User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 17

Notification experiments
A recent addition to WP:Notifications has left me confused about what causes a notification. I'm hoping my target won't mind posting "I got a notification" if each of the following experiments causes a notification. We all know #1 works (if certain conditions are met), but I had not heard about #2 or #3. Let's try Special:Contributions/Bishonen. Will that rouse Sleeping Beauty? Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't think so. Where it mentions "user talk page, or contributions page", that is in the context of your own signature, not the person that you are notifying. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Of course—I read that entirely wrongly after concentrating on the "Links to mentioned users' pages can be embedded in templates" (so "user's page" refers to the sender (signature) in the first mention, and the target in the second mention). Thanks for pointing that out. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

West Island (South Australia)
Hi Johnuniq, You recently edited West Island (South Australia) and reinstated the link to Encounter Bay in the Infobox. I undone this edit because West Island ceased to be within Encounter Bay as of 15 February 2006 according to Australian authorities (including the South Australian government). I have placed an explanation in the West Island TALK Page about the background to this matter. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I commented there. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

consistency
Your opinion please, on how User talk:Robert McClenon/DN does or doesn't qualify WP:UP, does or doesn't benefit the project. Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess this relates to my "delete" vote at an MfD. The page you mention is another that I would vote "delete" on although it is interesting that it has not been edited since December 2005. It's still a polemic and unhelpful to the community IMHO, but anyone proposing its deletion should first discuss it with the author, and should perhaps wait a long while before doing that. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * anyone proposing its deletion should first discuss it with the author. Gosh, no one discussed my user subpage w/ me before MfD. and wait a long while before doing that. Why? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know the background—all I recall is that there was a disagreement somewhere. I am not wanting a reminder because the background is unimportant as it really doesn't matter what provocations were involved. That's the bitter truth about this community—we each have to swallow irritations without letting them fester, and we won't get much practical assistance from others. My above comment is just a suggestion about what might give a good outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simone Rochfort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Mary's Primary School. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page
Hi Johnuniq,

I noticed that you removed a note from user Tarc, I believe and mentioned not feeding the trolls. I restored the comment. Did you consider this trolling? I won't re add it again if you remove it. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I may be revealing my ugly habits by saying that anyone who regularly follows Jimbo's talk knows that a very long term and very banned user repeatedly posts extremely lame gotcha comments there in an attempt to get Jimbo to say something inflamatory which can be amplified in any media outlets that need a quick story. The comment I removed is part of that saga—it's current author is exercising their FREESPEECH by restoring the trolling after multiple editors have removed it. According to a notification I received, it's at WP:ANI. It is widely known that WP:DENY is Wikipedia's only defense against long term abuse. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I might have acted hastily then, so I apologize. --Malerooster (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just re added it. I am still sorry for this and all involved. Hopefully Jimbo might provide better insight into how his page is handled. I am sure there is lots of trolling and banned users, ect, but I would err on the side of leaving stuff. It can just be ignored and then automatically archieved, can't it? Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The exquisite feature of this trolling is that Jimbo cannot do anything helpful. If he says he wants it removed, the troll can alert media outlets that Jimmy Wales refuses to consider reasonable and good-faith comments from new users who are only trying to understand how an could have occurred, and Wales himself has condoned the removal of such minor criticism! If Jimmy says he does not want it removed, the troll can post forever while expanding threads based on hot air. No media outlet is going to take the time to understand that the comments are extremely lame, and are part of a long-term campaign to attack the no paid advocacy ("brightline") position promoted by Wales and now part of the ToU. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure Jimbo can, umm, "quietly" ask for removal, or just ignore it, or what else?? I am going to assume good faith all around and certainly try not to add to any drama there or at ANI. Maybe posts or threads from his talk page could be "moved" to a different place, ie village pump, or clearing page, or complaints page, ect for discussion or inspection or whatever you want to call it. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Jimbo has quietly asked a couple of editors to remove the poking? A central RfC (not on Jimbo's talk!) would resolve the issue, but I don't want to end up at WP:LAME so I might not get involved in debating the obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Malerooster (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

regarding your Notification about palestine
Dear Johnuniq, I have a few questions regarding the "Notification" you wrote to me. I see that the user Kingsindian was complaining about my contributions to few Wikipeida pages, including "History of Palestine". First, I was on the impression that Wikipedia are welcoming editors' contributions to all pages, please correct me if I'm wrong. only certain people are allowed to improve pages? Second, regarding the page "History of Palestine": my contributions were meant to improve the page, which I found to be lacking important facts and presenting half-truth details. Why was it wrong to bring new references and facts that will benefit the readers of this page? Third, has anyone read the new additions i wanted to contribute to this page? I think you will find them factual, objective and worthwhile to have. Definitely not "damaging", but rather helping. Lastly, I ask to continue and try to improve this page and others, and be part of the Wikipedia community. Thank you.Litalbn1 (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are aware that P–I (Palestine and Israel) topics are highly contentious with thousands of deaths in real life and virtual battles over the on the Internet. Accordingly, it is standard for each new editor to be notified of the obvious fact that there are special requirements for editing in the area. There is no need to impress me with your good faith—I was just lurking at WP:ANI and am able to interpret edits. Your first edit made your position clear, and other edits such as changing Arafat's nationality from Palestinian to Egyptian (diff) confirms it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please clarify your answer to my questions Litalbn1 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I could be clearer, and it seems unlikely that you misunderstand what I have said. An occasional chat with people encountered while editing articles is good, but I prefer more general conversations to be elsewhere because Wikipedia is not a forum. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Was it something I said?
Thanks for the hatting. Never seen a meltdown like that in realtime before. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah ... pretty certain we're looking at a returned user there. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EEng and edit warring. Thank you. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Commented, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at BlackLight Power. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to explain
Gho2t993 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC) previous consensus on talk, What you mean by that?
 * I see you already commented at Talk:Genie (feral child) so I'm not sure why you have commented here. There are only three archive pages at that talk page, and it is not hard to find the discussions I referred to as "previous consensus on talk". By the way, when signing a comment, the signature is placed at the end—on the last line of the comment, add a space then four tilde characters. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

IAC
I'm pulling back from commenting at Talk:India Against Corruption. The editor there has been having problems with other articles also and we're really not making any progress. They're obviously nothing like as new to Wikipedia as their account creation date suggests but I haven't got enough to warrant a report at SPI. I've offered what I think is a fair compromise but they keep deflecting. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * An SPI would have to be entirely on editing similarities. It's been years since Zuggernaut edited, which means they can't be checkusered. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC).
 * Yeah, and the problem is that Hindutva types like Zuggernaut have become emboldened since Modi's victory in the recent elections. I don't think that this is Zuggernaut but it is someone of similar ilk whom I've seen before - I just can't for the life of me place them at the moment. The bolding and the recent reference to the superiority of the Indian education system cf that of the UK etc are the tell-tale things. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense like this (and GamerGate) show the difficult future. If anything comes to mind about an SPI, go for it, but it's not worth discussion as that just highlights our weakness and emboldens them. It would be best to save energy by sticking to one or two posts regarding why material has been reverted, and occasionally monitoring the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can do that if I know that others are watching the article and thus can weigh in regarding consensus etc. I know that now but it often seemed that no-one was watching in the past, hence the numerous ANI reports. There is another one right now. Coincidentally, posted this in another ANI thread yesterday and I thanked them because I agree with the sentiment: it is the only way we're going to deal with certain types of people, given the restrictions of SPI. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the latest at ANI today, I've said before that this is a single person. The give-away is the idiosyncratic use of bolding. Why they are not getting blocked on sight is beyond my comprehension. Note that they're out of date: they claimed to be in communication with Sue Garner at the WMF, who left some months ago. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was my impression. The block did not take long, although an edit filter which could do the job would be even better! Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Our shabby little club
Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. --Neil N  talk to me 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm thinking. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Blenhim Palace
Just wanna thank you for AGF & being polite. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Reduce drama at AN/I
No need to perpetuate the matter at AN/I. Stop responding and the matter will die a quiet death. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks. I responded initially because such cluelessness at ANI needs to be directly challenged, but I don't plan to say more unless third parties raise other points. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one approach, but I rather think the clueless villagers won't be persuaded to put away their pitchforks by having the lairds tell them they're not entitled to an explanation. - Nunh-huh 03:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I see there are two dramas I am very mildly involved with at ANI. Kingsindian is referring to the first (an impossible-to-handle WP:ARBPIA issue), while you are referring to the WP:OTRS problem where an OTRS volunteer took an inappropriate stand. That volunteer is very definitely wrong, but I'm a bit sympathetic because ultimately most silly edit disputes are resolved by bluff and bluster because it is beyond human ability to convince many misguided editors that their POV should not prominently feature in an article, and we can't take every dispute to some noticeboard. The fact that this OTRS volunteer is wrong doesn't require a tar-and-pitchfork remedy—they are very likely to get the message without further escalation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you're right. Though I do believe there has to be some kind of explanation to the great unwashed, and this can't be settled in an OTRS star chamber with handwaving about the need for secrecy. - Nunh-huh 04:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I was referring to the one involving myself. I thought the matter was clear enough, as everyone else who weighed in said. No need to remonstrate with the user at AN/I: that is not a good forum. As I suspected, the matter has died a quiet death. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll let the poor horse be. If others see fit, that is up to them, but I have used enough of my time and that of others. Thanks for input and contributions. I hope all involved can turn their energies towards building content and other more significant improvements to the encyclopedia. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It would seem other editors also see a larger problem and a need for it to be addressed. I tend to agree with them in that when an edit is flagged OTRS I tend not to challenge it. It also seems like many edits also fly under the radar as OTRS agents don't seem to disclose editing on behalf of others on a routine basis. However, as I have said my continued involvement on ANI is done, and at the Pump I am going to constrain myself to basic support/not or simple general comments. I think this has now drawn the attention of editors with greater experience and expertise than my own and, I would like to get back to building the encyclopedia.
 * As a note I have access to Cochrane, BMJ, OUP and Highbeam. If there is something you are looking for research wise drop me a note on my talk page. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that the discussion hardened, and I watch WP:VPP and will occasionally have a look at the RfC. Thanks for the sources offer—noted. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do take me up on the sources offer. I feel I have been granted a wealth of riches by the WP Library and would like to make sure it is used as much as possible. Thanks for your communication and time and attention to the other matters, I am sure you are aware of the discussions at VRT talk. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Danny MacAskill
Hello Johnuniq, You have recently changed some information I contributed to this article and I was wondering whether you could explain further. You said the information I provided was not needed or out of place, but the truth is that the campaign he did for s1jobs was the most successful in YouTube, even on top of the Irn-Bru one. I feel that is relevant to be included. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xosinho (talk • contribs) 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that editing Wikipedia can be a bit rough. One issue is that experienced editors see newcomers arrive daily in order to add external links to articles—links that possibly benefit external entities more than the article. It's a very familiar pattern, and when we see such additions from new users it is natural that the text be removed (see WP:REFSPAM). Ideally we would spend an hour carefully investigating each edit and engaging the editor in a discussion, however life is too short and there are too many new editors who focus on adding external links. Regarding Danny MacAskill: The text "S1jobs" did not appear in the article before your edit, and that made me guess that it was not a significant issue. By "out of place" I meant that the paragraph mentioned that MacAskill rode bikes; gave up his mechanic's job to ride; appeared in a music video—then your new text referred to "S1jobs MacAskill advert...". What advert? Who made it? What was MacAskill's role? Let's not discuss the issue here. I am just letting you know my reasoning. Try another edit and we'll see what other editors think. Any further discussion about that article should be at its talk page (Talk:Danny MacAskill). Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Convert in Chinese WP
Hi. One user reported that the Chinese version of List of radioactive isotopes by half-life still shows the unit text. I think it's that disp=table should not show the unit as in English WP. Can you help change that? Thank you. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's due to  in the convert template at zhwiki. That effectively sets   in every convert that does not set , and the   code only suppresses the unit if   is not set. I'll have to think of a clean hack to overcome that, and check that there are no other overlooked issues. I probably won't have a chance to do any quality thinking for two days, so expect something around the weekend. By the way, I would like to see the standard welcome template at zh:User talk:Johnuniq. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to start yet. I have done one useful thing—using a procedure I have for enwiki, I downloaded a dump of all articles on zhwiki at 2014-09-12 and extracted 44,757 converts from 12,896 articles. On my test system, I have captured the output from each of the converts, and will compare that with results from the new module to see nothing is broken. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:There is no deadline :) Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost done. I have put a question at zh:User:Johnuniq/translate (at zhwiki to show what the current convert does there). Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied in zh.wp. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All done—I hope it's ok! Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The one reported this issue said it looks good now. Thank you. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

re Female Genital Mutilation
You appear to be covering up the issue I am trying to uncover, and brought up at Female Genital Mutilation I fully justified the tag that you reverted. You apparently didn't read my edit summaries. If you did, what part of "File needs to go back to the margin." do you not feel is even worthy of discussion? This is really maddening. See the talk page. You reverted me but you didn't respond to this. Are you ashamed of a tag on this article that you're involved in? You seem vested in being right about what I found being unneeded in 'your' article. Instead of removing a needed tag, for the umpteenth time, I urge you to try to fix the article. Don't be obstructionist. You won't allow me to tag it to get it the attention it so sorely needs. And now you're backtracking and saying it may not have the problems you previously admitted it had? What are you afraid of? It seems you either didn't see what I posted or are pointedly ignoring it. I am trying to continue to assume the former. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 03:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Talk:Female genital mutilation is the right place, and I left a detailed response there nearly three hours before your above comment. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No you didn't, not as I see it. You posted yes (to a little of what I said in a different part of the talk page) - and you reverted me - but you didn't respond to this.  As I see it, you have yet to respond to the bulk of what I said.  Which is why I'm here, calling on you to.  -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 19:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oct 14

 * Thanks very much for that help. I have replied and won't need another YGM. Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Convert Template help - conversion from Euros
Hello,

I noticed that you're quite active in Template:Convert - I'd like to add a bit of 'makeunit' data that converts Euros(€) per (metric unit) to Euros per (imperial unit) (and vice versa); that in itself isn't complicated, but what is complicated is understanding where to test and put it (where it won't affect anything!), as I am not very experienced in anything beyond basic Wikimedia template manipulation. I could send you the code, even, or perhaps you could suggest another more experimented contributor. Thanks.  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 10:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That can be done, but there is a problem. I have explained at Template talk:Convert so other people see the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your input there, it may have made life easier for all of wikipedia ; )  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 08:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although you are probably overstating it! Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has  been modified by  which changed the  wording  of the  discretionary  sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just  articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''You accused me of a drive-by. (here). That's nuts; I even created a talk page section where I proposed the edits beforehand, and linked to it in the edit summary of the edits.'' Elvey(t•c) 05:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what all the tension is about. Does that happen on other articles where you interact with editors? You have made a couple of suggestions that certain wording was not supported in the source given, and at least twice your suggestions have resulted in wording changes. The issues were subtle and involved slightly ambiguous phrases which agreed with the source if interpreted one way. You pointed out that another interpretation was possible or even likely, one that did not agree with the source. Thanks, they were improvements. However, the changes were minor, for example the most recent involved replacing "a practice most common in" with "a practice found largely in". You have done 29 edits since your first on 8 October 2014, several of which were to add tags showing dissatisfaction. The benefit to the article from your contributions is not matched by the turmoil on the talk page, and searching for "28 October 2014" on that page shows four editors who disagree with you, with none supporting; that is repeated today. There is one editor who supported some of your statements regarding Eritrea a couple of weeks ago, but I don't think there has been any other support. By contrast, several editors opposed the proposals regarding Eritrea, and detailed explanations of why they were unsuitable were provided. Reading Talk:Female genital mutilation shows that your approach has no support. Despite that, you are posting templates on editor talk pages (mine and SlimVirgin's). Why? Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ganges
As reverting WP:BRD VIP, could you provide me the corresponding portions of the sources excised referencing the excised text. Additionally, can you guide me to material which would qualify that website, or the excised wikilinks, as a reliable source/s. Thanks. (BTW, I would have appreciated a revert summary indicating my reasoned deletion was considered on its stated reasons).MonaPisser (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * May I speak frankly? You are a returned user with an agenda. Take it easy—perhaps it will work out this time. You must know that posting on user talk pages about a simple edit is not how things are done. Take my edit summary at face value as I intended it—removing paragraphs from an established article may be ok, but if challenged, an expanded explanation (beyond your edit summary) would be required on the article talk page. I saw you had a point, but such an established article needs tender care rather than heavy pruning. You are active at Talk:Ganges—rather than vague and rather combative mentions of "legally incorrect", it would be better to be precise about what is believed to be wrong in the article, and what sources support that view. I don't intend saying any more here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reciprocating your frankness. I disagree with suggestions that such established articles are exempt from heavy pruning. Endemic article ownership issues now actively prevent experts (for eg. I volunteer with the 'International Rivers Network') or "locals" from contributing on any article with 'established' colonial sources/biases. The net result is low caliber content writers/editors causing good ones to leave, .MonaPisser (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * CU blocked. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom
Hey John, would you consider standing for arbom, please?

Slightly copied from my similar message on a few other talkpages, but it's clear why you would be an asset there. Because:
 * You'd almost certainly be successful in being elected (unless everyone else I canvassed plus a large body of well-qualified unexpected candidates also stand)
 * You are the kind of person that would improve arbcom (this is the important one)

Please give it some thought... you would need to make a statement of intent at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates in less than 48 hours now, but the statement can be short and you can refine your position a great deal after that in the questions, of which there are many.

I should mention that one candidate last year didn't bother answering any of the questions at all, and still got elected anyway.

Many of the candidates this year are not already admins; I haven't bothered checking whether you are or not. It don't matter much. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I appreciate occasional pats and flattery, but my current off-wiki situation is such that whatever were my ambitions, or voters' inclinations, I don't have the time or energy to do the enormous amount of work undertaken by arbs. Oh dear, on browsing the link to the current nominations, I see why people are seeking candidates. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

edit conflict at ani
John I'm sorry but I stepped on your comment at the Cheesy ANI thread. I didn't mean to do that. But I am away from keyboard now and can't fix it, would you mind repairing it? Thanks... 06:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, I just fixed it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

FGM
Hi John, just a note to say thank you again for everything you did at FGM, which was promoted today. I couldn't have made it without your steady support and wise advice. I know how long it takes just to read that article carefully, and I know you did it more than once. It was a pleasure and honour to work with you. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind words. You did all the work and my role was extremely minor, but it really was a pleasure to watch you in action! Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Electronic cigarette. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! AlbinoFerret 02:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yr 3rd-party response
I must sleep, but i'd just appreciate knowing whether you found my clause "...or bcz you don't like the content?" at User talk:Materialscientist to be, say, argumentative, or sarcastic. --Jerzy•t 10:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, this edit at Solar System was reverted by another editor, and you posted at User talk:Materialscientist regarding the revert. I noticed the edit on my watchlist and saw from your contributions you had posted at the user talk, so I suggested that such discussions should be at the article talk page. No, I did not think your comments were argumentative or sarcastic. It's just that edit/revert/discuss happens very frequently, and such discussions should be at the article talk page for other editors to review. Also, a discussion on the article talk can be found later if someone wants information about the edit. Not every proposed edit can be discussed in depth. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Snark
Hey John, just a quick note, I guess my response to the last ANI (or was it the last but one? I lose count....) was snarky, but I also guess that I was mighty pissed off at the reams of made up rubbish. I usually decline to partake in ANI as I don't believe it's really that functional, and I shall do so again this time. However it seems clear to me that this matter will not rest until I get blocked. However, I do appreciate your input there. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I couldn't pass up the opportunity of giving a little poke. The problem is that several diffs at ANI show that something is wrong, and that obscures the main action (I'm referring to the diffs showing pointy commentary about third parties). We should not be surprised to encounter all kinds on the Internet, although that doesn't make it any easier to tolerate them. Happy editing!. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is certainly true! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

My userpage
Could you look at my userpage and let me know what you think? I'm asking particularly about the use of the copied image and caption I used to sort of explain my username. Thanks for all your help. Hallward&#39;s Ghost (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Hallward&#39;s Ghost. The image is tagged as non-free use. This means it can only be used in articles and not on user pages. Images on user pages must be in the public domain or released under a free-use license. --Neil N  talk to me 02:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems a strange rule, given how old the image seems to be. I had assumed it was free content, given that it was here on Wikipedia. Does this mean I can't use an image of Hallward on my userpage at all? Hallward&#39;s Ghost (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hallward&#39;s Ghost, you can see the licensing info here. Wikipedia hosts fair use images that meet strict conditions - WP:NFCCP. If you think the license is wrong then you can bring it up at WP:IMAGEHELP. If you find an image that is in the public domain or has a free-use license you can upload and use that. --Neil N  talk to me 02:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It says the uploader found it on MSNBC, but I'm pretty sure I recognize it as an illustration from a fairly old edition of The Picture of Dorian Gray. I'm not sure how I'd prove that, though. Hallward&#39;s Ghost (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hallward&#39;s Ghost, posting at WP:IMAGEHELP will get your question looked at by editors who are familiar with these types of issues. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for your help. Hallward&#39;s Ghost (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks NeilN, I wouldn't have thought to check the non-free image status but you are correct that it is a problem. @Hallward's Ghost: Sorry but an image like that is only allowed in an article, and only if there is a "fair use rationale" provided to justify the use of that image in that article—if such an image is used in three articles, the image must have three rationales. The rules are pretty bizarre and should be ignored by everyone except specialists who spend a lot of time working in the area. What I mean by "ignore" is that you have to comply with the rule but it is a waste of time trying to understand it, although you can study WP:Non-free content criteria and its links if you want! Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback from you guys. I'm now discussing it over at the image discussion board Neil linked above. Hallward&#39;s Ghost (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The folks over at the image discussion board have fixed the issues we were discussing here. Do you think there are any other possible concerns with my userpage now? I've been looking around, and it seems some people get fairly elaborate with their pages, though I think I'd like to keep mine simple. Also, I'd like to include my first name in parentheses after "Hallward's Ghost" in the signature that's produced when the four tildes are typed, but I'm not sure how to do that. Other than that, the links John posted on my talkpage have been useful, and I think I'm going to start being a bit more daring in editing actual articles soon. (I made minor useful changes as an IP for the last few years, but never large substantial ones.) Hallward&#39;s Ghost (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hallward&#39;s Ghost, your user page looks fine and keeping things simple is always good. WP:SIG has info about customizing your signature. You probably want something like Hallward&#39;s Ghost (Kevin) (talk) --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your help on that. I'll use my signature here as a test. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (talk 14:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hallward's Ghost (Kevin), almost. You're missing the last bracket after talk. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no concerns—all is good. However, a true Wikipedian can always find something to talk about. First I want to record a really great story in the Signpost: "What Wikipedia Taught Me About My Grandfather". Now that the useful part of my comment is over, you might try putting the image at the very top of your page—possibly a better result. Per WP:DASH, we don't put spaces around em dashes. Rather than use a reference, you might try fiddling with quotation by adding the author and title fields, and including the link in the title. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved it up and removed the reference. I like the looks of it better now. I will read that story when I get a chance. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I responded at the Gender task force page
I'm surprised that we disagree on this. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 12:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm grumpy but this issue has attracted a tremendous number of opinions based on no evidence—opinions which are often contradicted by the facts. The case (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF) opened 3 October 2014 and closed 1 December 2014. It appears you did not participate in the case, nor did you comment. Your first comment (here, after the close) was a complete denial of what was established by Arbcom which is an independent panel of experienced admins. The arbs impartially examined evidence and chose these remedies. Your comment, with no evidence, was to the effect that the arbs are totally deluded. Your second comment repeated the false claim that someone called an editor an offensive word. The facts of the case are too complex to be summed up briefly, but the essence is that an editor used offensive terms to state their point of view, and repeated them several times when challenged. One reason for the repetition was that the challenge was completely bogus—a very reasonable complaint could have been made about the gratuitous and offensive language, but that was not done (except by me, although I can't find my comment at the moment). Arbcom has solved the problem of offensive terms being used by anyone in relation to gender gap topics. The remedy spells out what happens if the editor concerned uses problematic terms, but the situation is much more general. If someone new to the case started being offensive and didn't stop when warned, there would be an immediate "clarification request" and Arbcom would take a few days to deal with the matter by motion—the editor would be topic banned and placed under probation so that any repeat led to an indef (although it's likely that a normal admin action would have blocked the user before that because discretionary sanctions are part of the remedy). However, all these results do nothing about the real problem with Wikipedia, namely that there are too many POV pushers and enthusiasts who hammer away at good editors using words that pass CIVIL. If anything, the Trustees should be asked to establish a panel that will quickly remove WP:NOTHERE editors without all the drama currently required. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe time to play whack-a-troll?
. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Silly season already? Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha
One of "your" new users is also one of "my" new users. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, I noticed that and was going to tell you, but I'm still struggling with all the Mandela diffs! Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I hope it's useful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury
Hi

Would you be able to help me expand Murder of Kylie Maybury? Kylie deserves better than the relatively meagre article she has now. I'm asking other Wikipedians that have experience to help us too. Paul Austin (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added it to my watchlist but I'm not optimistic about expansion because it is unlikely there is much encyclopedic information available about a six-year-old who was murdered 30 years ago. To remind myself later, my contribs show I posted on your talk page on 6 September 2013. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User with fake retirement templates
Just continuing a discussion from Wikipedia talk:User pages rather than taking it too far off-topic; the user in question is "My very best wishes". Apart from an actual two-month wikibreak at the start of the year, the user has edited almost daily since then with only a couple of week-long breaks since March. Looking back through the history of their blanked talk page, they've been retiring on and off since 2012 and have previously had the problem drawn to their attention.

The user has been active in articles, talk pages and DRN/sock discussions every single day over the past month, yet according to their userpage history they have spent around half of those days either retired, "no longer active beyond editing my userspace" or on a wikibreak. The user's blanked talk page goes further and has claimed them to be "away from Wikipedia for an undefined period of time" for the entire month.

I'd already tried politely pointing out the confusion it could cause and to ask why it was being done, but was told in the blanking edit summary that the user did not "think this is really matters". I don't seem to have had any history of conflict with the user beyond apparently disagreeing on an RFC once, it just stood out as a concern that somebody who was active in content dispute threads was stepping back and forth behind the retirement curtain. Does this seem "over-the-top" enough to merit raising somewhere else? --McGeddon (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that people should respect tags and other editors, and putting up "retired" but continuing to edit is at best misleading. It certainly would waste time and energy for others who get hit with the tag when wanting to communicate with the user, then wonder what the tag means and what they should do. In some cases, the tag would be trolling (I can put any rubbish I like on my page and you can't do anything about it). And yes, incorrect retired tags irritate me too. However, I'm not convinced that prohibiting the tag would be useful because some editors go through a phase of being fed up with the conflict and silly rules which allow POV pushers to thrive, and I have seen a couple of good editors put up a retired tag yet continue tentatively editing. It would not be helpful for someone to jump in and force them to remove the tag, and there are teams of people who have nothing else to do than enforce rules without regard for the underlying issue or benefit to the encyclopedia. My "over the top" comment was referring to more extreme forms of self expression which are sometimes seen on user pages. I do not know the background to the case in question, but my feeling is that what is currently on their user and talk page is ok and should be ignored. There are plenty of worse problems. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

help with archiving percent-encoded URLs
Thank you for your advice at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Have left a follow-up question there (to keep thread together on same talk page). --EarthFurst (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I replied there, basically saying that you need WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! War wizard90 (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I commented there. Links:
 * DRN: WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 * All pages: User:Johnuniq/sandbox3 (permalink)
 * RSN WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the DRN volunteer's request, I moved this discussion to WP:ANI War wizard90 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I posted a comment (and comparison) at the RSN concerning this book, as I have a copy of it, please feel free to ask me any questions you may have about the book. I will do my best to answer them, but like I said at the RSN, this is not an area of expertise for me. Isaidnoway (talk)  20:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Isaidnoway: Thanks. I won't do anything at the moment, but will probably have a couple of questions about the book later. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit). Thank you. War wizard90 (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm preparing my comment, and will be there soon. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, thank you for your attention to detail in this matter, your organization of the articles created I'm sure will help the admin's a great deal more than what I could have put together on my own. War wizard90 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Priya's Shakti at WP:RSN
I have started a discussion about Priya's Shakti at RSN.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, thanks. The wonders of Wikipedia forbid me from saying precisely what I think, but I will note that it is important to not let trolls get under your skin. The fundamental issue concerns List of feminist comic books where some guys are questioning whether sources verify that Priya's Shakti belongs on the list ("Priya's Shakti ... tells the story of Priya, a young woman and gang-rape survivor, and Goddess Parvati as they fight against gender crimes in India."BBC). I'll comment at RSN if I think it's useful, but it might not be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The big list you made
Thank you again for this. It might be unfair by excluding a lot of people, but couldn't we consider asking all of those involved in this to add comments to the items suggesting their fate? The AfD ones go to AfD, so they get !voted on. Many would be redirects to parent articles and could have the content copy pasted there. We are allowed to do that. The keeps, well, they get kept, so nobody would be upset about that. Nearly 100, so maybe we could handle this this way, which would be so much more efficient. The reason I suggest this is that I fear merge tags appearing and such and further community resources being wasted. A lesser of evils. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like that would be good. AfD is such a tense place with esoteric strategies according to whether one is an inclusionist or a deletionist. I would far prefer to discuss the pages somewhere else so we could actually think about what might be the best outcome. I tried WT:MEASURE but that is not active. We could notify everyone who has commented at ANI or in one of the AfDs or at the creator's talk. That's quite a lot of people! I'll be disappearing soon. If you feel inclined, please do whatever you think. I wonder where the discussion might occur. Would the talk page of my sandbox be suitable? Seems a bit unusual, and may not get much participation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "I'll be disappearing soon." What do you mean?
 * Anything that ought to be deleted should PROD or go through AfD. I will ping everyone. We could simply put our comments below each of the 80+ items in colour. If only one person comments, that's how it goes. Most would probably just support. A few would get debated. We could knock them all off quickly, I think. Maybe I will start a few as an example. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. I did a few. The stands out. Maybe if we all chip in, every item can get some pink, and we can know all are sorted out. It looks like half are already redirects and others are afd, so not even sure this is needed.


 * User:Johnuniq/sandbox3. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Pinging:, , , , , , , , , , ,


 * Again, here's the list: User:Johnuniq/sandbox3. Maybe we don't need pink anything, and just PROD/AfD, redirect (optional copy paste content into target), or leave as viable, is best. I'd love to see these sorted out so we can move on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Groan, this is really tedious and time-wasting. However, I much prefer to slowly go through the list without the tension and noise of AfD. I've done quite a lot of them (that is, I've investigated and made a recommendation for a lot of them), and should have the list finished in a day or two. I'll let you know when that's done—this is just an update to show that my disappearance is temporary. I was thinking that when I'm finished, I would add a new section to the page then invite comments where people may want to agree or disagree without necessarily writing an individual comment per unit. Some of my "redirect" recommendations could simply be acted on, but I think it would be better to leave all the articles unchanged, then take the whole list to AfD to get the authority of a central discussion—an outcome of redirect would make it much harder to mount an edit war over whether a particular page should be an article or a redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I will go through and make some comments. Meanwhile I am putting together a critique of the Cardarelli book here: User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli -- to which contributions would be welcome. I think this book is seriously unreliable, but is there any way of marking a source as "tainted"? Every one of these articles I look at I want to put "Citation needed" all over the place, but of course the nonsense is copied straight out of a Proper Printed Book already. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Documenting problems in the book would be very helpful, thanks. In case you missed an editor who has a copy, see the comment by Isaidnoway above at 20:18, 25 December 2014. I suggest keeping the language very neutral because what matters are the actual examples of problems, and if we use emotive language to describe them, some will object and may reject the analysis purely on that basis ("biased"). There is no way to prevent a source being used (other than to periodically search for it and remove it), but the procedure for having the community make a decision about a source is at WP:RSN. I suggest not mentioning anything there until you and I have discussed the page you are preparing and a draft of the RSN report because if there is any weakness in the case presented, the result might backfire. From discussions unrelated to this case I recall hearing that the publisher has released some very dubious books. Your page should have a section with a couple of examples of that. We don't need to document a lot of problems in the book—just demonstrating some issues should be sufficient to demonstrate that it should not be used as a reference. As I've mentioned at a couple of places, and I'll repeat here so we don't overlook the point for your page, if the ESU source makes a claim which is not verifiable in other sources, the claim should not be used at Wikipedia; if a claim is verifiable in other sources, they should be used, and ESU should not be listed as a reference. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see there is already an entry at RSN, with Andrew Davidson as always leaping to the defence of our French friend. Well, as you say, calm recitation of the various degrees of inaccuracy is what is needed. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you need me for anything. I am at your service. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although you might regret saying that! I'll let you know when I've finished. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is a Big List, look what's coming. Abbyssinia(sp?), Algeria, Argentina. These are all very reasonable titles for articles, now liberally sprinkled (sometimes the same reference twice in one place) with sources, Cardarelli, and some handbook from 1926 I haven't tracked down yet. All need heavy grammar correction and editing for coherence, but most importantly can any of this be regarded as reliable? Argentina has a large German-speaking population, so perhaps it's not surprising to see Viertel and friends, but we have a bunch of names in German from one reference, and a bunch of names in Spanish from another. So do any of these sources agree with each other? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year
From one Richard Dawkins' lover to another, best wishes. Enric Naval and Fisher Queen are proud of you. 69.22.169.73 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a strange message, but thanks, and best wishes to you. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Johnuniq!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Johnuniq, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks, and Happy New Year to all! Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)