User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 16

Jagged 85
Just thought I'd let you know I'm still working on this. It's kinda horrendous isn't it! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Yes, I noticed because I have the cleanup pages on my watchlist. Thanks for getting involved, it sure needs TLC! I also noticed that Physics in medieval Islam is getting a lot edits, clearly by students in some course. I haven't looked at what they are doing in detail, but it's an awkward area because naturally anyone working on such an article for a course is going to try hard to find stimulating stuff for inclusion, whereas the article probably needs a skeptic to study the sources and determine which are reliable historical accounts and which are boosterism. I would like to do something concrete to help but it's not my area and I'm busy elsewhere. Let me know if you encounter any special problems. Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have developed an analysis tool (still rather crude) an example output is here. Let me know if you want it run on any specific pages. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Wow, that's impressive. I originally hoped to do something like that, but the page I started on had such an enormous number of changes that all I ended up with was a quagmire. I did a cut-down version which simply noted the refs that Jagged had added and which remained in the article, but even that was hard to use or make sense of. I might post a link to this discussion at the page discussing the issue in case anyone is still watching it and available. There is the awkward issue concerning why you put this on meta—the situation is pretty bizarre, but it might be better to let the dogs sleep so perhaps we shouldn't say much for a couple of months. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What did you mean by your comment?
It appeared to me that you were erroneously suggesting that my trouting of Drmies for his conduct was motivated by some content dispute position; did I understand your comment correctly? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are proposing yet more talking concerning whether an article should be titled Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), then I would say that my comment was not fully understood. If discussing an underlying issue is not warranted, a discussion about the discussion is worth even less. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. No, I am not proposing that; my comment to Drmies was solely in relation to reverts - including rollback use. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library Coordinator Profile
Hi John!

Would you create a profile at TWL/Coordinators?

Hope you're well, Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 14:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think that's needed? I'm in a different category from the others who are making themselves available to help editors—I'm just fiddling with code. By the way I have been meaning to ask you about Cochrane. Is it still wanted? Did you get any info on how to identify an onlinelibrary.wiley.com URL as being for Cochrane? If there is nothing, I will try my brute-force plan which is to get a list of all such links in articles now, then download each page (a bit over 6000 hits at wiley.com) and search for some magic text—if present, mark the URL as for the Cochrane Library in a local database. The magic text could be just "Cochrane", or possibly "Cochrane Library" or "The Cochrane Collaboration". Then I could examine the external links dumps for each month and would know which wiley links are for Cochrane. Problem: per discussion at Zad68's talk (archived) there are other ways of referring to Cochrane without using a wiley URL. I don't know what to do about that. Another problem is that even if I read the 6000 pages from wiley fairly slowly, they may have some system to cut me off after a hundred pages or so. I would just have to try it and see. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . Hi John, it's up to you.  It's not needed but I thought it was nice to have profiles for the really key people who are working on the library.  If you're not into it, don't worry about it.  It was half just so you'd get recognition for the work you're doing, and half to give some sense of people for this project--that it runs because of volunteer help and not by magic.
 * Unfortnately I'm still stalled on Cochrane because they don't have a url sorting scheme yet. Because this is really Cochrane's identifier issue, and they are already on board with us, I think we can wait until they figure something out on their end.  Thank you for thinking about how to solve the problem though; it's awesome.  --Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 16:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Nazis
User:Hoops gza, whom you may recall tried to unilaterally expand the scope of List of Nazis several weeks ago, has resumed adding Nazi-resister August Landmesser to it, and adding him to category:Nazis, contrary to consensus. I have attempted to engage him, but he simply denied the previous discussion took place and has since ignored me, except to revert every revert I make. I've reported the problem on the admin noticeboards for general incidents and edit warring, but perhaps because I'm the only person expressing concern, I've received no help there. Would you mind adding your thoughts? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * August Landmesser wasn't merely a "Nazi resister". He was a Nazi Party member.  Ergo, he was a Nazi.Hoops gza (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jason A. Quest: I'm glad that there was a response at ANI and a block occurred. I commented there, and please let me know if this flares up again. I removed the user name from the heading as that is probably not advisable unless somewhere like ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your participation. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Working at zhwiki has been very interesting. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

CF
The IP reverted archiving of talk:Cold fusion again. I think they are the same person as user:Aqm2241, who refers to it as "our article". Guy (Help!) 12:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought, Guy, and thought of asking a checkuser, but I'm hesitating because I think it's quite noticeable that Aqm2241 writes better than the IP. That could be a diabolical ruse, I suppose, but such wouldn't be my first assumption. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Yes, I saw the continuation, but I thought I would leave the next step for someone else (a combination of laziness and timidity). Did you see this edit (which I reverted)!? Am I am getting jaded or is the level of cluelessness going up? Johnuniq (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe both? Anyway, Aqm2241 is clueless about using Wikipedia, but anybody can be that. It's permitted, so to speak. As far as repetitious idiocy, illogic and IDHT, the crown goes to the IP. Just look at them on my page. That's why I think they're likely separate people. But I've been wrong about socking before, in fact nothing's more common than me being wrong about among other things socking. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Never Noticed Long Ago Comments on Self-Promotional Biography
You made a number of very valid comments/suggestions/questions when I posted a lengthy rebuttal of the biography of Leuren Moret back in late 2010. I never noticed them until now, over three years later. They are still relevant today because colleagues of Moret's like Christopher Charles Busby, still have self-promotional Wikipedia bios and I believe that Moret's is still there as well despite its being proposed for deletion. I would like to briefly correspond with you on this - directly if possible, but here if that is not possible. Thank you, very much. DUStory dash owner at yahoo groups dot com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhotel1 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Some links:
 * BLPN archive • my comments in December 2010
 * Leuren Moret • article which was deleted December 2013 and again in March 2014
 * AfD • discussion that led to the December 2013 deletion
 * User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret • userfied article for Bachcell—a copy of the deleted article for consideration in making a new article
 * In general editors like to keep discussion on-wiki and are reluctant to use email. However, if the email address in Special:Preferences works, you would be able to send an email using "Email this user" in the sidebar on some user talk pages. You probably would not get a reply by email because it is extremely unusual for an email discussion to be helpful for work on Wikipedia.
 * What kind of discussion are you looking for? Editors are often pragmatic and want to know what outcome is sought. Is there some text in an article that should be fixed or removed or added? Is there some other problem related to Wikipedia?
 * You might like to see WP:TP for information on signing comments with four tildes. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Jagged 85 - channelling through Granitethighs
In this edit, introduces a huge amount  of text, including uncredited text by Jagged 85.

"al-Dinawari described more than 637 plant drugs in the 9th century, Ibn al-'Awwam described 585 microbiological cultures (55 of which concern fruit trees) in the 12th century, and Ibn al-Baitar described more than 1,400 different plants, foods and drugs, over 300 of which were his own original discoveries, in the 13th century. "

(I like how Boulanger's article has become "Boulanger, vol. 3".)  The rest of the addition does not seem inherently bad on its face, but it is almost certainly  mash-up copyvio - and I don't know from where. I will remove the Jaggedism, but I'm wondering if we should simply go back to before the massive insertion. Maybe GT will pop in and comment, but he only has one edit in the last 6 months or so.

What do you think?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Yes, that has to be largely Jagged's text, although I can't find the source. Jagged often reused stuff, so there could be several articles which had similar text at some time. In this edit to Herbalism (8 September 2008), Jagged added a precursor of some of the text, including "described more than 637 plant drugs". My guess is that G found various articles and copied text that probably originated from J (probably mainly from the "further information" linked articles). According to Talk:Herbal, G developed the text in User:Granitethighs/Sandbox3, but I don't see any clues from that.
 * What to do? Many of the sources would need several hours each to check. On the plus side, the text seems free from boosterism, and has a reasonable chance of being correct (herbalism has been studied for centuries). I guess I wouldn't want to just revert the lot, although WP:CWW might justify it. I see you are hard at it, and I hope you will just follow your instinct. I'll watch, but am unlikely to be any help. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup bot for template:Convert
I wonder if there is any bot for cleaning up obsoleted parameters of the old convert template like chnaging "link" to "lk". Right now there are over 300 articles tagged with the invalid message category, I fear the number will grow higher. This is so time consuming to be done manually. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed that half an hour ago! There is no bot for cleaning convert templates. Normally WP:AWB would be used for that kind of work. I did some here, and I asked for someone to do a similar task at commons, and as seen in these [//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Leyo?offset=20131214 contribs] someone used a script to do it. As a quick workaround, I edited zh:Module:Convert/text to allow "link=on". A more extreme workaround would be to remove "|warnings=1" from the template, but it would probably be better to just fix the problems. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Sameboat - 同舟: By the way, it will probably take a long time for the category to update to remove the warnings about "link=on". It is possible to purge several pages in one operation by using a URL like the following; replace "AAA" and "BBB" and "CCC" with article titles:
 * Lots more titles can be used; I do not know what the limit is. It's easier to wait. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand wiki software takes time to update such change. I used your URL and changed the title to the category page but I got this message:
 * I understand wiki software takes time to update such change. I used your URL and changed the title to the category page but I got this message:

You are looking at the HTML representation of the XML format. HTML is good for debugging, but is unsuitable for application use. Specify the format parameter to change the output format. To see the non HTML representation of the XML format, set format=xml.
 * -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have to use article titles. Following is an example. I pulled these names from the category, and clicking the link would purge them from the category if their problem is due to "link=on":
 * https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=purge&forcelinkupdate=1&titles=大古力水坝|大帽山|大東山|大牛湖頂|大老山|大蚊山|大金鐘|大鏟島|大風坳_(畢拿山)
 * Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Some article titles removed from the category, some doesn't because there are other issues like "abbr=s". I will wait for more than 24 hours and check again. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed an article with abbr=s. Perhaps they meant disp=s (which uses a slash to separate the input and output)? Using a slash is not often wanted here, but if it is suitable at zhwiki, I suggest you change them. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be judged case by case, but I would say it's undesirable in zh.wp too due to ambiguity with fraction/division. Actually last night I just removed "link=on" from most articles instead of replacing with "lk=on" due to overlinking. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Convert/TonCwt to t
Hello John, I placed a new section at Template talk:Convert/TonCwt to t. I hope that it is the right place to continue the discussion. If not, tell me there what is the right place or else at Template talk:Convert. Peter Horn User talk 12:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, I put a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Peter Horn User talk 12:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest sticking to the template and/or wikiproject talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to be going well. Good work! Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! That was the first real-world test for Module:Convert, and was most interesting. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering
-- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I replied. By the way, it's probably better to use ping rather than talkback. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Your threat on my talk page
As a formality, please note my reply to your post: Johnuniq, do you think any neutral observer would look at your activity on this article and describe it as "working collaboratively to reach consensus"? To me that sounds more like what I am doing. You closed your threat post to me by summarizing my editing record on the article and asking "What progress has resulted?" May I ask the same of your editing record?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not an un-involved editor, such as described in your warning. You are passionately involved, going back before I came to look at this article.
 * Your suggestion that my work on the article has led to no changes or useful discussions is contradicted (in my opinion) by the facts. In your favor, I understand that you are not really interested in the details.
 * Honestly, your recitation of recent talk page discussions is distorted beyond recognition. For example:
 * You say I refused to answer your demand for a specific example of a problem, but surely you know very well that:
 * Your questions were in answer to questions from me, and simply an attempt by you to deflect from the topic I raised in that section.
 * My questions were clearly intended to set ground for more detailed discussion if possible, by getting rationales on record as a starting point. This is a normal mode of moderating a difficult discussion.
 * My concerns about apparent original research, and everything about my mode of discussion, had all been clearly stated and explained. I try to work transparently.
 * While I have said the clusters of footnotes definitely look like OR, I also said that the style of the footnotes is hard to track and verify and discuss. I pointed out several times that difficultly in verification is itself a bad thing, and that in itself should be fixed even if there proves to be no OR. Even if the cluster footnotes are just sloppy accretions, not OR, it is odd that you are so aggressively opposed to this aim and notable that you are clearly angry about me asking you to explain why.
 * Note: I was also transparent about wanting to use a working assumption that there MIGHT be a reason that the apparent OR is a misunderstanding. There is nothing bad about that?
 * Despite what you say about me refusing to make concrete proposals (which I would be very much within my rights to do) I have in fact started a new section, starting with the sourcing of the first sentence, and trying to work as best as possible. So that accusation is objectively wrong.
 * I am not sure what accusation you are trying to make by linking to the post of Dave souza. I presume you are trying to say that I was somehow being dishonest because my question about the footnotes was really a sneaky way to specifically question the new opening sentence? But I do not see how that accusation works. I have noted also in the past that the poor footnote style, which makes verification difficult, also makes any discussion of any version of the lead difficult, including this new opening sentence. Again, I try to make my thinking are as transparent as possible.
 * Trying to discuss the format and style of the lead is an effort to fix one cause of repeated circular discussions. My reason for asking people for rationales is that I am trying to "work collaboratively to reach consensus" like you mention. This is absolutely normal, and others should do the same. Forcing all discussions towards straw polls does not achieve this, and you and the others who keep demanding this should stop, IMHO.
 * I have responded on your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Improper Behavior
Johnuniq, I was speaking with Spinningspark about the inline audio being used in the morse code page on the village pump  and you entered the discussion for no other reason than to make an ad hom about my signature. That was disruptive, if you have  problem with my signature drop a note off on my page, or if you really feel strongly about it, put a note on ANI, but don't disrupt a discussion on something else to do that. Yes, your text is still there, I didn't remove it or archive it in any fashion, I'm hoping you'll do that on your own. Thanks KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj  '' 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see that you are concerned about my remark (which is at this VPT permalink), and I'm sorry if I have caused offense. However, may I suggest that anyone with a prominent signature should accept that others will occasionally comment about it. In an ideal world, we would have commented elsewhere, but people have different sensitivities and I don't think my comment was particularly inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of "e.g." on convergent evolution
The Manual of Style you cited says "While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently." My changes made the use of commas after "e.g." consistent throughout the article on convergent evolution. As reflected in my edits, my preference is the American convention, but either way is fine as long as it's consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhartl (talk • contribs) 03:47, 19 May 2014
 * This relates to a comma at Convergent evolution. Issues relating to articles should be discussed at the article talk page so other editors can participate, and so there is a record of the discussion that is easily accessible to other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for being nice to a newbie at User talk:RedZay7.

Bearian (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 
 * Ummm, how I going to be able to bully people with that on my talk!?? Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Richard Hoagland RfC
I noticed you've edited the page before. Please chime in on a critical question. Talk:Richard C. Hoagland/Archive 3 Thanks!!! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've commented and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

BLPN
Your input at the Michael Wines section of WP:BLPN would be appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I missed the action, but have commented, and am watching the articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel ( talk ) 22:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Dawkins and fairy tales
I would challenge your reversion of the "Dawkins' fairytale furore". I agree that it may not be the most significant event in his life nor his most important pronouncement, however mentioning the event does have value. It indicates that a) the press may misreport Dawkins b) The man may not always express himself very clearly when addressing the public c) Dawkins believes the press misreport him. Small, but important factors for the biography of a man who has a complicated and contentious public persona.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please post this on the article talk page. That allows others to see the discussion and perhaps join in. Also, keeping such discussion on the article talk is useful for the future when others may want to investigate an issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Dick Smith
Just because you don't have a grasp on the implication of Mr. Smith's comments to the Australian aviation industry, in no way makes the it an "incident of the day" or not noteworthy. It was considered important enough to require a press release from the Chief of the Air Force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbcooper241171 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising the matter at the article talk page (Talk:Dick Smith (entrepreneur)). It's best for all comments to be there. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Soccer vs Football again
That IP editor you reverted at Soccer in Australia is edit warring over the same issue at Melbourne City FC. I have used edit summaries and posted on his talk page to try to explain, all to no avail. Absolutely no response nor edit summaries from him. Can you help there too please, so that I don't get too near 3RR? HiLo48 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone has done that. I saw the IP's edit at the time but I was reluctant to revert given the name ("Melbourne City Football Club"), and I'd have to know rather more about the subject. I see in the history that you used an edit summary linking to the RfC and I'm going to record some text I might use next time I see an edit like that:
 * name is "soccer" per WT:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)
 * I'm watching a couple of them; please let me know if it flares up somewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That last RfC was exhaustive. the goal was to come up with a definitive, long term position that we could refer to for just that sort of situation. I have that link saved on my User page too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Poltergeist, Dermo-optical perception and Psychokinesis
Hello,

First of all english is not my first language so I have some difficulties understanding your remarks.

For the poltergeist page you removed my revision and say "inappropriate wording/sources to suggest some reality" What do you mean is how I wrote the observation section? If so I am ready to change word and remove one source who is not scientifical, however I don't know why you removed well sourced works of Brovetto, Persinger and David Turner (I didn't added him). Maybe the problem is the case of Brovetto because it may sounds strange his idea of brain transformation being the cause of poltergeist, however his works is on arxiv and he looks to be a respectable physicist but if you want I will put the idea of Brovetto in the paranormal section. I would also want to separate paranormal view on poltergeist from religious view and spiritualist view like it was done in the french version.

Dermo-optical perception here I understand your remarks but I don't agree with your definition of pseudoscience. You have said ""The effect has not been proven scientifically" + "Eastern scientists always showed this effect" = pseudoscience". However according to the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience it should reflect mainstream scientifical consensus + it should come from non-biased scientifical encyclopedia. Dermo-optical perception don't belong either on the list of topic characterized as pseudo-science and it is not obvious pseudo-science or generally considered pseudoscience but it is a questionable science so not pseudoscience. About the assertion that "the effect has not been proven scientifically" well it was at least proven with the study of Larner (2006) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16887762 and the study of Brugger et Weiss (2008) + as you have said eastern scientist like chinese and japanese so I don't see a problem here. NO mainstream scientifical source claim that Dermo-optical perception is pseudoscience. Only skeptical source like skeptical enquirer or Randi's center. So according to wikipedia rules this is not pseudoscientific. It was the same thing with ball lightning when until recently all skeptic called that pseudoscience altough scientist didn't agree. I will not edit immidiatly but I will ask the Arbitration Committee about our disagrement.

Psychokinesis Well I don't claimed that he was right, I just wanted to add the experience of Remy Chauvin but if you want I will add that this experiment wasn't repeated. Also I don't understand the red flag since I give 2 different sources for remy chauvin experiment but there is also one that I will add.Thundergodz (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the talk page of the article (for example, Talk:Poltergeist). Also, see WP:FRINGE because Wikipedia is not available to spread the good word about how thoughts can move objects and do other amazing things, except when anybody is watching. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate username
Thanks for posting on WP:UAA about Obama attack username - you beat me to it. Tvoz / talk 23:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the shortcut (WP:UAA)! I had forgotten that and tried various things before going the long way round to find the right page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Johnuniq/sandbox2
Do you just want me to move it to my userspace? I'm hopeful someone at the US cities or general geography wikiprojects will make a comment at the RfC and others can work on it but if not, I can at least work on cutting it into pieces and perhaps getting it botted in parts since the data is stored by state. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While preparing the data I got a discrepancy in the counts that puzzled me. I ignored it as it was only 5 out of 37,771, but I have now worked out what happened. It does not matter, but the following articles are in the list but have no templates after them:
 * Ashoknagar, North 24 Parganas
 * Bishnupur, South 24 Parganas
 * Dhakuria, North 24 Parganas
 * Hanuman Mandir 82 RB
 * Thokur-62
 * That was just a glitch in my processing of the data. If you copy the list, you should omit the five lines listed above (they have GR templates, but not the ones of interest).
 * If you can specify a procedure for me to follow (sort all lines by state?), I can do that in my sandbox. I would do that by assuming that all text after the first comma and up to the first left brace is the state name, and would sort by that text.
 * If you want to work in my sandbox for a while, that's fine. If I want to do something, I'll do it on another page. Or, if you want to copy it (not move because that would lose my old revisions), that's fine too. Theoretically, you should use an edit summary like the following:
 * By the way, I had a massive amount of trouble saving the list. Originally I included all the GR templates for each found article, but that gave an error after a long delay (the error said I was saving more than 2000KB). I then removed the templates that were not of interest, but when I tried to save that it gave a different doomsday error message about the servers having a problem. I tried a couple of times without realizing that it had saved the page despite the message. So, if you copy all the list to one page, you might get a bad error message. Nevertheless, the page might have saved ok. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we split it into subpages (A-G, H-K, L-O, P-Z) I'm just guessing? Even one by letter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, they do seem to have the India template (see the markup at Ashoknagar,_North_24_Parganas, Bishnupur,_South_24_Parganas) so something is off. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify:
 * Ashoknagar, North 24 Parganas has only ; it does not have the "2" or "R2" parameters that were the target of the search.
 * I could split it into four roughly equal-sized pages, but before doing anything it is desirable to work out the purpose. What is going to happen?
 * If split into subpages, my userspace is not the best place. What titles should I use?
 * Is any sorting wanted?
 * If you just want to split it, perhaps the simplest is for you to do it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you just want to split it, perhaps the simplest is for you to do it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

All reverted and moved back. I'm not sure why though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved to User:Ricky81682/sandbox/GR and split. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess. To save me wondering in the future, I'll note that Template talk:Convert/Archive January 2014 is the only link to my departed sandbox2 (for a demo of makeunits). Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with me! I'll have a look later, but meanwhile you probably have whatever you need? Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Accidentally undid without comment your undo (OSPF)
I'm new at Wikipedia editing, so please bare with me, and let me know if I'm breaking any protocols. I was going to undo do your undo adding a comment explaining why, but I accidentally saved without comment.

The comment I was going to add is this: The not-so-stubby area had already been introduced and is not a proprietary extension (it has an RFC). The two proprietary extensions discussed further below, and introduced by the sentence I edited, are Totally stubby area and NSSA totally stubby area. So I feel my edit is appropriate. Do you agree?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackpick (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, although I'll have to think about the issue because when I last examined OSPF, "NSSA" was simply "not-so-stubby area" per RFC 3101. I'm busy elsewhere at the moment but may have some time to contemplate your edit later. By the way, please do not embed external links in articles—there are a couple of guidelines about that, one is WP:EL. That page is rather vague, but essentially it is standard procedure to put any relevant external links in a section at the end. In case you are not aware, there were a couple of spammers who found ways to add links to visualland.net in articles some months ago—pages would be overrun with external links if that were permitted. Let's have any further discussion at the article talk page (Talk:Open Shortest Path First). Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, although I'll have to think about the issue because when I last examined OSPF, "NSSA" was simply "not-so-stubby area" per RFC 3101. I'm busy elsewhere at the moment but may have some time to contemplate your edit later. By the way, please do not embed external links in articles—there are a couple of guidelines about that, one is WP:EL. That page is rather vague, but essentially it is standard procedure to put any relevant external links in a section at the end. In case you are not aware, there were a couple of spammers who found ways to add links to visualland.net in articles some months ago—pages would be overrun with external links if that were permitted. Let's have any further discussion at the article talk page (Talk:Open Shortest Path First). Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Thanks for the tips you posted on my talk page. Will continue discussion on the OSPF talk page. Trackpick (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just following up here with a question since it's not about OSPF content. I'm a little confused about the proper way to add a link for a citation. I was looking for an example to copy on the OSPF page itself, but all the citations I checked out seem to be using embedded links. I want to double check with you that for citations it's not OK to embed the link. I'm probably missing something. Can you help me along? Thanks. Trackpick (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * References are about the hardest part of Wikipedia (apart from putting up with POV pushers). The official guide is at WP:REF, and the getting started guide is WP:REFSTART. While I'm at it, the people at WP:HELPDESK will often provide a good answer to a specific question. However, the simplest is to just put everything you know about the reference between ref tags, and let someone else figure it out. Many people just put something like this:
 * That's known as a "bare URL" reference, but it is acceptable. What we do not want is the external link clickable from within the body of the article—the fact that it's visible and clickable in the references section is fine. Spammers sometimes use this procedure to put their links in references, and there is no guarantee that anything will remain in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's known as a "bare URL" reference, but it is acceptable. What we do not want is the external link clickable from within the body of the article—the fact that it's visible and clickable in the references section is fine. Spammers sometimes use this procedure to put their links in references, and there is no guarantee that anything will remain in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you really interested in talk or are you interested in reverting
Because the last message I wrote I said I agreed with you and got no response IIRC. So my question is do you want to act in good faith? Lulaq (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than join the discussion at Talk:State Bar of Texas, you post User talk:Famspear and ask here if I want to act in good faith (as if I'm acting in bad faith). User talk pages should not be used for things like that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I took your suggestions that you posted on my talk page and stripped down most of my original contributions, only to have you have me on your watch list with the purpose of reverting ANY edit I make now. That is kind of frustrating, especially when I initially took your advice. Lulaq (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look at your talk page you will see that I posted a comment on 20 June 2013 and again a year later at 19 June 2014. In both cases it was because an issue had been raised at a noticeboard, and I am watching the article because I saw it raised at a noticeboard. Please discuss article issues at its talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're stalking me now? Lovely. Lulaq (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that you're watching an article, but it doesn't sound as if you want to refine the article. It sounds as if you're picking a fight.  I initially did not believe this, since I appreciated you correcting me actually, and had no idea you posted a note to me in 2013 until now. Lulaq (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Vam
I hope you don't mind if I respond to your comments here as I don't want to spam that board any further. Were you able to look at the sources I provided which discuss sexual and gender-based violence against men? And the sources that call the sex-selective massacre of men gender-based violence? I feel like people think these categories are invented but they're not, they and their contents are based on academic research into violence against males, esp of non-combatants during times of conflict - so the claim that gender has nothing to do with it isn't borne out by research nor would the sources I quoted agree with you. I respect you as an editor and am writing to ask of you might reconsider your vote or what would make you reconsider. Thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know when a discussion may be productive, and when not. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

SPI
Dude. You TOTALLY misunderstood what I said. I said i made the account DavidJac123, to be part of the debate, instead of using my IP. I did not say I am Akuri - cause i am not. You misunderstood what i said lol. Just wanted to correct the misunderstanding before everything goes too wild. Anyway I am sorry :) DavidJac123 (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TP for information on how talk pages are edited.
 * I added an explanation at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/101.0.94.173. The situation is very confusing with many different IP addresses and hard-to-follow statements. Please put any further comments at the Sockpuppet page. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI
As Echo will already have told you, I mentioned your name at ANI. Thanks for your comments there. (no reply needed to this) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

HMS Boxer (1812)
Good catch and you are almost surely correct. However, I am away from my Winfield and will be for another week or so. When I can get access to it I will check the data and correct as necessary. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For my reference, this refers to my comment here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I have brought the measurements into conformity with Winfield. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Conversion data help (isp)
Hi! I notice you seem reasonably comfortable with the process of updating the convert module conversion data, and wonder if you could provide some guidance/help on an issue? It's related to a measure of rocket engines best known as "specific impulse" but commonly stated as "Isp". In SI units this would be "newton-seconds per kilogram", Ns/kg. But for several very good reasons almost everyone in rocketry instead multiplies that value by the constant standard gravity (9.80665 m/s2) and reports Isp in units of seconds. So what we think is the right thing for wikipedia is to have a conversion that lets users specify it in seconds and then auto-convert that to Ns/kg. Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight.

Sorry to be so long-winded providing background, but while I believe I might be able to perform the correct edits to Module:Convert/documentation/conversion data/doc that would fix what's wrong there and give editors what they could/would use, I'm hesitant because that kind of boldness does sometimes look to those more experienced in such things as recklessness! Anyway the other editor participating in the WikiProject talk page discussion is something of a subject matter expert, and certainly more fluent in lua than I. Maybe you could join the discussion there? Thanks in advance for whatever help you can provide! (sdsds - talk) 04:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I put some information at WT:WikiProject Spaceflight and will watch for responses. If I fail to notice anything, please ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Credo
Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

FGM
Hi John, I'm thinking of taking FGM to FAC at some point, either later this year or early next. Not promising, but I'm considering it. To prepare for that, I'm going to submit the article for peer review, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to help review it. It needn't be a review of the whole article; even just a section review would be very helpful to spot any potential problems.

I did open a peer-review page yesterday, but then closed it because I realized I'll need JSTOR access, which I've lost temporarily. The plan is to re-open the review soon-ish, and then I would ping you, if you're willing. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Lead on, I'll be somewhere behind you! I won't be able to do much but I'll do something (I'm watching). Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! At the moment I'm just going through the medical sources checking the text against the articles, etc. I posted a request on WP:RX, and Zero has sent me some of the ones I didn't have. I find it a really difficult article to work on, because I keep having to change gear – medicine to history to ancient history, etc. So really I just need people to look to see if there are problems, any dodgy writing, poor structure, poor sources, anything I've missed. No rush. We can make it take as long as we need. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Adjustment of links when page archived
Hi Johnuniq; remember this? Based on my advice, made ; and because I wasn't 100% certain, I made a. ClueBot III has now [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ClueBot_III?offset=20140728170000&limit=7 archived that thread], and so those two links in user space have been freshened to suit.

You may have noted that the archiving happened after 14 days, not 7 as I had stated: this is because I failed to read the archiving configuation at the top, and assumed that it was the same as VPT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. There are 3,795 pages that link to Village pump (miscellaneous), so every time ClueBot archives the latter, it has to read and possibly adjust the 3,795 pages. Wow. Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)