User talk:Junjunone

Hi! I thought I would drop you a note to explain why I kinda "went off" on you at Jimbo's page. Look at it this way, if you can, and it may help you understand. You are in a Walmart and have a problem with an employee. How do you resolve it? You would first, I think, go to the department manager and express your concern. Next, you would go to the store manager, then the regional manager. Finally, if you got no satisfaction, you might at that point go to writing a letter to the CEO, or to one of the Walton kids. You wouldn't directly and immediately take your problem to one of the Walton kids. Jimbo is Sam Walton. I realize you were trying to float an idea, but it is a somewhat flawed idea on the surface. Experts do not decide the content on Wikipedia. The editors do. No matter how much you feel your knowledge on the subject is superior to the other editors, you still have to work with him to decide the content of the page.

Science articles are difficult, because the existing knowledge is always evolving. And remember, what Wikipedia does is report on the existing knowledge. It isn't a place to introduce new ideas. I could not find a link to the source you two were discussing in the talk page conversations, so I am going to ask you. Is it a paper? If so, you probably want to find another source. Papers are primary sources and are not considered to be truly reliable sources. If it is a journal article on a paper, that is an acceptable source. Evolving science deserves a mention in Wikipedia articles, but it will not replace the more widely accepted knowledge.

Finally, I hope you read the links I suggested to you on Jimbo's page. Your conduct with the other editor in this dispute was deplorable. You owe him an apology and you should strike the insults you posted. You strike out a comment by bracketing it between <s> and </s>. Teahouse is a great place to come for assistance with technical problems and basic "how to be a Wikipedian" questions. No one there will help you resolve a edit dispute, though. We can tell you how to resolve it, but it is up to you to resolve it. At this point, I would still suggest you get third party assistance. They are mediators. They need absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter as what they do is coach the two of you on how to resolve your conflict. At this point, you definitely need that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52, and thanks for your comments above, although I'm now thinking this is not the best place for me to say that. The paper in question is by Duffy et al.^[1] It was introduced by Junjunone. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, someone gives you some helpful commentary, and in your arrogance you ignore it. Somehow you think you have the RIGHT to call someone illiterate? And to assail my religious beliefs? You can count on one thing. You will receive no more help from me. I have not in any way been uncivil to you. If you think I have been, report me to the appropriate noticeboard. If not, please keep it to yourself. I do not care to interact with you any further. No need to reply. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metric expansion of space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Function (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

Jonathan and Sarah, Teahouse hosts 02:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religious belief, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enlightenment and Spiritual (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Junjunone. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2–3 days of inactivity. Message added by I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

• As a note, this discussion was moved by SarahStierch (talk · contribs) to Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Religious statements on the Teahouse Frontpage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Protestant Bible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catholic Bible (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Protestant Bible at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There has been further comment on this, which point to additional material being needed for the article to qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Junjunone,

You recently voted in the Arbitration Committee Elections. In accordance to the Request for comment on the election process, you must have made 150 edits in the main article space of Wikipedia before November 1st in order to be eligible to vote. According to a recent count, you only have 106 such edits.

If you believe we are in error, or there are other circumstances, such as a number of edits across multiple accounts, please let us know. GiantSnowman 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Junjunone! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add {{Tick}} (Y) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the 20,000 Challenge, aiming for 20,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It started today on Monday June 16 and will run until Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. I'm hoping to see some of our older stale US articles improved! Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)