swap to OTRS_DNA, and delete any pages that pass WP:GNG but don't pass WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Or maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised at the reasoned, rationale, well-considered discourse there, with an eye to the long view, and to blowback and other unexpected side effects, and a firm respect for the five pillars that have brought us this far in good stead. Cf pessimist comment earlier.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


list of debate-invite-qualifying polls & pollsters

Ron, debate-invites have gone out to 16 candidates for CNN+Tapper and SalemRadio+Hewitt in mid-September. This is a WP:CHOICE-guided request as usual, but do you have specific info on which polls CNN considers to be "qualifying" aka live interview and 7/15 thru 9/10 and otherwise satisfying their datespan and pollster and methodological restrictions?

  • (unlikely(?)) Monmouth U,[5] July 9-12, 2015 (( *polled* before July 16th but released 13th before CNN start-date ))


  • (unlikely(?)) SuffolkU/UsaToday,[6] July 9-12, 2015 (( *polled* before July 16th and released 14th, before the CNN start-date ))
  • (maybe(?)) Fox News,[7] July 13-15, 2015 (( *polled* before July 16th but released *on* which meets the CNN requirements iff strictly taken literally ))
  • #1, ABC/WaPo,[8] July 16–19, 2015
  • #2, CNN/ORC,[9] July 22-25 2015
  • #3, Quinnipiac,[10] July 23-28 2015 (( also #1 used by FOX for Aug 6th top-ten ))
  • #4, WSJ/NBC,[11] July 26-30, 2015
  • #5, CBS News,[12] July 29-August 2, 2015 (( also #2 used by FOX for Aug 6th top-ten ... so presumably live-interview, but not clear from PDF))
  • #6, Monmouth U,[13] July 30-August 2, 2015 (( also #3 used by FOX for Aug 6th top-ten ))
  • #7, Bloomberg,[14] July 30-August 2, 2015 (( also #4 used by FOX for Aug 6th top-ten ))
  • #8, Fox News,[15] July 30-August 2, 2015 (( also #5 used by FOX for Aug 6th top-ten ))
  • (not(?)) NBC/Survey Monkey,[16] August 7-8, 2015 (( excluded by CNN, presumably, because not a live-interview telephone-based poll ))

Full list here, national polls that wikipedia knows about -- Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2016_presidential_primaries#Latest_polls. FOX released their five selected polls by name, at the end, but C-SPAN is covering a multi-month range of a couple dozen polls, so may not give out their exact list... but perhaps they give out their list-of-qualifying-polls to campaigns?   p.s. Here are the CNN rules, from May; no changes since then, methinks.[17] There was some ambiguity in whether or not e.g. Graham and Pataki would qualify, since if you include zero-percent-poll-nums in their calculation, they average less than 1%, but since CNN has sent out those invite already it seems that simply averging 1% in *any* three qualifying polls is good enough. Gilmore has 1% in one poll, and if he gets 1% twice (or 2% once) before September 10th he will likely be added to the undercard-group, from what I understand. FOX originally had very few firm rules, but as time went by, modified their original stances on invite-criteria pretty significantly; cf the NH forum August 3rd, which was sort of a competition between CSPAN/HearstABC&NBC/grassroots and FOX/DCestab groups for how the primary-debate-season would be run. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

CNN criteria-tweak bumps Fiorina up to the main stage, as the eleventh candidate (cf FOX rules-rewrite to let Pataki/Graham/Gilmore onto the undercard stage).[18] Also, the rule about maybe-just-top-8 was officially-but-silently removed; it specified that if 15+ qualified it would not apply and 16+ have already qualified-and-been-invited. Another rule was added, about 'must accept format && debate-rules' so apparently there is some internal strife between CNN moderator-questioners and candidates over the arrangements. Finally, newRule7A, aka the BothFiorinaAndChristieRule: "In the event that there is a candidate (or candidates) polling in the top ten in qualifying polls between August 7 and September 10, but not polling in the top ten in polls between July 16 and September 10, that candidate (or candidates) will be added to the debate stage and will appear in 'Segment B' [aka 8pm main event] of the debate." So Christie will NOT be bumped out... but any post-CSPAN-post-FOX polling increases, will put Fiorina onstage at 8pm main event, rather than at 6pm undercard. As of September 1st, CNN claims there will be 'only two' more scheduled polls between ~~9/1 and their cutoff of 9/10, but don't specify which firms are doing the live-major-polls; they *did* mention that between 8/7 and 9/10 they only expect 'five' specific polls (including the two in September) to count under their criteria. Monmouth, which is explicitly included, released a live-major-poll on 9/3, so that only leaves one unknown poll. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • jul 15 fox 7/13-7/15 , 389 tooSoon * #0F,[19] (released on 16th... may count?)
  • jul 19 wapo abc 7/16-7/19 , 341 * #1, [20]
  • jul 25 cnn 7/22-7/25 , 419 * #2, [21]
  • jul 28 qui 7/23-7/28 , 710 alsoFox * #3, [22]
  • jul 30 nbc wsj 7/25-7/30 , 252 onlyCnn * #4, [23]
  • aug 2 cbs 7/29-8/2 , 408 jusFox? * #4F,[24] (huffpo does NOT list as live-interview, and methodology not clear from PDF)
  • aug 2 monmouth 7/30-8/2 , 423 alsoFox * #5, [25]
  • aug 2 bloomberg 7/30-8/2, 500 jusFox? * #5F,[26]
  • aug 13 fox 8/11-8/13 , 381 alsoFox * #6, [27]
  • aug 16 cnn 8/13-8/16 , 506 * #7, [28]
  • aug 25 quin 8/20-8/25 , 666 * #8, [29]
  • sep 2 monmouth 8/31-9/2 , 366 * #9, [30]
  • sep N lastOfTheFive 9/X-9/Y, ZZZ * #10,LinkTBD

Which means, depending on which polls 'count' and which do not: 

	nm	T_13	T_10	L_4	R_13	R_10	R_4	R_now	diff	FOX	~CNN	diff	
	trum	23.31%	24.00%	26.75%	1	1	1	1	+2	A= 1	A= 1	same	
	bush	11.69%	11.50%	9.25%	2	2	3	2	-2	A= 2	A= 2	same	
	cars	8.08%	8.80%	12.50%	4	4	2	3	+4	A= 5	A= 4	sameOrPlus1
	cruz	6.23%	6.70%	7.50%	5	5	4	4	+1	A= 6	A= 5	sameOrPlus1
	walk	9.69%	9.30%	5.50%	3	3	6	5	-4	A= 3	A="3"	sameOrNeg3
	rubi	5.77%	5.60%	5.75%	6	6	5	6	same	A= 7	A= 6	+1	

	huck	5.62%	5.40%	4.25%	7	7	8	7	-1	A= 4	A= 7	-3	
	paul	4.85%	4.60%	3.25%	8	8	10	8	-1	A= 8	A= 8	same	
	fior	2.08%	2.50%	4.75%	11	11	7	9	+2	u= 14	C="11"	+3orMore
	kasi	3.31%	3.60%	4.00%	9	9	9	10	same	A= 10	A= 9	+1	

	chri	3.31%	3.30%	3.25%	10	10	11	11	same	A= 9	B="10"	-1	
	perr	1.92%	2.00%	1.25%	12	12	12	12	-1	u= 11	u= 12	-1	

	sant	1.23%	1.10%	0.75%	13~~	14~~	13	13	same	u= 12	y=13	-1	
	jind	1.10%	1.14%	0.42%	14~~	13~~	14	14	-1	u= 13	y=14	-1	

	pata	0.48%	0.53%	0.42%	15	15	15	15	same	z=_16	z=15	+1	
	grah	0.33%	0.33%	0.00%	16	16	16	16	same	z=_15	z=16	-1	
	gilm	0.10%	0.00%	0.00%	17	17	17	out	same	z=_17	out	out

Only way Fiorina to be booted from the "11th" spot (closer to tied-for-9th-really) is if she gets *zero* percent in the final poll, and Christie *doubles* his recent percentages. Both seem vastly unlikely, so the CNN stage is set. (Also, neither Gilmore nor Everson can get into the undercard now, unless Gilmore happens to score 2% in the final poll, or Everson scores 3% , both of which once again are vastly unlikely now.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Berwick

Hi, I left a note for you here, in case you don't see it. Sarah (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Flanagan (New Hampshire politician) (September 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Alpha Monarch was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
♔ MONARCH Ask me 10:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! 75.108.94.227, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ♔ MONARCH Ask me 10:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you 75.108.94.227

Hello 75.108.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I am still carefully reading your insightful comments, which are in several places in the Wikipedia Universe. I am extremely pleased with the Harry Braun Wikipedia page with its flag removed, and while I am just beginning to understand “the world according to Wikipedia,” it is a fascinating society of scholarly individuals, somewhat like the Essene Jewish community of scientists and scholars that Jesus had spent considerable time with, according to the Dead Sea Scroll: The Essene Gospel of Peace, which has several related Wikipedia articles. I mention this because the Essene Jesus, who was a naturopathic physician, is very different from the New Testament Jesus whose “miracles” violate Newton’s laws of physics. But many of the remarkable insights are about preparing and consuming principally vegetarian foods, and never eating until one was full, and the Essene bread was not baked in an oven (which destroys all of the proteins) but rather the wheat dough was flattened out and sprouted with the relatively low temperatures of the sun. According to the Essene Jesus, the “angles” of healing are specifically defined as pure air, water, and proper sunlight exposure (i.e., photobiology), which rarely existed in the urban areas then – or now.

In any case, my BraunforPresident.US website is now up, and it will be up for the duration of the 2016 campaign. I have also updated the Democracy Amendment USA website as well. I have not yet incorporated citations, other than for Thomas Jefferson, on these two websites, which would be a first for a political campaign website, but I do plan to use all of the technical citations I provided in my initial Wikipedia articles that were deleted in a separate paper I will publish on the Foundation website. While these website updates delayed my daily press release campaign, it is now scheduled to launch tomorrow (Sept. 7) if no further issues come up.

I was fascinated by your Wikipedia response regarding my quoting the remarks of 75.108. When I come across such insightful comments, I like to give proper credit, if possible. I will study your comments further, but at this point, I will follow your advice and give credit one of the Wikipedia editors. After all, you were the only editor with such insights.

Given your comments on wars in Switzerland, I investigated the matter by consulting Wikipedia, and I was clearly in error stating they had not been in a war since 1291. Indeed, I now realize that Switzerland has been in some 20 wars, the last one being the Sonderbund war in 1847, which established the Federal State of Switzerland. So it is correct to say that the Federal State of Switzerland has not been in a war for 168 years, which is still pretty impressive, given the USA has been in non-stop multi-trillion Oil Wars for private multinational corporations since World War II. Even the attack on Pearl Harbor was a result of a U.S. Navy-imposed oil blockade against Japan, which was clearly an act of war. Since I am the author of the Democracy Amendment that is at the heart of my presidential campaign to shift from oil to hydrogen, it seemed only natural to mention the one country in the world that has been operating as a Constitutional Democracy for over 700 years.

Thank you for setting up the User Talk: International Association for Hydrogen Energy. I wanted to get some feedback from Nejat Veziroglu, at which point I will provide you with an update. Thanks again for your many thoughtful, and detailed comments.Harry W Braun (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Harry, good to hear from you as always. Yes, congratulations, Harry Braun has made it through the gauntlet. I do believe you will come to enjoy the wiki-verse, as time goes on, and you learn the wiki-culture in more details. I have never heard of the Essene Jews, and will have to do a bit of reading before I have any comments to make, insightful or otherwise.  ;-)     Wikipedians like yourself and myself *are* an interesting niche culture, very much "in the world" of modern politics and modern scientific controversies and other up-to-the-minute history-in-the-making, but also simultaneously going about the slow and steady business of codifying and summarizing all human knowledge in a boring neutral just-the-facts set of core articles.
chitchat on the often-maddeningly-frustrating wiki-culture, why it counterintuitively produces long-term high-quality, plus tips on conserving your wiki-gumption
    For example, Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 is a perfectly valid wikipedia article on a current event; it will get millions of readers in the coming months, and will eventually (circa 2030 or thereabouts) become a 'historical' article that is largely only of interest to students of political science, activists trying to understand the backstory of intra-party factions amongst the Democratic Party of 2030 mid-term elections, and so on. By writing the article in-the-now, we have the advantage of on-the-ground observers, such as insider-amateur-journalist-slash-participants like yourself, plus outsider-amateur-journalist-slash-student-of-political-history like myself. This is a key advantage wikipedia has, that no other traditional encyclopedia could hope to match: for an encyclopedia, wikipedia's articles on the 2016 elections will be ASTOUNDING complete and in-depth, per WP:NOTPAPER. But at the same time, even though the 2016-race-articles will get a lot of wikipedians working on them, and generate a lot of useful historical data-and-prose, I don't really seem them as *core* parts of the encyclopedia.
    The central 'ontology' of wikipedia is not biography-articles like Harry Braun, it is not event-articles like Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 ... the true heart of wikipedia is our conceptual articles, like photobiology. That is an ongoing field of research (by contrast phlogiston is also a conceptual article but is no longer ongoing). Our article on the phlogiston concept will forever remain woefully incomplete, because we don't have modern wikipedians seriously interested in phlogiston theory. By contrast, our article on photobiology *will* have interested readers-slash-wikipedians like yourself, who are not merely observers in the ongoing-research-effort that the conceptual article documents, but actual participants. Just as you are a "participant" in authoring the ongoing "biography of H. Braun" -- and should thus participate (at wikipedia) by making suggestions on Talk:Harry_Braun rather than directly editing Harry Braun yourself -- the same goes for the conceptual articles where you are a participating researcher. Rather than directly edit photobiology, it is usually best practice for you to instead make suggestions on Talk:photobiology, to avoid any appearance of promoting specific theories, just like you should make suggestions at Talk:Harry Braun to avoid any appearance of self-promotional editing. Make sense?
    But as I mentioned, it is the direct participation (as wikipedians) by people who are in-the-now really and deeply interested in photobiology, that will make our wikipedia article on that concept, awesome compared to any sort of traditional type of encyclopedia.  :-)     Wikipedia has the privilege of being not merely a place where scientific progress is summarized, but in the best case, a place where the people making said scientific progress happen, are available to help improve the wikipedia articles about their field. That said, I will caution you however, in the strongest possible terms, that wikipedia can be VERY BLEEPITY BLEEP FRUSTRATING, when you get involved with article-subjects that are of deep personal concern to you. I think that you probably realize, from your experiences at AfD, and from watching me try to bumble along describing the key points in your biography-tale, without ever having met you, that wikipedia is basically amateur hour writ large. The article on Harry Braun is not BAD, of course, all the folks involved tried really hard to make it work, and the result is satisfactory to yourself, satisfactory to myself (and my wiki-honour about sticking firmly to the wiki-pillars), and satisfactory to the AfD closing-administrator who removed the under-discussion-for-deletion-tag. It's a pretty good article.
    But most of the (literally) four million articles on wikipedia are NOT, in my firmly held opinion backed up by long experience, very high-quality. The Harry Braun article, even at the current state of somewhat-okay-quality-but-needs-some-improvements, is the exception, not the rule. WP:CHOICE is a double-edged sword: nobody has to work on the core articles like photobiology, and indeed, 90% of the edits made by wikipedians are to articles about video games, television shows, corporations and their products, pop culture musicians, current events, current political campaigns, and other such "useful" material... absolutely none of which is CORE CONCEPTS. When you work on the core concepts articles, you will find -- in my sad experience -- one of two things: a low quality article that is a ghost town, which is bad, because it's a METRIC TONNE of work to write a neutral well-sourced article on a core field of scientific or scholarly inquiry, all by yourself!
    Or, even more sadly, you sometimes (rare but non-negligible) find an almost-worse-than-not-having-one article, that is written to portray the field of inquiry in a specific way, or from a specific slant, with several people working there WHO HAVE AN AGENDA, and aren't much interested in working collaboratively to "improve" how well the article reflects what the sources actually say, but rather, are more interested in keeping the article slanted to match what they think it should say. This is just a fact of wikipedia. Working on core conceptual topics is difficult, because skill is required, but as with other parts of wikipedia, the best practice is for DISINTERESTED AMATEURS to make all the edits. Thus, even if you find an article on a core conceptual topic, which has no agenda-driven editors trying to 'control' what it says, and has at least one disinterested amateur willing to help you follow best practices of making talkpage suggestions (since you are a real-life researcher you have WP:COI about specific aspects of the real-life field of photobiology), even in those rarely-found ideal circumstances, it is often difficult and frustrating to get the actual body-prose of the article into a high-quality state. By which I mean, it takes months or years of patient, polite, hard work on the talkpages.
    Anyways, given what I know about you from helping write your biography-article, I suspect you might be the ideal wikipedian: you are unfailingly polite, you have a broad depth of knowledge about a vast array of subjects, and you are quick to understand that the wiki-policies and the wiki-culture are there for a reason (even though the reasons themselves might be obscure or esoteric or sometimes just downright WP:INSANE at the moment). However, also from my interactions with you, I know that you care deeply about a great many topics, and this can be a hindrance on wikipedia. Caring deeply can easily lead to frustration, because if you care deeply about the truth, and you care deeply about educating the readership, and you want wikipedia articles to be not merely 'non-terrible' but actually accurate and full of wisdom, YOU WILL BE DISAPPOINTED, because almost no articles on wikipedia are like that, and that ESPECIALLY goes for articles on conceptually-core topics!
    So I do hope that you will venture to the Talk:photobiology page, and someday even to the Talk:oil industry page perhaps ... although for the latter, I recommend delaying, until you have learned to invariably keep your cool despite extremely trying wiki-circumstances.  :-)     But as a cautionary tale, in advance, don't be surprised if you are unhappy with what you find, on some articles and even on some article-talkpages, and be careful you don't get involved with wiki-battles, to include WP:EDITWAR but also just to include arguing on talkpages with amateurs that don't really understand the article-subject. Arguing on the internet is largely a waste of time, even on wikipedia. Now, as explained above, those selfsame disinterested amateurs *are* the secret sauce of wikipedia; if you want to help wikipedia the most, counterintuitively, it will help if you work on some articles that you DO NOT CARE DEEPLY about, such as articles on Lady Gaga (unless you are a big fan), articles on the geography of Switzerland (unless you believe the mainstream maps are wrong), and other topics where you can act as a neutral disinterested arbiter slash wiki-monk, helping the people that ARE big fans (Lady Gaga has a *lot* of very dedicated such people), and the people that ARE knowledgeable about the flaws that all mainstream maps suffer from (e.g. recent highway construction in Switzerland) to solve their specific wiki-difficulties on talkpages.
    Personally, I find that doing such helping-other-people type of work, is a good way to keep my perspective on articles where I do care about the topic. If I get frustrated in one corner of the wiki-verse, I can always change gears, and do some helpful wiki-work elsewhere, before returning to the original area with renewed gumption, sometimes a few hours laters, sometimes a few years later. Whether that system will also work for you, I don't know. You may only be interested in contributing to wikipedia in the areas of politics, science, and the intersection thereof -- those are also your real-life interests, so it is natural that you will have the same interests here on the 'pedia. WP:CHOICE makes that perfectly well within your discretion -- you don't have to help fix Lady Gaga and Geography of Switzerland, if they bore you to tears! But as I mentioned, when working in areas that you care deeply about, and on which you hold strong opinions, it is crucial that you always keep your cool, always take a deep breath and count to ten and click preview to re-read what you are about to save, and be WP:NICE to all concerned, even when some of the wikipedians you meet in your wiki-travels will fail to reciprocate. Always feel free to reach out to the nearest handy wikipedian, myself or MelanieN or Peridon or whomever, or to use the WP:TEAHOUSE and the #wikipedia-en-help connect folks and the other WP:Q facilities, if you don't think something is correct in mainspace (but have a real-world conflict that per best-wiki-practices prevents you from directly editing the prose yourself), or if you run into inter-personal difficulties with another wikipedian in talkspace, or whatever.
    Wikipedia can be a lot of fun, if you are the kind of person that finds concepts fun. But enjoying wikipedia, does require the ability to withstand a lot of cruft and turmoil and endless discussion in the short-term; see also WP:WRONGVERSION and WP:THETRUTH and the ever-classic WP:DEVILSDICT. Also, one of the most essential wiki-policies, WP:NORUSH (plus the evil-twin wiki-policy WP:TIAD). Over the long-term, wikipedia does a pretty-decently-reasonable job of producing high-quality articles, but we're still in the very early stages.
On some of your specific points, some quick answers, let me know if more verbosity is needed:
  • about the IAHE, two points: first, you are fine to ask Nejat if they wish to become a wikipedian, and create a username something like User:Nejat_IAHE (fine!) for instance. However, for copyright-clickwrap-reasons, they should definitely NOT create a username for the association itself, such as User:InternationalAssociationOfHydrogenEnergy (avoid!), because wikipedia content-licensing requires one human *per* wikipedia username. Make sense?
  • second, the best place to work on the article about the IAHE (as opposed to the usernames that want to contribute to that article), is by creating the page Draft:International Association for Hydrogen Energy (click to create). Anybody can do that page-creation, and then (because it is in 'draftspace') anybody can directly edit that article, or can edit the article talkpage which will exist at Draft_talk:International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Let me know if the mechanical details are unclear. I realize wikipedia has a confusing procedure, here (even the 'draftspace' thing is new as of last year... and it is still getting the kinks worked out). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • http://BraunforPresident.US , now that it is 'live' and ready for use, will be has now been added to the Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 article (which currently no longer uses your PAC-website as your "preliminary"-campaigning site)
  • question, what is the website that we should be using at Harry Braun#External_links, however? http://PhoenixProjectFoundation.com , seems to be your longest-running website, correct? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your desire to give credit where credit is due, that's the scientist ethic showing through the political campaign, but this is a case of the not-presently-possible. As you say: "I like to give proper credit, if possible." In this case, all you know about me is that 1) I'm a wikipedian and 2) I edit wikipedia anonymously. You also know the IP numeral that is my computer.  :-)     So you cannot give 'proper' credit to 75.108, that is a computer not a person. And you cannot give proper credit to myself-the-human, since I'm anonymous and unknown to you at present. Thus, the credit can only go vaguely to wikipedia, which brought us together and was the host of our conversation on article five difficulties, or more properly speaking, to wikipedians in general, since I'm included in there somewheres. I don't mind missing out on the credit, so no worries on that score. And as mentioned, the computer numeral *does* lead to a physical location, roughly speaking at least, so I would strongly prefer you not publish my computer-IP-address "75.108.94.227" out on the campaign website(s). By contrast, I don't much care about it being used here on wikipedia, in the 'hidden' talkpages and edit-histories and such, but that is because the situations are distinct. Although millions of people use wikipedia *articles* there are only a few thousand that regularly use the under-the-hood-pages, and the vast majority of them are reasonable interesting individuals. No offense to your campaign intended of course, but in my experience, the vast majority of voters (of which there *are* hundreds of millions... and if your campaign is a success... long shot but by no means impossible... and you actually manage to become the party nominee, or galvanize action by majorities in 38+ states, there is a possibility somebody would visit my physical location. Make sense? Anyways, I'm happy for you to swipe my art-5-commentary, and use it on your website; reformulate it into your own words, if you like, I consider that a good use of the political process, and also a good use of the scientific method. Communities of scholars and researchers and enthusiasts are often built in strange ways, as your mention of the Essenes shows; see also the Diderot encyclopedia of the infamous 1700s, which served as a political-slash-scientific vehicle, as much as an educational work -- wikipedia consciously attempts to NOT serve as a political-slash-scientific vehicle, per WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:OR, we tried to learn from the mistakes of the Diderot folks!  :-)     Anyways, up to you: credit wikipedia.org as the facilitating connector, credit wikipedians broadly speaking, or credit 'a wikipedian who wishes to remain anonymous'. But don't let giving credit slow down the conceptual progress, please, because WP:TIAD. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Lastly, the most difficult one. Another greenbox for this question, which is about wiki-neutrality-in-practice.
  • "...the Democracy Amendment that is at the heart of my presidential campaign to shift from oil to hydrogen..."
  • "...it seemed only natural to mention..."
  • "...the one country in the world that has been operating as a Constitutional Democracy for over 700 years."
  • Yes, it very much would be very natural to mention Switzerland, and your theories on the real motivations for historical events, and so on. Of course! Those background-concepts paint the fuller picture, of the reasons behind the reasons, as it were, that Braun'16 is happening, and that motivate Harry Braun, the subject of the biography-article. However, that's not what wikipedia is for. Details on this strange wiki-law, within.
why does wikipedia have wiki-laws which end up deleting obviously-related material?
  • Your original attempts to write the "Harry Braun presidential campaign, 2016" wikipedia article were rebuffed, not because you were doing something non-natural, but rather, because wikipedia does things counter-intuitively. There is a good reason wikipedia cannot mention Switzerland, in the section on your 2016 campaign, which is right now at Harry_Braun#2016, and that is simply that you don't have press-coverage for that campaign, as yet. We have the FEC, which is a wiki-reliable source, to prove there is a 2016 campaign. And we have the lack of formal announcement, per WP:ABOUTSELF mostly. But until and unless the press mentions your 2016 campaign specifically, wikipedia must remain silent on the details thereof, per WP:NOTEWORTHY. Part of wearing the cloak of wiki-neutrality, is the un-natural refusal to make logical deductions (see WP:SYNTH or to *explain* what the sources are saying (see WP:OR) as opposed to simply *reflecting* what the WP:SOURCES are saying.
  • At present, since you are only launching your 2016 campaign on 7th September, the WP:SOURCES are silent, and therefore, wikipedia must also be silent, other things being equal. You asked Peridon, if memory serves, why the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 was so full of detailed specific information... and it is, quite frankly, because he's a rich celebrity who knows how to get press-coverage by making outlandish statements that lead to outlandish headlines and then doubling down, tripling down, and quadrupling down. See also, reality television. Our wikipedia page on Trump has problems, of course; I've corrected some myself, in point of fact, and there's more work to be done. But it's NOT really out of whack, with the wiki-policies, about WP:NOTPROMOTION, because wikipedia just reflects what the sources say, and they have a LOT to say about Trump'16. Pillar two of the wiki-tablets-engraved-in-stone, is that wikipedia articles must stay neutral, neither promoting something beyond what it deserves, nor denigrating something beyond what it deserves.
  • In the case of Braun'16, that implementation of wiki-neutral-point-of-view means we have to stay mostly silent, because until and unless press-coverage develops, writing volumes of data about the details of Braun'16 would be WP:UNDUE and also likely WP:NOTPROMOTION violations of the wiki-policies. As for Trump'16, the main problem for wikipedia is to avoid unduly denigrating the candidate and the campaign; Trump is getting just a wee bit of *criticism* in the press, you may have noticed. Wikipedia should reflect that criticism, but we have to reflect it neutrally, in a formal tone, and in balance to the whole of what the WP:SOURCES are saying. Anyways, this is a core part of wikipedia, and subtle. Staying 'neutral' does not mean that wikipedia should give equal time to all ideas, it means that wikipedia should reflect what our current not-very-intelligent-unfortunately real world society, pays attention to: books, newspapers, television, radio, scientific papers, scholarly journals, government agencies.
  • That sounds fine... until you realize, that 90% of non-fiction novelists, 92% of journalists, 94% of television anchors, 96% of talk radio hosts, a shockingly-large-percentage of academia, and roughly 100% of government-sources... are not really all that intelligent, in the first place. What they pay attention to, is often utter bleeping nonsense. I'll go ahead and pull out Lady Gaga once again, not to pick on her since I could also point to any famous pop-culture musician of the past: wikipedia has literally HUNDREDS of articles on her career, her albums, her wardrobe, her websites, her organizations, her business partners, her concerts and other events, and so on and so forth. We have an article about her second holiday special with some stuffed animals: Lady_Gaga_and_the_Muppets'_Holiday_Spectacular. We don't have any articles about her dog, but that is probably because she doesn't HAVE a dog.
  • Anyways, the point here is simple: even though Braun'16 is more important, by ANY rational measure, than LadyGagaThanksgivingTeeveeShow'13 ... our real world society simply is not rational. Wikipedia could, in theory, make a rule that wikipedia would henceforth emphasize objectively important material, and that wikipedia would be a meritocracy of ideas, with emphasis on the most objectively important ideas. In practice, this proved to be impossible, in the early days of wikipedia; it was too difficult to get *wikipedians* to agree with each other on what was objectively important, and what ideas had merit. Thus, in practice, wikipedia DOES NOT EVEN TRY to gauge what material is objectively important, and wikipedians are forbidden by the wiki-laws from over-emphasizing, under-emphasizing, or otherwise attempting to do anything but reflect a summarized neutral-tone just-the-facts version of what wider society considers 'important' enough to cover in publications. So as of 2015, wikipedia is filled with crap: of the 4 million articles we have, over a million are biographical articles (the majority of them vanity pieces -- the reasonably-source-based Harry Braun and Donald Trump articles are the exceptions not the rule), over two million are on current events or current corporations or current industrial products or current television shows (again with a heavy dose of promotionalism in most cases), and a very small percentage of wikipedia articles are on core conceptual topics (like photobiology for instance). There is plenty that wikipedia does not even cover, in any detail whatsoever, and merely links to, such as the Braun'16 campaign.
  • I hope this nutty-seeming situation is starting to make some sense: wiki-neutrality means, reflecting what the wiki-reliable sources actually say, in boring just-the-facts prose, with the correct amount of emphasis-aka-weight. The saving grace of wikipedia, to my mind, is that for the interested readership, for the savvy folks that are willing to dig into the refs, and do their own thinking, wikipedia DOES in fact contain the objective truth, or at least, links thereto. I have hopes that someday, maybe a decade from now or maybe a century from now, wikipedia will gradually start moving towards being an objective source of objectively-important knowledge, and away from being a reflection of our flawed human society. But in the meantime, wikipedia is a pretty decent stopgap: is contains objective knowledge, for the rational readership to discover.
  • The practical impact, of the current sourcing-required-wiki-laws, is that you need to start doing more work to get on television, into newspapers, and otherwise generate "earned media" as all the cool political candidates call it nowadays.  ;-)     Once independent-published-coverage of Braun'16 exists, wikipedia can summarize that coverage. Until then, WP:PROVEIT cannot be met, for mentioning Switzerland (or for mentioning ANY other specific factoids or related material), since nobody in the press has connected the dots between your Braun'16 campaign, and the extant federation of cantons. Once the media connects the dots, and publishes, the connection becomes WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to get a sentence in wikipedia. Let me know if this stuff is clear as mud, or starting to make a strange kind of sense. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Flanagan (politician) has been accepted

Jack Flanagan (politician), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MONARCH♔ 17:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I commented on RM Talk page - this is all pretty workaday stuff. 75.108.94.227 have you considered registering for an account so you can do simple jobs like this WP:MOVE yourself? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, no worries, done - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Jack_Flanagan but do you want to help fix these please. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Response

Left you a response on NTA. I forgot to ask there, however, why the prn article did not work?? 74.84.114.34 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Reaching out to Cubgirl4444

The system doesn't allow an editor to 'Thank' an edit by an IP. So this is to publicly acknowledge your offers of help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 75.108.94.227. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you VERY MUCH for your thoughtful and hilarious contributions. So on target (esp COI/Paid editing page), I can't tell you and thank you enough.

I will cut all the irrelevant links of the standard message except:

I hope to cross paths with you otherwise feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.

Again, welcome! Wuerzele (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much Wuerzele, appreciate the cookies and the sentiment.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.108.94.227/Archive_2&oldid=1144900136"