User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Strange edits on ccTLDs?

Can you take a look at the ccTLD pages. There have been some rather strange additions/edits to these pages (cu/ke/al/br/in and a pile of others) with fake stats being added by IP addresses. The .cu one was a bit mad with a claimed registrations number of about 600K when there are only 6K according to the cu NIC site. The .cn ccTLD didn't have 49 million domains and .co didn't have 69 million either. Seems to be a persistent pattern of iffy edits. Thanks. Jmccormac (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jmccormac: Ouch, a lot of pages are listed at {{ccTLD}}, and a lot of nonsense. I don't want to watchlist them all, but if I have some time I'll review "Related changes" (Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:ccTLD). Please let me know if there are other pages being hit. Presumably the motivation is some excitement about making money by exploiting domain name registrations. Thanks for noticing the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like persistent vandalism on ccTLD pages from an IP rather than any attempt to fluff up numbers. There are fake stats being added and edits with actual sourced stats being reverted along with nonsense claims mentioning 2018 etc. I just reverted the co and br pages to their last known good versions. The .cn, .al, .ro and .in pages have all been hit today again. It seems to be an ongoing issue. Jmccormac (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jmccormac: I see what you mean. I can't tell whether it is an attempt to be helpful, or malicious/playful/trolling. Please see my sandbox (permalink) where I collected some information. Feel free to add anything pertinent. I was thinking of posting a report at WP:AN to get opinions. What do you think? Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I used a sandbox is because I am looking for extra evidence. If you can point to unequivocally bad edits, please do so. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The reverts of good edits are continuing and fake stats are still being added and stats from the registries are being removed. It is a widespread issue (just checked .br and the registry domain count with link has been replaced with fake counts.) The start date on some of ccTLD pages has an "available since" date added that is prior to the launch date. There is also a history of fake stats being added to smaller African ccTLD pages like .sn with 69 million domain names. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.sn&type=revision&diff=789424502&oldid=787261790). On the .gn page, there's the fake stats and the claim that the ccTLD has been active since 1990 when the IANA (https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/gn.html) registration date for the ccTLD is 1994-08-09. There are similar incorrect launch/registration date edits to other ccTLD pages. The IANA database is the official TLD database and details the launch dates, sponsors, contact details and nameservers. The Ugandan ccTLD page has had fake stats added: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ug&diff=prev&oldid=789078389 ). The Nigerian ccTLD page also has fake stats and start date information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ng&diff=prev&oldid=789254775) The Albanian ccTLD page has similar iffy edits and additions: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.al&diff=prev&oldid=789504051) The .ph page also has had fake stats added: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ph&diff=next&oldid=790390662 ) The .gm ccTLD page has had fake stats (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.gm&diff=prev&oldid=789182180) and false start date information added. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.gm&diff=prev&oldid=789636457) It looks like a longterm pattern of fake stats and start dates being added to what are primarily ccTLD pages. The .ke page has also had a fake 900,000 domain count added but the infobox has the accurate figure from the registry. Some of these smaller ccTLD registries don't publish domain counts. Jmccormac (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jmccormac: I have a good understanding of DNS and related issues, but am very much out-of-touch with the details that the IP is engaging. People at a noticeboard where I might report this will have even less knowledge. That means easy-to-understand evidence has to be prepared. Evidence that uninvolved editors can check.

It seems unlikely that .sn would have 69 million registered domains, but weird stuff happens with domain registration and for all I know there are a handful of "valid" domains, and 69 million junk domains that have been temporarily registered. It is very unsatisfactory to add numbers like that with no source, but how is it known to be fake?

Consider diff at .br. Someone who is not familiar with the details (such as myself) will look at that diff and see perfectly reasonable additions of citation needed and other minor adjustments. Please spell out exactly which text is blatantly wrong, and how the fact that it is wrong can be checked. I can see that adding "registereddomains=950,000" with citation needed is unhelpful and could easily be trolling, but how is it known to be wrong? Adding a URL with a nonexistent domain (http://www.nic.net.br/) is very unhelpful. However, is that a URL which might work for some TLDs? If it is, the addition is just unhelpful, not sanctionable. The text added is inappropriate, but it does not appear to be vandalism.

The "S.O.C.O." edit summaries appear to be related to S.O.C.O. (Scene of the Crime Operatives). There is no doubt that the edit summaries are garbage/trolling, but onlookers at a noticeboard would regard them as merely a quirk of the editor, and not sanctionable.

@Kvng: Would you mind reviewing a few edits by 81.135.204.201 and giving an opinion on this mess? Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The two I've looked at are a mixed bag. this one dithers around quite a bit and has not particularly helpful edit comments but seems to land well. this one looks like a good faith effort also dithering and unhelpful edit comments but is not a net improvement (and was reverted). I'm not sure there's anything nefarious going on here but it looks like there will be more effort required to review these edits than is justified by the potential improvements but that's a general issue we have with an encyclopedia anyone can edit. ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Have been going back through the dubious additions and fake stats. Some of the stats are available from the registries and I've added those with links and links to subdomain naming policies. @Kvng I added the domain name count from the Chinese registry count. I added the actual domain name counts from the .br registry site with the refregistereddomains like to the .br registry stats page but the IP editor removed them and replaced the fake stats. There is a history of the IP editor adding fake stats along with a CN tag. The IP editor also reverted @Yamaguchi先生's edits/reversions. Some of these fake stats are just completely weird like the 69 million domains on various ccTLD pages. The .com tld only has about 127.7 million domains so any large addition or increase on a ccTLD would not have gone unnoticed. There are also repeating numbers in these fake stats as if they are cut and pasted. Some of these ccTLD registries are very small operations and are often run out of local university Computer Science departments. They don't go adding tens of millions of domain names when their domain name counts are often below 50K. That would increase their ccTLD zonefile from a relatively small zone of a few hundred KB to one approaching about 7GB or so. The .ly registry and .ro registry publish their domain counts on the index pages of their registry site and I've added these. The .ng edit introduced a PPC parked website, the nic one, as a registry site. It also had the 69 million domains fake stats added. I've cleaned it up and added the official registry count and reference. Some of these small ccTLDs have enough problems without iffy Wikipedia stuff adding to them. It might be necessary to step back through these edits. Jmccormac (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the IP editor is back reverting good edits, adding fake stats, messing with start dates. Jmccormac (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I did some reverting, but the issue will need to be escalated. I would like some way of demonstrating to uninvolved editors that at least some of the numbers are fake. I need a diff and and a brief explanation that a particular number is wrong because ..., with one or two links that would allow the fact that it is wrong to be checked. If that is not possible, what is the best that can be done? Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jmccormac: I expanded my sandbox. Please have a look and see if there are any obvious mistakes, or whether anything more can easily be added. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There's another revert on .ke this morning which completly contradicts the domain count in the infobox. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ke&oldid=prev&diff=792081666 ). There are some other iffy edits on other ccTLD pages like .ci where the same fake stats claims (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ci&diff=next&oldid=789075447) are applied. According to the .ci registry page .ci registry it only has 9,158 domain names but the iffy edit has it at 9,500,000. There are some sources on the web for gTLD counts ( http://www.registrarstats.com/TLDDomainCounts.aspx ). The Canadian ccTLD registry has its 2016 annual report with the top ccTLDs and their domain counts ( https://cira.ca/factbook/domain-industry-data-and-canadian-Internet-trends/domain-name-industry ). It shows the .co count at 2,018,450. Some of the other ccTLD registries publish periodic reports which also have similar stats on the ccTLDs. Took a quick look at the sandbox and it seems OK. Will go through it in detail later today. Jmccormac (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Just checked the .ng and it has been hit again. The IANA start date for .ng is 1995 ( https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/ng.html ) but the nonsensical edits have 1990 and 1994, the fake 69 million domains stat and a lot of fake subdomains. Jmccormac (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that .ci information is very helpful and I added it to the sandbox. In about 24 hours I will post at ANI and I will ping you here to let you know. You might then add a brief comment at ANI to the effect that you are familiar with domain name management and am sure the edits are nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I spent a few hours going back through the edits on the smaller ccTLD articles. It seems that the .uk and .dk articles were not hit but they are some of the larger European ccTLDs. The ones being hit were small ccTLDs that often had no published domain count or accessible registry site. Some of the 69 million domain edits were in complete disagreement with the registry counts in the infoboxes. The ccTLDs, apart from the repurposed ones like .co and .tk, tend to have a fraction of the population of the country and the registrations are dependent on the state of the country's internet infrastructure and economy. The ccTLDs with over a million domains tend to be in larger and more developed economies. Jmccormac (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a reference in an ICANN study on the African DNS market ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/africa-dns-market-study-final-06jun17-en.pdf ) where it refers to the size of the total African ccTLD market on page 117. It is referring to the Domaintools site (http://research.domaintools.com/statistics/tld-counts/ ) and estimates the total number of domain names in these ccTLDs to be about 2.9 million. Jmccormac (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I added that to the report which is now at User:Johnuniq/ccTLD. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jmccormac + Kvng: Please see the report at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Commented on the ANI. The IP addresses seem to be dynamically assigned and will change every few weeks or when the router is rebooted. Semi-protection of the ccTLD articles might be the best option. Jmccormac (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for warning me about nonsense ~Kvng (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It was very easy, but thanks! I think you know that we are active in networking articles (me not much), and I must have been watching your talk from something that arose a couple of years ago. It's amazing how far nonsense can spread. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It is also very easy to give barnstars to competent editors such as yourself ;) ~Kvng (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Transclusion problem

Hi John, I was wondering if you would look at a problem I'm having on User:SlimVirgin with the transclusion of User:SlimVirgin/Articles (collapsed within the "Articles" banner). As you'll see, when you click on "show", the top of /Articles is missing from the top but it appears at the end. Without going to a lot of trouble, do you have any idea what might be causing that? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarah: I started playing with this at User:Johnuniq/sandbox2 which transcludes Template:Convert/sandbox2 (an almost never-used template). Using a template means I can test it more easily. Interestingly, the problem goes away if I do a global search and replace, changing {{TFAIMAGE}} to {{green}}. I'll be elsewhere for a while but will ponder this more, and may have to resort to WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

John, thank you! I hate to cause you so much trouble. Perhaps I should just get rid of {{TFAIMAGE}}? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

No, not yet. Let me have a look. I'll do that soon. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no rush for this, by the way. It's been like that for a while, so please take a look at your own convenience. I'll be very grateful for any help at any time. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sarah: Weird! Have a look at it now. I temporarily removed the "::" indent before TFAIMAGE. That messes up the appearance, but it seems to avoid the problem. I'll continue looking (techo people love techo problems) but if you are around you might say if the transclusion works on your system now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That's so bizarre. Yes, page is showing properly now. Thank you! SarahSV ^(talk) 05:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

My last experiment broke it again. I'll leave it for a while but will return. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sarah: I'm planning to post at WP:VPT asking for help regarding the simplified test at User:Johnuniq/sandbox2. Do you mind the attention that would bring? I won't do it at the moment as I'll move on to other things. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking first. I think I'd prefer not to have that much attention on the page. I'll probably either remove it from my user page or remove "::". Thanks again for looking into it. I wish I could remember what I did last time to get rid of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You could fix the problem by editing Template:TFAIMAGE and deleting the newline at the end of the long line that starts with "}}". That would move </div><noinclude> from a separate line to the end of the long line, with no space between the two lines. That should not cause any problems, but explaining why you had done that edit to whoever is watching the template may take a fair bit of effort.

Meanwhile, I have edited User:SlimVirgin/Articles to expand the TFAIMAGE template so it is not used. That works around the problem, and I guess you would be happy to work with that. I do not think "id="mp-tfa-img"" which the template includes is needed on your page so I omitted it.

It's a bit irritating how the TOC includes "About me" + "My work" + "Contact". I don't see a clean way of avoiding that.

I believe this is now settled (no VPT). Let me know if there is something else, and congratulations on that fantastic list! Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

John, I see you've fixed it. Thank you so much for working your magic! I'll edit that template to avoid anyone else experiencing this and will have fun trying to explain why. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy

Please note that I am not very familiar with the Gamergate controversy other than what I read here and there. The controversy isn't very well known in my area also the article(s) I posted is not about gamergate but a detailed criticism of the video series in question. They may be related but the not a reason by the user to remove criticism from someone (In this case who also happens to be a feminist) that is not part of the Gamergate movement. I have removed anyparts that apeared to be OT in anyway but summerizing over 5 articles is hard so I only posted about the articles and a few relevant parts from the 1st article. UmdP 11:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@UMDP: This relates to my post at your talk. The facts overwhelm opinions in a situation like this. Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is obviously part of Gamergate controversy (search the latter article for the title of the former), and as I mentioned, Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games has a box at the top saying "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions"—the "subject" links to the GamerGate case. It was clear that you are not familiar with the background because edit warring on an article under discretionary sanctions is not done. If you want another opinion about what I posted, you could try asking at WP:HELPDESK. That is more a how-to page, but a quick question will probably get a direct answer. For example, you might ask whether WP:NOTCENSORED applies to the edits in question (as I said, no it doesn't). Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Controversial Content from Casanova

The "controversial" content is about homosexuality. I thought it would less likely be deleted if I titled it controversial instead of homosexual. Garfield7380 (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The content was deleted from another article by a homophobic editor. It may be of interest for some readers to know that Casanova speaks of homosexuality in his own memoir. Garfield7380 (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This concerns Histoire de ma vie and should be discussed at the article's talk page (Talk:Histoire de ma vie). Recent edits diff added a "Controversy" section with text extracted from a primary source by an editor. It does not matter what the section title is (although "Controversy" is not a good choice—who said it is a controversy?). Suppose the book contained a couple of paragraphs on how lovely roses are—should the article have a section on roses? The answer is no, not unless a reliable secondary source has described the author's views on roses, or otherwise commented on the significance of the text. That is basic policy—WP:SYNTH, as mentioned in my edit summary. If there is to be a reply, please copy the wikitext from here (I fixed the formatting of the original post), and make a new section at the talk page of the article. By the way, there is no point linking Histoire de ma vie when writing on the page with that title. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Extract

Hi! I would like to use the name Template:Extract for another template with a very different purpose (see this essay I'm developing). I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Extract and it looks like there are zero articles currently using it. However I notice that the template calls the Module:Age, and I'm not too sure on how Lua modules work, so I'm afraid I may break something if I just move the current Extract template to some other title and then code the template I need under the title "Template:Extract". I noticed you're the most active user on the Module:Age, so I thought you could help me out. Can we somehow free the "Template:Extract" title so I can re-use it? If not, I may come up with another name for the template, but "Extract" is really the most appropriate. Thanks ! --Felipe (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In principle, no problem. However, I would need a couple of days to collect my thoughts and work out a new name, and handle the small number of places where the template is used. I put a lot of effort into Module:Date and Module:Age but was then too exhausted to get much work out of them. They are more consistent and don't have the occasional glitches exhibited by the many templates that implement data functions.

I just had a look at Wikipedia:Cascading content and I would prefer to see some support for the proposal before bothering to investigate what moving {{extract}} would entail. Has there been a discussion about it, or has anyone suggested it would be desirable? I often see {{main}} used in summary sections and I do not recall seeing a case where the summary was the same as the lead of the main article. The summaries I recall are usually quite a bit shorter than the main lead. See Anarchism for an extreme example, including cases of multiple main articles. Also, editors often rebel against attempts to require a rigid structure. Are you sure this is going to work? Let's not debate the merits here, but I would appreciate it if you would let me know when a discussion occurs so I can follow it. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thanks for your thoughtful reply! I've been testing the "cascading content" technique in the Spanish Wikipedia and just now decided to try to spread it here. In the Spanish Wikipedia it got consistent support, but not much has been done yet, partly because it's rather new. Anyway, I understand your argument and I agree: I will finish the essay and start a discussion about the technique using some other template name (maybe Template:Introduction) and if it gathers some support I'll contact you again. Cheers! --Felipe (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your continuous collaboration. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Johnuniq, a continuously editing collaborator on a wide variety of articles, (active since 2009) to be an Editor of the Week. He always uses the edit summary to explain his actions and is extremely helpful in technical matters even extending to Interwiki cooperation. He supports those who do significant content development and realizes that it's getting along with other editors and engaging with their comments that is the hard part of Wikipedia editing. He is active at WP:ANI and at the Village Pump.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Shakespeare is a favorite topic

Johnuniq

Editor of the Week for the week beginning August 6, 2017

A supporter of those who do significant content development and realizes that getting along with other editors can be the hardest part of Wikipedia. He strives toward that end.

Recognized for

his continuous collaboration and great contributions

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Congrats J. Very well deserved. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks very much! This is most unexpected and very welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The banner will be displayed at the WER Project page, the Editor of the Week page and in the WER Hall of Fame. ―Buster7 ☎ 09:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Buster7! However I'm beginning to wonder if a mistake a has been made (LOL!). All I've been doing lately is fiddling with modules and their consequences, currently at bnwiki. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No mistake...well deserved. I putter around Wikiland looking for candidates for EotW. I thought your comment about getting along amongst ourselves was most important and needed to be shared. I'm a fiddler, myself! LOL ―Buster7 ☎ 13:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Technical Barnstar

		The Technical Barnstar
		For your technical help on Bengali Wikipedia. Thank you._ Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! That is most impressive. And thanks for all the work you did in getting bn:Module:Convert set up at bnwiki. Good grief, that's over three years ago. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI sit

Originally this was for ANI, but I don't want to see any action taken, and it's too much of a roadmap.

I have no idea if they are antisemitic or not, nor have I looked at any of the history here. But if after being accused of it, why would they ever go the "one of my best friends" route, whether true or not, has been seen as pretty much a confirmation of what one is accused of, for at least a half-a-century, and immortalized in media and memory? Any action after that is pretty much inevitable. And there is also the original "attack" - it's calling out yet another structure that's classically seen at problematic; why use this in the first place. There's no clear indication that the comment was meant personally. Though Norton is clearly wrong about this being a bad time - I don't see why local politics in one place, should impact the following standard procedures ... if it does, we better suspend WP:AFD for the rest of the current administration for this locale's senior government! I suspect that this thread is being let die, because there's little to it really. A much more serious issue in my eyes, is that User:Sitush told someone "F... Off" in what was otherwise a reasonably civil conservation, is a much bigger concern, and I'd think is really the only thing here that is actionable. I'm also unsure why they keep referring to India - which unlike the USA has proper national newspapers of substance - and there is also no requirement for national coverage. Given the editor's long history of personal attacks or unacceptable language, as well WP:CIVIL violations such as in May 2012 September 2012 August 2014 September 2014A September 2014BJuly 2017 ... and many more far too numerous to list. At the same time though, he is a valued editor, who dares touches highly toxic topic areas in systemically racist societies, with great skill. I don't think anyone wants the obvious action taken; though perhaps applying battleground techniques applicable in places with real wars, to articles about little old ladies. Nfitz (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Perhaps it should have been an ANI. Then you would have been put in a position where you would have to explain the "roadmap", whatever that may be. I'm not, btw, active in areas relating to "systemically racist societies" - I'm not even sure what those may be but castes, for example, are not races and they're probably my most prominent single topic area. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You know, drawing someone a roadmap? I was trying to be complimentary in general. Caste not race? I'm no expert - perhaps not - I simply assumed so, because of the very evident physical attributes of the Dalit when you seem them in the street. I'm no expert though ... what do I say then - castist? I don't know the appropriate word if it's not racist. Has there been DNA studies? I'm really ignorant on the topic actually - and just drawing my own assumptions from my own observations. Nfitz (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that responding "fuck off" to a direct accusation of being antisemitic is a "much more serious issue". That suggestion would be very misguided. There are a few editors left at Wikipedia with a strong sense of ethical behavior, and for them an antisemitic slur would be intolerable. Wrapping the slur in a few words designed to evade WP:NPA would fool only the very naive. I'm not sure if "no clear indication that the comment was meant personally" was intended to say that this comment was not a direct accusation of antisemitism. Any such conclusion would be completely mistaken. Leaving the words and their plain meaning aside, if the comment was not meant personally, its author would have quickly explained they were not making an accusation of antisemitism when challenged on their talk. That has not happened. In fact, the user has disappeared in an attempt to have the ANI report here fade away without their needing to retract. Some editors are known for doing that, and searching ANI archives would show this is a repeat. It is obvious what Sitush's original comment meant—the article concerns a holocaust survivor who was well known in a city of under 200,000 people for recounting her experiences, and using plain language to describe the article as it was at the time (permalink) would require care and sensitive language. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not, I just haven't seen a direct accusation of anti-semitism. Sitush started with I just know someone will be waiting to shout "anti-semitism and Norton replied with When you say "I am not antisemitic, but ..." you are. This accused no one in particular about anti-semitism, nor could be applied directly to anyone in particular. Sounded more like a warning that is not the best way to approach the discussion. I don't see why Sitush even mentioned the issue. And the odd "but my friend" come back ... which honestly sounded like he was pulling our leg a bit, because it's such a famous retort. Nfitz (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I've mentioned your above response to NFitz in the ANI thread. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq - rereading this again, I notice that above you said if the comment was not meant personally, its author would have quickly explained they were not making an accusation of antisemitism when challenged on their talk. That has not happened. um, actually it has and very early on. So now they got a harsh warning and still this continues! Nfitz (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at your talk and User talk:Nfitz#July 2017 + User talk:Nfitz#August 2017 (permalink) told me all that I needed to know. Anyone wondering what I said earlier about "you all" can find my 11:26, 18 August 2017 comment at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I was only pointing out that your comment above on August 18 at 11:02 UTC saying that Norton would have tried to explain if it wasn't an accusation seems to be unaware that he did explain this on August 16 at 17:26 UTC already had. I'm not sure the relevance of my history to that observation. Nfitz (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Bad words, isn't the issue. If I fucking, fucked up my fucking typing of fuck, then there's nothing in it. Personally, I saw someone telling someone to fuck off as very uncivil, disparaging, scornful, and therefore an insult. I'm not sure what you WP:CIR and WP:NOTFORUM comments relate to - I clearly stated, I'm just looking to understand the issue, not litigate the case. Isn't asking questions a good thing? If you can't be bothered to WP:AGF please kindly go fuck off. Nfitz (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Qatar

Thanks for the note; I was unaware that they now had a good number of IP addresses. Nyttend (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Inflammatory opinions?

You reverted my close for including "inflammatory opinions". Given that there were no opinions in there besides "unfortunately", would you care to explain? DarkKnight2149 15:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to "(Potential WP:DIVA? Only time will tell)"? I would suggest reading DIVA, because it pertains to users threatening to retire when discussions don't go their way. That was a genuine possibility, given that he claimed to retire because he was displeased with the result of the discussion. And it wasn't an "opinion" of any sort, given that I merely pointed out that it was a genuine possibility. Please read people's edits before you revert them, because there are no "inflammatory opinions" here. In fact, I was probably one of the most neutral people in that discussion. DarkKnight2149 15:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:DIVA Nutshell: "Don't threaten to quit, or otherwise make trouble, if you don't get your way. Wikipedia is not about you."
ANI report filed by Mathmensch: "It would be beneficial if measures are taken against this sort of unfriendly behaviour..."
ANI result by Swarm: "Both editors are reminded to focus on content, not contributors, and refrain from making uncivil remarks. No further action is necessary here."
Mathmensch response: "I have left the English Wikipedia, since I can't explain the rationale behind every one of my edits three times, and was verbally attacked by User:Joel B. Lewis and User:Triacylglyceride, who didn't want to realize their mistakes, and the admins didn't take any action, and to the contrary User:Swarm blamed me."
My closure: "Unfortunately, Mathmensch has allegedly retired as a result of this discussion (potential WP:DIVA? Only time will tell)."
I have nothing else to add. DarkKnight2149 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The ANI section was 90% closed (see permalink) when you added (diff then diff) an extra close with the following text (with names changed):

Unfortunately, Example has allegedly retired as a result of this discussion (potential WP:DIVA? Only time will tell). Place holder has nothing to add with to the re-opening of the discussion. Again, until things get worse, there's really nothing to do here.

A closing statement is the most prominent part of a discussion, and is often taken as the "last word"—a neutral summary of consensus. Good closes attempt to deflame situations—individual comments may have strong criticism, but the close should attempt to find a middle ground. Particularly given that the close was totally unnecessary—it was already 90% closed, and closes are never required—if a final close were wanted, it should have been of the "nothing more needed" variety. There is nothing more inflammatory than painting the retirement of an editor with "allegedly" and "DIVA". I was thanked for my revert of the close. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"a neutral summary of consensus" - That's precisely what I thought I was leaving. You see, the two were engaged in mutual incivility and the discussion ended with both of them being reminded to be respectful of each other. The discussion was unnecessarily re-opened by another user to specifically place blame on one specific user (which wouldn't result anything constructive; just more conflict). That is why I closed the case. As for Closing Statements, they are meant to provide a neutral summary of what has transpired, why it is being closed, and what the result is. In this instance, one of the involved users had allegedly retired, while the other stated that they have nothing to add. That's what I stated in the close. And yes, I noted the very-real probability of WP:DIVA for the reasons mentioned above. You and Swarm seem to believe that I made a poor judgement call on that front, and I respect that. DarkKnight2149 15:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Darkknight2149: I hate to say it but I'm going to be blunt. All of your commentary in that thread was inflammatory and unhelpful, and I'm not sure why you insisted on involving yourself in that way. I assume you were trying to be helpful, but you weren't. My comment chastising uninvolved non-admins for unhelpful input was primarily directed at you. The fact that you even broached the subject of a ban just shows that you had no understanding of how we deal with minor incivility and you had no business commenting in that thread. Swarm ♠ 02:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: I am very sorry you feel that way. At the time, I thought I did a helpful job in de-fusing the situation and helping both users (who were equally uncivil) to come to discus the disagreement civilly. That's all I was trying to do, and my statements were certainly neutral. DarkKnight2149 15:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, would the two of you mind telling me what you mean when you say "Inflammatory"? The word, as I know it, means arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings. None of what I said comes close to fitting this bill. Is it possible you simply misread implied emotion in my statements? DarkKnight2149 15:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The intentions of the person who writes a closing statement are unimportant. What matters is how most people would interpret the words written. If an editor is frustrated and states they have retired, the most inflammatory thing that can be done is to draw everyone's attention to WP:DIVA. Whether everyone can understand that is not relevant for its truth. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But you ignored the question above - How exactly are you and Swarm defining the word "Inflammatory"? Make no mistake - this isn't sarcasm, it's a genuine question. DarkKnight2149 23:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You also neglect that I didn't accuse him of DIVA, I stated that it was a genuine possibility. And, as DIVA states, threatening to quit because things don't go your way is disruptive. DarkKnight2149 23:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

S/he didn't threaten to quit if things didn't go their way. Everything Johnuniq and Swarm have said is correct. --JBL (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: There was a neutral close where you were both calmly reminded to continue the discussion civilly (which is about as fair as you can get). When you weren't sanctioned like Mathmensch asked, he allegedly retired because "I can't explain the rationale behind every one of my edits three times, and was verbally attacked by User:Joel B. Lewis and User:Triacylglyceride, who didn't want to realize their mistakes, and the admins didn't take any action, and to the contrary Swarm blamed me." That is why I mentioned the very strong possibility probability of DIVA.

And, I should probably bring up that the DIVA thing wasn't even the main close. It was literally a minor note relegated to parenthesis. If that is what is being considered "inflammatory" (whatever their unique interpretation of that word is), then that (if anything) is what Johnuniq should have removed instead of the very purposeful close in general. Nothing about "Unfortunately, Mathmensch has allegedly retired as a result of this discussion. Joel B. Lewis has nothing to add with to the re-opening of the discussion. Again, until things get worse, there's really nothing to do here" can be remotely construed as "inflammatory". DarkKnight2149 17:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Counting to 327

Your question on a source for displacement has me saying no, there isn't: the bore is 4", the stroke 3.25", which produces a displacement of 326.73ci or 5354cc. GM, like most car companies, rounds up. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This relates to me reverting a change where an IP broke a {{convert}} at Chevrolet small-block engine.

I was going to say that it is possible to tell convert to round the input as follows:

• {{cvt|326.73|CID|L|adj=ri0|1}} → 327 cu in (5.4 L)

However, that does not give the wanted output (assuming 5.3 L is wanted) because:

• {{cvt|326.73|CID|L|3}} → 326.73 cu in (5.354 L)

If 5.3 is really wanted, the convert template would have to be replaced with fixed wikitext:

• 327 cu in (5.3 L) → 327 cu in (5.3 L)

Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the template has it right: 5354cc rounds up to 5.4 l; you need a 325ci (or 326) to get 5.3, both under 5350cc. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Template problem - can you help?

Hi, I see that you have the template editor user right. I am wondering if the error regarding {{small}} that appears at some caste-related articles, such as Menon (subcaste), is being generated by an error in {{Infobox caste}}. I can see the {{small}} being used there but the syntax is bewildering. Might I be right? Do you know whether anything can/should be done about it? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: Sure, if it's easy I'll fix it and claim credit, and if it's not I know someone who can fix any template issue. However, I can't see a problem. {{small}} should only do something if a footnotes parameter is present in {{Infobox caste}}, and I don't see it. I suspect that the infobox wikitext should be fixed to change the first of the following lines to the second:

| data43     = {{small|{{{footnotes|}}}}}
| data43     = {{small|1={{{footnotes|}}}}}

The 1= would fix a problem if footnotes happens to contain "=". Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I certainly do not know what the problem is but someone, sometime clearly thought there was a problem and hence the pages are being included in the maintenance category. If it actually makes no difference then perhaps the category needs to be considered? Aside from being fairly clueless about template syntax, I am also poor regarding accessibility issues (screenreaders etc) and perhaps that type of thing is the rationale behind the "error" category. So much to learn, so little time! - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the fact that Menon (subcaste) was in the hidden Category:Pages using small with an empty input parameter. I'm not sure whether using {{small}} in an infobox is compatible with WP:ACCESSIBILITY which says "In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page font size". If wanted, I could find someone who understands such things to decide the fate of small. Meanwhile, I edited the infobox (diff) so the tracking category will no longer appear, although I had to WP:PURGE the article to see that (I add ?action=purge to the URL). Let me know about any other template concerns. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

That worked well, thanks. It has taken me a while to get back to this but your change has removed a fair number of affected articles from the category. - Sitush (talk)

ANI

Thanks for your efforts in the preceding section - I'll try to get my head round them soon, when the effects of my meds wear off. Meanwhile, I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_behaviour_of_Nfitz. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that the problem is continuing after all this time. I commented at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Burden of Proof and Intelligent Design article

Not claiming whether it is a religious or non-religious argument. Questioning validity of source in establishing the assertion. The burden of proof is on claimant. The source is not satisfactory, for which the reason is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The scar face (talk • contribs) 06:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No idea why your sixth edit at Wikipedia should be here. The article talk page (Talk:Intelligent design) is the place to explain why a change is desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Midway International Airport edit revision

Good morning.Last night,at 3:23 on September 19,I edited the acreage of MDW (airfield) and you reverted my edit back to what it was.Did you check my sources that I referred to to confirm my edit (change)? I believe not.These are FAA approved sources used by the aviation community.I cited Airport IQ 5010 (References #2),MDY airport skyvector and airport-data.com and they all concur, MDY covers an area of 650 acres (1.02 sq.mi.),not 640 acres.Your source or sources may be outdated,but Airport IQ 5010 and MDY (airport code) skyvector are right up to the minute with their updates. I know my edit was correct.These are the most reliable up to date sources there is.Thank you for your time and have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow that. At Midway International Airport you changed

covers one square mile ({{convert|1|sqmi|acre ha}}) → covers one square mile (1 square mile (640 acres; 260 ha))

to

covers just over one square mile ({{convert|650|acres(260 ha}}) → covers just over one square mile (650 acres(260 ha)

and I changed the last line to:

covers just over one square mile ({{convert|650|acres|disp=or}}) → covers just over one square mile (650 acres or 260 hectares)

Ideally we should be discussing this at Talk:Midway International Airport and you could alert me by using {{ping}}: {{ping|Johnuniq}} Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a problem now? No. We are good.Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

val/units request

4 GB doesn't work. — Cpiral§Cpiral 21:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I added kB, MB, GB, TB as they are likely to be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Turns out MB, GB, and TB are ambiguous with Mib, Gib, and Tib, depending on the context. So we have {{BDprefix}}. (See WP:COMPUNITS, and recent talk:binary prefix.) So if Val needed MB, GB, and GB, then Val needs Kib/KiB, Mib/MiB, and Tib/TiB for the same reason. — Cpiral§Cpiral 01:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's not keep adding units because someone might like them. Please leave it for someone who is working on an article to see a need for a unit to be supported by {{val}}, then let them make a case at Template talk:Val showing what would be needed in what article. You might be aware that KiB and friends are very contentious with promoters pushing their adoption with strong rejection by MOS regulars, apart from some limited cases per WP:COMPUNITS. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not just "may"

I routinely work through stale userspace CSDing the problematic pages, blanking the useless ones, and sending the occasional promising page to Draft and/or AfC review. I'm prohibited from moving things directly to mainspace, but at least I can give some useful abandoned work a fighting chance to be noticed and mainspaced with these moves. I'm not aware of any other user that does this on a regular basis, though there may be others. Ricky used to do it and he wrote most of the instructions for the WP:Abandoned wikiproject. I can't say much more but you are a smart person. Legacypac (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm planning to wait and see what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Stan on the Origin

Thanks for taking this on in January, he's returned with more of the same so I've added a section Talk:On the Origin of Species#Disruptive editing, and have undone his edit to the article. Life is too short to occupy oneself with the slaying of the slain more than once.[1] . . dave souza, talk 13:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that link which I see you also added at Thomas Henry Huxley. It ends with the slaying of the slain quote which I will recommend as Wikipedia's new motto. I've been playing at Commons lately and so ignored the recent fuss at On the Origin of Species and its talk. Now that I look I see that a bit of shark jumping is going on—probably a final salute. I am still watching and will join in soon. Johnuniq (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! There's a fun parody at Great Hippocampus Question#Public interest and satire which provides a more poetic motto. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Your comment about the idea of "opponent" on Wikipedia was so elegantly put and on point, I wanted to drop by and thank you. Alex Shih^Talk 04:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. None of us need opponents on a collaborative project. I try to only focus on behaviours that impede proper functioning of the site. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a good principle, but if you hang around noticeboards and policy pages long enough you will notice that every now and then someone has a great idea for changing a policy, and they are very insistent that the change is really important and must happen now. Half an hour later someone will point out that the person proposing the change is currently involved in a brawl on half a dozen other pages, and the change would coincidentally support that person's position. Who knows, perhaps the proposal is a good idea, but once onlookers see the transparent motivation there is zero interest in thinking about it. All attention turns to putting the proposer back in their box so their effort is counter productive regardless of whether they are correct or not.

Life is often unfair and accepting that is the first step towards a happier and more productive life. Sure, it is important to resist bullies and fight the good fight, but you have to consider what kind of person would devote the rest of their life to pursuing an opponent. The same principle applies at Wikipedia where we have the benefit that any actual problems will eventually be handled by others. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks also for closing the AN discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Atheism

See my talk page and this. Doug Weller talk 07:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Another day, another POV editor... Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sexual assault

Thanks for reverting. I'll try to keep an eye on the article, and semi if there's one more fly-by sock. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks, I'm sure it will fizzle soon. Johnuniq (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Who wrote the article on "Wind Turbine Syndrome?"

Hello. I see you have deleted a whole bunch of information in the past, that I have posted, trying to get the above-named article to reflect something closer to reality. I guess you must be the author? Or a self-proclaimed expert/editor?

Can you please tell me who is the author of this article is? Please have them contact me at mwest55.

Thank you MWest55 MWest55 (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC) MWest55 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWest55 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently that was a topic ban violation: ANI (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"This year" on List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2017

Figured I'd clarify this outside of an edit just to clear things up- the "this year" for the approach list isn't referring to the present year, as is clearly pretty ambiguous, but rather [the year which was previously being referred to, 2017]. I suppose the intent doesn't matter if it's misinterpreted though... exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This refers to my edit at List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2017#Timeline of close approaches less than one lunar distance from Earth in 2017 which currently says "This year, two known asteroids have traveled nearer than this, 2017 EA and 2017 GM."

@Exoplanetaryscience: I see what you mean, the "This year" refers to "2017" in the section title and the first sentence. Perhaps replace "This year" with "In 2017"? I'll leave that up to you.

Regarding {{convert}}, in case you are not aware, the twin template {{cvt}} is identical to convert but always has |abbr=on. Since the unit AU defaults to showing km mi, the following are equivalent:

• {{convert|0.00214|AU|km mi|abbr=on}} → 0.00214 AU (320,000 km; 199,000 mi)
• {{cvt|0.00214|AU}} → 0.00214 AU (320,000 km; 199,000 mi)

If you want, I will use a search/replace to change all templates like the first to the second. Again, that's entirely up to you. I generally advise that cvt should be avoided since people are used to convert and abbr=on and that is simpler than introducing another template. However, there are so many converts that the short form might be helpful, particularly to avoid typos. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of that! I don't think I'd replace it, because I edit these articles so frequently that it's almost a muscle habit to type "{{convert|xxxx|AU|km mi|abbr=on|lk=off}}"- I think changing that might actually make work harder than easier! exoplanetaryscience (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but please don't use lk=off! People often copy a template when they need something similar in another article, and it's not a good idea to pad-out the wikitext with options that are redundant. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

really 50?

Your comment "really 50?" on your last update to the "Two knights endgame" talk page intrigued me. What do you make it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Rattigan (talk • contribs) 13:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This refers to a comment I made at Talk:Two knights endgame on 2 October 2017. I don't think it would be worth me trying to recall exactly what was going on then, but "really 50?" was not intended as querying whether that number was accurate. My comment included 'My understanding of the topic is that a lot has been written in reliable sources regarding what is known as the "two knights endgame", and almost none of that would resemble the "White to play and mate in 50" position'. My point is that "mate in 50" positions would very rarely be discussed in reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought you might have found an improvement. Martin Rattigan (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

middot vs sdot

Hi, Johnuniq. Great job on the discussion at Template talk:Convert#Dots. I was tempted to go ahead and start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics regarding that discrepancy to see if the people there agree. But I thought maybe it's better if you do it since you first started the discussion. Now would be a good time before the momentum is lost. Seems like consensus is nearly built. But would be a good idea to get further input, especially via a notice at VP (I see the VP post now). Jason Quinn (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC) EDITED: Jason Quinn (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: I had almost forgotten that I asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Dot operator. There is only one response there, but the lack of other comment can probably be taken as agreement that sdot should used, and confirmation that no one sees a problem with using it. If you think other input would be useful, please ask for opinions. However, I am currently cleaning up my to-do notes and test cases related to convert in preparation for making the change from middot to sdot. I am waiting for the November all-articles dump to be available so I can download it and extract all the converts in articles. I suspect there will be quite a lot of unit codes that currently use middot but which are not used, and I plan to (probably) remove them. Any problems from doing that can quickly be fixed by re-adding any needed units or otherwise fixing articles. Unless someone comes up with a strong counter argument, convert will be changed to use sdot within a couple of weeks. Do you have a view on Template talk:Convert#Micro symbols? I want to fix the dots and micro at the same time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now downloaded the articles dump and extracted all the converts from it. In the next week I hope to finalize the changes I propose for the module and will then post at Template talk:Convert. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: That too a lot longer than anticipated because a SNAFU occurred in my processing of all the converts from the dump. However I have now proposed the change at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Symbols for dot and micro. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Subject

Wiki.org Anti679 (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

I really enjoyed your contribution here at arbcom, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work there! It's pretty sad to see the silliness when it's lined up like that. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

References issue in an RfC

You may think I'm stupid for not figuring this out, but can you help with that matter? I mean the format issue in relation to the references, of course. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I already tried removing the would-be references from the initial discussion to see if that was the issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I made this edit which fixed a wikitext error, so perhaps that resolved the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

yep

hi. yeah sorry i was trying out wikipedias editing feature, i didnt know it saved. thanks for understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.84.68.121 (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Everyone starts by experimenting. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

IPblock

On Module:IPblock, I don't believe it is longer necessary to link to xtools for ranges or to ask users to add the gadget for range contributions since Special:Contributions will now handle most cases. I didn't want to go in and start changing things around as you are more familiar with how it's built and are the sole contributor. Thanks. Nihlus 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! I saw MusikAnimal's announcement at WP:AN and planned to do some fixes but never got around to it. One minor complication is that the module supports various parameters that made sense with the old system (the ranges gadget and XTools). One of the parameters determines how many months of contributions to show, default 1. I'll look for a way to have all that stuff disabled by default and use the new contributions. Bit busy here...might be a week. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: I updated the module and the new system is now live. Notes at Template talk:IP range calculator#Version November 2017. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Warez scene

I blocked the editor, but you might have noticed that. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You are hardhearted! Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Johnuniq/sandbox2

Can you make any sense of this editor's comment? Doug Weller talk 13:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that's very strange. Also see #Subject above from two weeks ago (contribs). I can't even work out what I was doing at User talk:Johnuniq/sandbox2 in May 2017—my edit from then is what is showing now that the passer-by (contribs) has been reverted. I see that the user previously made a handful of edits in August 2015 which I reverted, and I left two grumpy templates at the user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Weirdness at Flyer

Regarding your recent change at Flyer's page, besides concerns about WP:TPO that are minor given the situation, I think the greater issue may be legal. I would suggest alerting WMF's legal dept without delay. According to this page, you can email them at emergency@wikimedia.org. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I said "looks like trolling" but I'm more confident than that. However, the IP was blocked after leaving the same kind of message at an admin's talk so anything that should be done probably has been. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for the intrusion if it was trolling; I was in "better safe than sorry" mode, so figured I'd better say something. Thanks for looking into it and taking care of it. Best, Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem about posting here, cheers! Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Mass mailing lists

Sorry for the trouble - was trying to cast a wide net to let as many people as possible know, in case there was any residual interest. I appear to have made a hash of things, as is more usual than I'd care to admit.

I do have one question: you said something about the list (which I've deleted) being in the wrong location. Not sure how that happened, because I followed the link to this page from here, without changing anything. So I didn't determine where it was to be placed. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: This refers to my comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 56#Women in Red World Contest spam (permalink).

I'm suspicious of stuff that looks like spam so I can see the reporter's point of view. However, it is also true that the WP:WikiProject Women in Red contest is very valuable, and if someone has listed their name on a Wikiproject I suppose they should expect occasional mass messages. That is, the brief messages without a lot of fluff such as icons/images are fine by me.

I don't know anything about the process apart from having just now skimmed WP:Mass message senders. The instructions should probably suggest that the message link to a page explaining the background such as how the recipient was selected. I thought you created WiR list 2 as a normal page and then typed its name into the special mass-message sending form, so I assumed you accidentally omitted your userspace or the WP space. I can't see that form and don't know any more. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, my signature was omitted because I didn't put the signature in the message block when I wrote the message. I had thought (being still somewhat unfamiliar with the process, due largely to lack of practice) that the MediaWiki system signs messages itself without needing the signature markup. Evidently that's not the case.

As to the other point, I'm certainly sympathetic to the notion of spam, and it was a concern as I was preparing the message - this contest is new, and we were thinking of getting the word out to as many people as possible about the new prize for the last five days. So hopefully it will call up some new editors. Regardless, it's something I intend to keep in mind as we begin planning for next year, thinking about what works and what doesn't. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Everything is good as far as I am concerned, and the instructions about sending messages should make it clear about the signature. An example message and example list would be best and would save pain for someone sending a message. Some recipients would wonder how they came to be chosen for such a message, given that they had not put their name on the WiR project page. A link to a brief explanation would probably be in order for such cases. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - I'll keep it in mind for next year. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Johnuniq. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ELN discussion

Hi Johnuniq. Re: [2], I've withdrawn my response, hoping you might consider removing your comments on editors and past disputes. I think it would be best simply to state, "The current article has three external links: album, trailer, festival. I support keeping each of them and closing the above discussion about other links." I hope you'll consider doing so. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not me who has been pursuing a good editor for six years, all over a handful of external links. As I have explained, it is fine to battle POV pushers and spammers. However, using the same zeal against people who build good content is very unhelpful. Why is it so important to win every battle when the issues concern a difference of opinion over whether a guideline (WP:EL) is satisfied? Not all problems need to be solved right now, and not all problems warrant attrition warfare. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you feel it appropriate to respond in such a manner.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with all your points, and see this as a personal attack on me to discourage my work to improve Wikipedia, and disruptive to proper dispute resolution and consensus-building. How do we resolve this? --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It is possible to be unhelpful while ticking every box at WP:CIVIL. Improving Wikipedia can become an in-the-eye-of-the-beholder thing when enforcing guidelines. Reducing the number of possibly doubtful external links is desirable, but the circumstances of the current case require more thought. If you find my infrequent comments a discouragement for your work to improve Wikipedia, how do you think the editors who have been developing the articles in question feel? Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be withdrawing your claims from the ELN discussion in the manner I suggested. Thank you. Could you please refactor the comment accordingly? --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not withdrawn from WP:ELN. I look at its activity every now and then but have not seen a need to comment further, yet. For the record, my single comment can be seen just above permalink. Two responses were made, but their authors removed them. Why should I refactor? Does my comment give a mistaken impression? I am totally perplexed why you have not acknowledged any value in any of my comments. Even something like "I see what you mean but if a couple of editors have to be driven off Wikipedia, that's a price that has to be paid to enforce WP:EL" would show that you have read my comments. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be withdrawing your claims against me. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

I don't want to be berating to you or anyone else, nor drive off editors that are able to make good faith efforts to learn and follow our policies.

I realize the following is somewhat berating. I've rewritten it four times now. I hope that's enough:

Why should you refactor? Refactor to demonstrate that you do not want editors to berate others. Refactor to demonstrate you don't want disputes disrupted with personal conflicts or long-held grudges. Refactor to demonstrate that you want everyone to work collaboratively with others, no matter which policies and aspects of editing Wikipedia they focus upon. Refactor to demonstrate that you respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not withdrawing any claims regarding your activity. The second sentence above implies that you would be happy to drive off editors who, according to you, are not learning and following policies. Damaging rationalizations like that need to be opposed. WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. Battles should be reserved for BLP, legal or copyright issues, and for resisting POV pushing and spam. Battling a good editor over a handful of external links is not helpful for the encyclopedia.

Why not let the matter go? You know there are plenty of other articles with an excess of external links, and an unceasing river of spammers who are not developing articles but who are instead using Wikipedia to promote an entity. Focus on them.

I do not appreciate the suggestion that I fail to respect P&G. I respect the written words, but more importantly, I respect their spirit which is that we should do more of the things that help the encyclopedia and fewer of the things that don't.

If you had written the articles in question, you would not have included the links. However, you (like me) are not developing articles, and drive-by pestering of those who write core encyclopedic content is very unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to be done with this latest attack from you, and would hope you could refrain from them in the future. So I ask again, how do we resolve this? --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolution is simple—we both drop the matter. As you know, WP:ANI would be an alternative, but I'm not sure it would help because the issues are more subtle than ANI's usual fare. Before saying I have attacked someone, please review Newyorkbrad's comments at 2011 archive. Perhaps I have a good-faith concern that is shared by at least one other editor? Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're far beyond working it out between ourselves, as your response is just a continuation of your behavior. --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks K.e.coffman and seasons greetings! Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"tis the season...."

Hello Johnuniq: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 20:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thanks Buster7! Seasons greetings. Johnuniq (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding poorly sourced content

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sea lioning, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 2C0F:F930:0:3:0:0:0:221 (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Beautifully played! Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Needs more politeness. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 04:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we should all have a civil conversation. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Most recent

Hello. Can you change w:el:Module:FIFARanking to show the most recent man and the most recent min (according to P585), and not the first one min or man that appear in the property? Xaris333 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This relates to WT:Lua#Module help which led to me adding code to el:Module:FIFARankingMin. However that module now shows as being unused. Sorry, but I have to ration what projects I take on and I cannot spend any more time on that. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The modules in not unused [3] but thanks anyway. Xaris333 (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hi John, wishing you all the best for Christmas and New Year. Thank you so much for your help and advice this year, particularly the invaluable technical help, including your kindness in fixing my user page. Best wishes, SarahSV ^(talk) 01:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks SarahSV! You are too generous. Any small help I have provided for someone who does such great work building the encyclopedia has been my pleasure. Seasons greetings! Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thanks, that's beautiful! Dickens knew how to write a hook, and it inspired me to re-read a lot more from the original. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

That is wonderful J. I am so glad that you were inspired by this card. I think there are so many versions of the story out there that some people may have never read the original :-) They are missing a real treat. Another favorite passage is this one from Stave three "If you should happen, by any unlikely chance, to know a man more blest in a laugh than Scrooge’s nephew, all I can say is, I should like to know him too. Introduce him to me, and I’ll cultivate his acquaintance." Best wishes for your 2018!!! MarnetteD|Talk 02:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)