User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 19

Module:Year in other calendars
Hi, John. I recently copied Module:Year in other calendars to bn.wiki. it works pretty much as expected. But have problem with following line & need to localized. It Converts strings into "n BC" (1st year then BC) but it should be "খ্রিস্টপূর্ব n" (BC=খ্রিস্টপূর্ব) 1st BC then year. How can i localized it? Please help. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the bnwiki module is bn:মডিউল:অন্যান্য পঞ্জিকায় বছর.
 * All the above code is doing is to extract the year (given in English digits) from something like "15 BC" (with zero or more spaces before "BC"). If a number followed by BC is found, the result is 0 for "1 BC", or a negative number for other BC values: "2 BC" gives −1, "234 BC" gives −233, etc. What inputs might occur at bnwiki? Is "15 BC" valid? Is "খ্রিস্টপূর্ব 15" valid? How about using bnwiki digits, I think "খ্রিস্টপূর্ব ১৫"?
 * If English digits are all that is required, you could replace the line starting " " above with:
 * To make it display the bnwiki name, you would need to change function  by replacing the first of the following lines with the second (the format stuff is not needed):
 * Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It works perfectly. Thank you :) And if possible, could you please fix this also. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. I added a reply to point out a workaround. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It works perfectly. Thank you :) And if possible, could you please fix this also. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. I added a reply to point out a workaround. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Platonic solid - Classification
Dear John,

I'm afraid that you've revoked my recent modification in error. I restored only an erroneous modification made in revision 567073300 by Duxwing.

The original sentence (that was restored by me) is:

"That all five actually exist is a separate question – one that can be answered easily by an explicit construction."

Duxwing's sentence (that was restored by you) is:

"positively demonstrating the existence of any given solid is a separate question – one that an explicit construction cannot easily answer."

Your justification :

"I think the point is that a construction can only be show n to be *approximately* correct"

This isn't true. For example, a cube is the $$\{(x,y,z):0 \le x,y,z\le 1\}$$ set. This is absolutely exact. There is no approximation. So please reconsider this.

Thanks, 89.135.19.75 (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background. A better approach would be to post this at the article talk page so other editors can join in, or can find the outcome of a discussion later. If you want to be sure that I have seen the post at the talk page, you could add  to your message (see WP:ECHO—pings only work if they are included in a new message which is signed). Please see Talk:Platonic solid. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Indef of Pyraechmes
John, you clearly looked more carefully into this than I did. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not more careful, nastier! Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

p tags
Thanks for checking for p tags. It turns my database scan excluded tags inside quotes etc. Any chance that you can provide me full list?An old lognstanding bug was fixed and no p tags are needed inside quote templates anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a delicate issue! I favor a uniform style and think that cleaning up wikitext is good. However, I defer to content builders—they can't do what we do, and we can't do what they do, but what they do is much more important. It's all very well to hit them with WP:OWN and similar, and no doubt pushing hard enough would overcome their objections, but at what cost? Obtaining perfect wikitext while seriously irritating excellent content builders would be a Pyrrhic victory. What I'm trying to say is that I would be happy to provide a list of articles with &lt;p> tags (a biggish list I suspect), but I hope compromises can be made. Sure, WP:ACCESS is important, but Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and will never be blemish-free. The proper way to solve the &lt;p> problem would be to have MediaWiki do the right thing with that markup—it's not an editor's fault if MediaWiki is broken. I understand that MW is the way it is so people can drop html into a page and it will mostly render—but it is 2015 now and there should be a site-wide configuration option to turn such unhelpful behavior off. To you, &lt;p> in wikitext is bad, but a content builder likes a simple, short, and universally understood way of saying "para break here" (in references). To anyone working seriously on an article, seeing multiple is a complete turn-off which makes the wikitext hard to comprehend, and having a hundred extra templates slows down page preview. Another way to look at it would be to say that even if SV were completely wrong, the issue should not be pushed because she is one of the people who makes fixing wikitext worthwhile. Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. It was not even the reason I edited the page and I did not pursuit the case further. I do not want to discourage editors. Usually people like to see syntax fixing in their text. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Magioladitis: I put the results in my sandbox (permalink). I included the "controversial" articles for completeness but I hope they can be whitelisted. Johnuniq (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Frietjes and Bgwhite used to fix these. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , you seem like a very nice person, and I'm certain you don't mean to have a negative effect. But the effect on me is that I have no further desire to develop articles where this has happened. I was enjoying writing Study 329, was doing a lot of reading for it, and intended to take it to GA and perhaps beyond. Now I don't want to work on it.


 * It has reached the point that everywhere I work you're insisting on these changes. I don't just mean the p tags. It's certain infoboxes only, white space between subheadings, ref tags in numerical order no matter the editorial need, named references never allowed to be repeated no matter how convenient for the writer, etc. It's discouraging, and it's the kind of thing that's going to get worse as more rules are added to AWB. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Sarah (SV). I am trying to figure out a solution here that will satisfy everyone. I want to clear some things: I am not the only developer of AWB. I am not the one who requested nor implemented the "ref tags in numerical order". I have no strong feelings on either direction or either choice. I am just waiting for the other developers to reply to. I already notified them off-wiki too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . User:Magioladitis, I don't think you realise how rude it is to tell SV to "stay calm", as if she was having hysterics or something. Please don't do that. Compare this essay. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Bishonen sorry. I did not know it was rude. I did not mean that way. I removed the words. SV my apologies. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The list is very useful! In most cases the p tag was not needed at all. It turns some people will also check the p tags bug and we 'll probably can get rid of it for good without having to use the template. Fingers crossed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

How?
Can you please explain how you think that the following content, presented at talk:Sarah Jane Brown, is in any way disruptive?

There may be no ideal title for this article but I cannot see that "Sarah Jane Brown" is it.


 * site:gordonandsarahbrown.com "sarah jane" OR "jane brown" gets no results.
 * site:gordonandsarahbrown.com "sarah brown" gets to "Page 32 of 312 results" (the site has a total of 410 pages)
 * site:gordonandsarahbrown.com patron gets to "Page 2 of 17 results"
 * http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/sarah-brown/ presents the text: "In Publication: In a warm, personal memoir about life at 10 Downing Street, Sarah Brown shares her experiences as the wife of the British Prime Minister."

In connection to business at "Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications" she is referenced either as Sarah Macaulay or as Sarah Brown

Women's Aid describe her role in various ways especially as Women's Aid Patron Sarah Brown

Maggie's Centres describe her as [https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:maggiescentres.org+%22sarah+brown%22+OR+%22sarah+jane+brown%22 Sarah Brown. Honorary Patron]

SHINE describe her as Patron Sarah Brown

WHITE RIBBON ALLIANCE describe her as: Global Patron, Sarah Brown

She published as Sarah Brown

I don't know when or how she has been described as Sarah Jane Brown.

The tag at https://twitter.com/sarahbrownuk reads: "Sarah Brown@SarahBrownUK" and makes no reference to "jane"

https://www.facebook.com/gordonandsarahbrown makes no reference to "jane"

Early excerpts from : Behind the Black Door by: "Sarah Jane Brown" inclusive of "wife", "husband" and "Spouse" are:
 * Preface
 * In writing this book, I hope to cast a light on the role of Prime Minister's spouse and all that it entails. As the wife of Gordon Brown, I spent three years living and working at Number 10 Downing Street. ...
 * I was advised before starting at Number 10 that there is no guidebook for what to do, only a big rulebook of what not to do. The 'not to' bit seemed to be just commonsense, but the blank page or what a PM's spouse can do, and perhaps even should do was a welcome opportunity to start from scratch. There is no formal spouse job to step into, no permanent office, no salary, no allowance, no pre-set duties or official role, not even an official title, but I have ten years' experience in hosting receptions and dinners as first the girlfriend, then the wife, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand me in good stead.
 * ... I supported Gordon and the kids and focussed completely on the causes and campaigns closest to my heart... page ix


 * I ... cannot predict how different life will be moving from number 11, Downing Street, as wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to Number 10, as wife of the Prime Minister. page 2
 * ... in all my years as wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ... page 9
 * I'm starting to understand why being WPM (Wife of the Prime Minister - I think that Dennis Thatcher forged his own path as the one male exception so far) feels so tricky. I have no exact status, no official position, masses of conflicting expectations both internally and externally, and a terrible suspicion that at any moment a great mistake will be made by ME!
 * Over the last few weeks, during Gordon's leadership campaigning time, it was clear that he would arrive with the support of pretty much all the Labour MPs, and so I turned my attention to what I would do once he was made leader. I see my role as supportive, of course; for government events, both professionally and personally, as my husband takes on an even bigger job than the one he had before. I also see - and I look to all my predecessors for this - that there is an opportunity to ues the visibility, platform and privilege of being at 10 Downing Street to use my efforts to do something useful and good. I don't waht to over-complicate things, but I am very clear that I can have a voice for  change if I don't step on any policy-making toes.  I have to get the balance right between not being an elected politician myself, while making good use of my own abilities and professional experience.  I know that whatever happens, a watchful media will report on my successes, or otherwise.  It is not without a degree of personal stress that I recognise that failure on my part will make a good news story, but I am an 'eyes forward' kind of girl and prepared to take the risk. page 15

Please consider that all of this information came direcly from the subject herself.

As far as I am concerned "Sarah Brown" is clearly a self-possessed person in her own right who has served my country both in her roles including as wife / spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and in the other functions that she performed which arguably made best use of this connection. She clearly played a substantial role in her husband in gaining various political positions and has, from what I have seen, done a great job of making the best of her various situations first as "Sarah Macaulay" and then as "Sarah Brown".

In its article: Wife is defined as : "a female partner in a continuing marital relationship."

I suspect that that if "partner" had been directly used as the operative reference that there would have been little or no controversy. I further think that it is fair to argue that there is every reason to believe that the Brown's very strongly scribe to the philosophy of partnership even to the extent of presenting the joint website and facebook pages as:
 * http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/ and
 * https://www.facebook.com/gordonandsarahbrown

Since, in my view, editors here are giving little heed to the concepts of WP:AT I think that a similar to that of Hillary Diane Rodham/Hillary Clinton/Hillary Rodham Clinton might apply. In this I would suggest that there is a case for asking "Sarah Brown"/"Sarah Jane Brown" how she would like to have her Wikipedia article presented and suggest that someone, ideally neutral to the main arguments of related discussions, get in contact with "Sarah Brown" perhaps by twitter or via any related charity, or the Browns by some other means.

I also see no reason why we cannot use a Sarah Brown (foo and bar) designation has been the case with the previously mentioned Britannica designation of Sarah Winnemucca (Native American educator, author and lecturer)

A listing of potential designations has been provided at: Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 7.

There is nothing here that is not factual. I am directly quoting the subject which is something that people in previously debates have generally failed to do. I do not see anything here that is not in order. Please explain. If you have a point of reply please feel free to make it. Wikipedia is not Censored - especially in regard to things presented, with thought, directly by the subject. GregKaye 17:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your enthusiasm for renaming an article of the form "Jane Mary Citizen" to "Jane Citizen (wife of Important Person)" is noted, but what is the purpose of posting here? To tell me that Wikipedia is not censored? If you posted to get my advice, I would say that you should find someone who understands why the proposed name is extraordinarly, breathtakingly inappropriate, and listen to them. Confidence is great, but it's a bit problematic when it stops a person from noticing their errors. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My question is, how in your opinion do you think that the content presented is disruptive? My enthusiasm is mainly for renaming an article of the form "Sarah Jane Citizen" to "Sarah Citizen (foo)" or "Sarah Citizen (foo and bar)".  In the absence of a non relation based clarification and in a case where someone's identity may be at stake I personally see no problem with "Sarah Citizen (significant other of important person)".  What errors?  GregKaye 09:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The error is that you have not yet accepted that the proposed name is extraordinarly, breathtakingly inappropriate. The issue is a matter of culture and is not readily reduced to simple logical statements, and sources are totally irrelevant. It is disruptive to waste the time of a dozen other editors, particularly given the earlier protracted discussions that settled the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion. The relevant discussion three RMs ago was far from unanimous and I offered a "xx (foo and bar)" rendering.  Her name is "Sarah Brown".  She is most notable as a person in a relationship with the person that arguably she helped Gordon Brown become.  On what grounds in Wikipedia policy and guideline was this inappropriate?  GregKaye 07:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Note
Toe of the Almighty Camel deleted your edit. Since it was a part of the discussion, I reverted it. He/she will surely delete it again so I am giving you a heads up. Peace.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The issue (User talk:Toe of the Almighty Camel) needs monitoring, but it's clearly a returned user playing with us. He knows he can delete stuff like that, and we just have to play the game and sit back waiting for the next round. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a shame he can just delete the discussion. It was simply because you disagreed with the replacement username, as did I. I'm sure anyone who disagrees will have their edits blocked as well. But you are right, we just need to wait, especially since his web of issues will only expand if he's unblocked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The user has been unblocked now. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

Ironically, he keeps trolling on the Camel toe article. Personally, I could care less for the term, but I don't want incompetent users attacking someone else's work. If you could handle it, that would be appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVASS Almighty Camel (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Camel was indeffed within an hour of making the above post. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Optimism
The name may be entirely innocent. Oh puhleeeze. I'll put you in my Optimist's guide if you're not careful. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Guilty as charged. I should leave it at that, but here is an outline of my reasoning. There are some innocent folk at AN, and they might inadvertently derail a discussion with commentary along the optimistic lines that I posted—I wanted to say that the user name is still offensive regardless of whether the user was a troll. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hatting of threads now being discussed at AE
Since you commented at User talk:Chrisrus I'm letting you know about WP:AE. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I commented at AE. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Technical issue
At Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 the article is repeatedly being tagged (one or two may reflect legitimate perceptions of potential problems) with no argument being made on the talk page to justify the tags. But this doesn't bother me. It's normal. What interests me is the technical status of a new tag which says the article uses mostly a single source. Much of the data indeed comes from an independent, European subsidized Palestinian newspaper. Ma'an News Agency, for the simple reason that most of the incidents are not reported in the foreign or Israel mainstream press, though they are certainly considered noteworthy by one of the two parties in the I/P dispute. I've always thought single source means 'one book' or 'one newspaper article' etc., and does not apply to the use of a mainstream newspaper cited for events over a period of time. It would mean, analogously, that if any article described an event by referencing it to a dozen or two reports in the New York Times, the NYTs would be 'a single source'. I can't see if any precedent has clarified the ambiguity. Any ideas?Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good grief. You did a lot of close checking there. That must have taken some time. I do apologize for any waste of precious time my request for clarification might have caused. Thanks indeed.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! I haven't ever seen a one source tag used on an article with 270 references! The tag documentation does not envisage anything like this. Of course we know why the article is being tagged, and it has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. There has been a growing resistance to drive-by tagging lately, and I have seen several occasions where such tags were peremptorily removed, particularly when no talk page discussion explained a plausible problem. Re your question: I have not seen that scenario, nor any discussion of it. My feeling is that "one source" would apply if a single media outlet was the only source. For example, say there was a creationist weekly newletter, and someone wrote an article where the only references were to different issues of the newsletter—the article would be relying on the one creationist newsletter, albeit different editions. I know you don't want me to get involved—don't worry, I'm not going to! However, rather than explain some glitches I found, I did some trivial edits to the article and put an analysis of the sources on talk. Reasoning has little to do with the case, so my efforts may well be in vain, but they are a start. I guess one could ask for opinions at WP:RSN. Johnuniq (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am glad to see there's growing resistance to drive-by tagging. What annoys me is that in the I/P area, something I hope you continue to ignore, it is done to invalidate the articles, and shows signs of what I interpret also as a whimsical consumer supply-on-demand attitude, i.e., 'hey. I think this product's bad, fix it for me', meaning consistently constructive editors are asked to work by people who don't (most of the tags I see indicate problems that can be fixed in a jiffy merely by googling for a few seconds). I look forward to developments placing some cautions on abusers of this function. Thanks again.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note the updated source list which has Ma'an at about 2/3rd of the sources.
 * Ma'an credibility is also seriously questioned in two discussions above concerning an imaginery re-invasion of Sajaiyah which wasn't covered anywhere else = never happened. Noone in his right mind can possibly argue that this magnitude of activity would not be cover by int'l media, UN, human-right organizations and Hamas verbal (if not physical) response.
 * User Nishidani is a great advocate of Ma'an which as presented if completely unreliable but refuse to allow any piece from ~25 years old Arutz 7 which reports small attacks by Palestinian which main-stream Israeli media doesn't bother reporting about. It is also amazing how Ma'an know to point to which settlement the assaults originated from where there weren't any eye witnesses.
 * If Nishidani would have use common sense and filter out the bias and rumors from Ma'an, great. But since he doesn't, and everything on that website is, in his eyes, 'allegedly' RS, both tags are appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.44.241 (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 'imaginery re-invasion of Sajaiyah'. it is important to be precise in editing. We all slip up (as I did twice, in evident haste, as was pointed out at the Ramallah lynching article today) but repeating an error is not a good sign. Ma'an reported that Israel made an incursion in the Shuja'iyya (it's not far from the border. I've walked it myself) area (I think to bulldoze high ground to get a better view of the zone from its watchtowers). That is not an 'invasion', and is so frequent, i.e. bulldozing high ground inside the Strip within a kilometer of Israel's border that it is not reported. It's not big news, except to Palestinians, who are one party to the dispute. Per NPOV, we report all sides, and per NPOV we do not entertain the idea that only Israeli or foreign news sources are reliable. Ma'an is an independen news outlet for events in Palestine which has received European financial assistance to get started up. It contains basically empirical report content, and a slight rhetorical element usually at the end. Anyone can verify this. I ignore the rhetoric, and stick to the names, places etc. If you look at your edit this morning, you took as the truth what Ynet reported. It was a 'fact' for you. For several other newspapers, it was not a fact, but an allegation. Arutz Sheva is a settler organ, judged as not reliable for facts, with a long history of bias and distortion, including conspiracy theories about American presidents. It is not news, but a settler POV news-spinner. Finally, I find no single mainstream or other reports about this area satisfactory, pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. Many scholarly books, in Israel and abroad, have hindsight, objectivity and meticulous attention to all angles. Newspapers must be handled with care. (My apologies for abusing this page.)Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Arutz 7, like Ma'an, sites need to be filtered. Incursion, invasion - this size of activity would have gotten tons of coverage. We didn't even get a crappy video from a smartphone camera. Nishidani, you are smarter then that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.44.241 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please use another page. We have already imposed on an editor who is not interested in this area and its frivolous quibbles. He is excellent on technical issues, but, this, like the rest of Wikipedia, is not a blog. Keep, on the relevant pages, your comments focused on policy and specifics. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would like to ask Johnuniq to comment on his original list on the article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.44.241 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your help desk question
See if those who tried to help with this question have succeeded.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, List of longest streams of Idaho had some really tricky refs/notes! It looks good. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Advice for younger editors
Would you be interested in commenting here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw the back-and-forth. I can see the arguments on both sides so won't join in now, but might later. I certainly think the original wording was too simplistic, and saying nothing in the essay might be better. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Module
Hi, I need your help. I need a module that can convert number & month name from en to bn (like this one [does not work when i call this from another module] ). So, i can use that module (from a template or call that module from another module) to convert number, time & date. I need following function: If i give en number & month name module will convert into bn, if i give any text (not number & month name) module will give that text (do nothing), if i give bn number & month name module will give bn number & month name (do nothing). Thanks in advance. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can do something, but am pressed for time at the moment, so it might not be soon. Please provide some examples to illustrate what you mean (5 people gives 5 people, 1 April gives ১ এপ্রিল, April gives April, April 1 gives ?, 1 april gives ?, 1 Apr gives ?). You mentioned time, but your specification says that anything that is not en day + month should not be changed. Text like "on 1 April" would not be changed (where "on" is anything)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

--Aftabuzzaman (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please confirm if my understanding is correct:
 * It should be callable from a template and from a module.
 * The only input to the module is parameter 1 = text to be copied to the output, possibly with the following modifications.
 * Change any en digits to bn digits.
 * Change the full en name of a month to its bn name.
 * Same as above if en name is all lowercase.
 * Do not change anything else (just copy it to the output).
 * The above is pretty simple and low overhead (fast). I hope you don't need full case insensitivity because that would be messy and have an overhead. That is, "april" would be converted, but "ApriL" would not, and the result would be "ApriL".
 * Where do you want the code? bn:Module:Example Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, your understanding is correct. I want the code here. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aftabuzzaman: The result is at bn:Module:enDigitConverter. I have not tested calling it from another module or from a template, and the quick test I did (with #invoke) was not thorough. Please give it a workout and report the result. Note that gsub works well and mw.ustring.gsub is much slower and not needed for this application. If you move the module to some other name, please edit my bn user page and replace the current name with the new name so I can easily find it in the future if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a problem. At the end of the result, "EnDigitConverter" automatically add a number. Please, see this page for example. It need to be fixed. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a small blunder! Now fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you harbour
...a latent bias against IP editors? Asked in response to a strong reply comment at User:Doc James Talk page... 71.201.62.200 (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are referring to my comment at 17 June 2015. Please take what I say at face value without looking for a hidden meaning—nothing in my comment suggests ill feeling with regard to IP editors, and I would have given the same advice to any editor following that person's path. If the IP's comment had been signed, say, Jimbo, I would have said "Jimbo should take their complaints to the article talk page...". A few Wikipedians are sufficiently notable that they appear in an article, and someone will usually come along to poke them—any suspicion about what comments might really mean should be directed at those who pursue someone for the crime of being the subject of an article. I have no bias regarding unregistered editors and have strongly defended IPs in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Intelligent Design
User:Johnuniq, as you can see by this French Wikipedia page on Intelligent design (French: Dessein intelligent), they give both sides of the argument, presenting the subject in a more neutral tone. They write (translated from the French): "Intelligent design is presented as a scientific theory by its promoters, but in the scientific world it is considered as a pseudoscience, for reasons that both the internal facts of biology and also epistemological criteria cannot be rectified (the proponents of intelligent design appearing to biologists as having ignored numerous arguments, the more notable of which being the falsifiability criterion of Karl Popper)..." I am, therefore, quick to admit that the WP article on Intelligent design should at least attempt to show that ID is viewed differently by different folks, and that even if it were not a scientific theory, per se, it is still a philosophical question suggestive of something else beyond what is seen by our naked eye, and that some biochemists (i.e. Michael Behe) and physicists (i.e. Albert Einstein) have entertained that notion as a real possibility, given all their scientific experience. Do you think that it would be possible for us to incorporate something along the lines of the French article into our own English article, and to admit that there is a philosophical question that has been the subject of debate (or of mere musings) by some respected people of the scientific community?Davidbena (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles should not mislead readers—the whole point of ID is to confuse the gullible by pretending that creationism has a scientific basis, and that makes it classic pseudoscience. ID is pushed by various people who enjoy all the benefits brought by science while denying science—they use gobbledygook to baffle those without background knowledge. User:I am One of Many has explained the issues much more patiently and intelligently, for example, here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!
Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.
 * Browse the new WikiProject page
 * Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (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 thread is "The Selfish_Gene". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Lua table.concat
Sometime ago I heard from you that you're not a huge fan of stacking returning result (which I was taught in Wikiversity) like this:. Now I understand how to insert new content to an table and recall them with. So which one is superior? Is there a third (better) option around? Thank you. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC) If you were joining 100 or 1000 items, the method used might make a small difference in the time taken: doing  100 times in a loop would involve an overhead due to the management of memory that Lua would have to perform as it creates and deletes temporary strings. By contrast,  is designed to optimize that procedure. However, there would be no measurable difference in most Wikipedia applications, and which one to use becomes a matter of taste.

I generally prefer using my  function when gathering results. You can see it at Module:Convert/show—just look at how it is used without trying to follow the intricacies of the rest of the code. I like collection because of its simple usage:  to add something, and   to get the final text.

You would need to be aware that the following two lines are exactly the same (the colon is simply a convenience):

However, something like collection may be a bit daunting for anyone else wanting to edit a module, so I would be inclined to stick with results .. 'something' or table.concat if I were working on a joint project. I have recently been working on Module:Val which was started by someone else. It uses tables more than I would normally, but the techniques are useful. At one point it uses a table simply as a flexible way to show what components are being used, like this: return table.concat({           ' ',            'xxx',            'xxx',            'xxx',            ' '        }) That could just as well be the following, but I've left the table for now: return ' ' .. 'xxx' .. 'xxx' .. 'xxx' .. ' ' I don't think there would be any measurable difference in performance regarding these two methods, although technically I'm pretty confident that the table would have more overhead because it is just redundant in this one-off use, however it might be attractive ... I haven't quite decided. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Sameboat: I thought about that table I mentioned and decided to remove it: diff. It's a trivial issue, but just concatenating the strings with  seemed more straightforward. One point is that I had to insert parentheses around each item that was an expression. For my interest I ran a quick test on a local computer. It takes well under a microsecond to call a function that does nothing but return a string using   to join several parts. Doing the same for a function that uses a table to join the same text also takes a negligible time, but the table is 50% slower. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed especially for joining expression between strings. The incentive is easier code for novice to understand because nearly none of the active editors in my wikia project knew about Lua before I had introduced it. One particilar editor made some good progress of expanding the modules. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice at user's talk page
The block is on the person, not the account, and retracting the legal threat is not an option. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. I replied at User talk:NeilN. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hindering discussion of others on Talk pages = respectless, uncivil behaviour
@Johnuniq: On 6 August I started discussion section Wikipedia talk:Civility, to discuss—as the title clearly says—organising that page, and brought in several ideas on that topic. You reacted that same day with a posting of 96 words, consisting of seven (or more) statements, but: none of those statements seems to address any of the questions, ideas I had raised in the section, nor the topic of the section.

Why did you do that? Discussion pages are meant to give opportunity to editors to start discussions on topics they wish to discuss. If you have no wish to enter into a certain discussion started by one or several others, the only polite, decent, respectful way to behave is to stay out of that discussion section. Cluttering such a section (as you did there on 6 August) with off-topic text that does not address the topic of the section only leads to hindering and frustrating and disturbing the started discussion of that/those one or several other editor(s), and will discourage others to seriously enter into that discussion. In short, it is a serious threat to the good functioning of Wikipedia.

I advise you, to remove your entered text of 6 August from that section, and perhaps place it in a new section, on the same or another page. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of people watch Wikipedia talk:Civility and many of them will have seen your edits and comments. There were several replies to your initial comments, starting 26 July 2015. The fact that fewer are responding now suggests that people do not see a need to change the policy or to engage in further discussions. My reply directly addressed the issues raised in your comment. CIVIL is a well-established policy page and it is unclear why anyone thinks it needs to be reworked. Re indents: You must have seen my edit summary (diff) when I reverted your change to my comment, because you mentioned it when repeating your change (diff). Perhaps the fact that WP:INDENT was linked in my edit summary was missed because that page has useful information—my indentation accurately indicated which post I was replying to. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Another Query for TWL
Hey John; we have been working along great doing metrics for TWL using our current proxy measures (special:LinkSearch data), but ran into another opportunity for querying dumps using a script.... and thought of you! We are interested in trying to run the historical data for https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/P587, to get a sense of how different urls changed in usage frequency over time, and the foundation team that create the tool doesn't have the bandwidth to be running it for us. Do you think you would be able to run a limited set of queries using that script? If not, thats fine as well, Sadads (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Some interesting stuff there, which I will digest later. I don't think my system will be of much use because my code works with external links dumps, and that includes all URLs in a page. For TWL I filtered that to work on only articles, but it finds all URLs in an article, not just those in a reference. I have some other code that can search for stuff in articles, but I only have article dumps for January and April 2015. Article dumps are big and ugly: January is 50GB. I'll have a closer look at what is wanted later and will ping you when finished; that will be in a day or two. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Sadads: I delayed replying because I recalled that I have experimented with extracting all the unique domains that are used in external links, and I wanted to remind myself what that was about. That code is not useful for what you want, so, per my above comment, I'm afraid I can't help. I understand you were talking about running the code prepared for the phab ticket you mentioned, but the problem there is that I can't take the time or disk space to download historic article dumps—I only have external links dumps and so cannot work out which were used in references. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Thats good intel to know: I didn't realize it was that big of a file requirement; I will ask around more, and see if we can find someone else with the capacity. BTW, do you have a phabricator user name? I was trying to add you to the ticket, in conversation, but couldn't find you under the Wikipedia account (there might be other items you might have interest around). Sadads (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid I haven't got a phab account, and I haven't done anything at WMFLABS. Perhaps in my next lifetime...
 * You might consider finding someone who understands Labs and ask them what would be involved in extracting wanted information from the database each month. A clueful person would be able to quickly describe the big picture of what is needed, even if they didn't have time/energy to do the job. That would at least provide a specification which you might eventually entice someone to complete. Basically you want a database of external links in articles, with the page id, and the month/year that it first appeared, and whether or not it was in a reference. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Chapel inclined plane
Sorry I didn't check it had converted. I'd forgotten about l and s. Your edit seems correct, though I suggest it'd be better to convert to kg, rather than lb, ie 16 and 20 Lcwt. Do you agree and, if so, do you want to do the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnragla (talk • contribs) 12:52, 30 August 2015
 * Replied on your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've edited all the conversions, but, as long tons, short tons and metric tonnes are very similar and most of the numbers are approximations, I've changed them to just read 'tons', which doesn't lose any significant accuracy, but makes the article easier to read.Johnragla (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, I agree and the ton/tonne/long/short stuff makes my head spin. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass revert
That's a rude thing to do after I spend 20 minutes trying to NPOV that article. Please take it to the talk page instead of revert warring as your first response. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to play the game with me. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hi, I noticed that you have been editing the Acupuncture article to reflect User:QuackGuru's sandbox edits. I'm not sure if you were aware, but QuackGuru is under a WP:0RR edit restriction at that article for, in part, aggressive editing and gaming tactics. I realize your intent was to improve the article, but in the process you ended up helping them get around their restriction, which isn't good for QG (or you). They're all-but-topic-banned for a reason, so if you are going to edit by proxy I thought you should at least be aware. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Adjwilley: I explained the reason for my edits at Talk:Acupuncture. I am familiar with the notice of discretionary sanctions at the top of Talk:Acupuncture, but if QG is not topic banned, is there a reason his edits should not be considered? WP:PROXYING does not seem to apply. I have half-heartedly been watching the article for a long time (years) but often miss developments and I do not recall the background to the WP:0RR restriction, although I may have seen it. It doesn't look like any edit warring is going to occur, and there certainly won't be any from me. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I've been watching the article for a while myself, and very closely for about a year. I agree that sandbox edits can be useful, and I've done similar things myself particularly when an article is under full protection. In this case I see the Acupuncture article as sort of a tug-of-war. If either of the two opposing "sides" really had their way with the article you would get either an article that presents acupuncture as a great health option for this condition and that condition, glossing over the hard science and lukewarm clinical testing, or an article that presents acupuncture as a dangerous scam, stressing the risks, and only mentioning stuff like, say, history, other than to point out that it's pseudoscience superstition and woo. (You will note, for instance, that in this edit the Lead paragraph on "History" became a paragraph on "Mechanism, Epidemiology and History", and instead of beginning with "Acupuncture is believed to have originated around 100BC in China..." it begins, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological evidence for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians, and acupuncture points". Neither of these two extremes, in my opinion, makes a good encyclopedia article, and the ideal article would give appropriate weight to the different points of view, stating the clinical results, acknowledging the dispute, but not focusing on it to the exclusion of other very important details that belong in an encyclopedia. And the very existence of the tug-of-war is bad for the article. Neutral editors who don't already have strong opinions have a high barrier to getting their edits in, and when they do they can't be sure their work won't be blanked in the next edit war between the opposing sides. Anyway, the participants themselves fall on a spectrum of how hard they push their positions. On that spectrum, QuackGuru has been perhaps the most extreme. In hopes of improving things I have been focusing on the most extreme editors on both sides, but in QG's case I stopped just short of a topic ban in order to allow them to comment in talk page discussions and perform uncontroversial ref maintenance. Seeing this sandbox thing go down is making me wish I had just gone straight for the topic ban. I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from on this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Adjwilley: I am very sympathetic to the view you expressed, and definitely do not think an article on any topic—even those agreed as referring to pseudoscience—should have editorial comment in every paragraph/section pointing out the alleged defects. However, the sentence starting "Scientific investigation..." is not new: it was previously the last sentence of paragraph 2, and the edit merely moved the sentence (with no changes) to the beginning of paragraph 4. I've got too many things balancing here at the moment to examine a complex issue, but over the weekend I'll try to read the article again to see whether there appears to be undue banging of a drum. I don't know why there is so little discussion at the article talk at the moment—more than 50 hours has now elapsed since my edit, and there has not been much objection. No doubt people will return to the article in due course and will readily find any over-egged text. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I realized the paragraph had been reorganized, and it was that shift in focus I was talking about. I didn't realize that no other changes had been made to the sentences. (That's where an edit summary would have been nice.) Also to be clear, I wasn't saying that the article had reached either extreme, only that these are the directions the pull has been, though I'm sure your review will be helpful. Thanks also for responding to the comment on my talk page, as I too am balancing a lot IRL and don't always have time to respond in a timely manner. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Adjwilley: A followup re my "I'll try to read the article again" comment: I finished carefully examining all the text in the article (again) in the few days following the above, and I don't think there is anything undue, and there does not appear to be any over-egged text promoting an extreme position. There is a fair bit of tedious prose, but that is an unfortunate side-effect of the need to state what is known reasonably precisely—unfortunately, there is very little that can be definitively stated about the efficacy of acupuncture, and the sources are full of qualifications. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the time you've put into that, and the follow up. I've read portions of the article myself and "tedious" is probably the reason I've not attempted the whole thing. I mostly see diffs, and aside from the recent expansion of the history section, most of the diffs I see are people fighting about stuff like efficacy and recommendations for this and that condition, arguing whether this or that is a good source, and lots of nit picking. I tend to believe that it is that kind of fighting that leads to paragraphs like the one I complained about here (a paragraph on "Pain" whose first sentence doesn't talk about pain). The only point I can find here to disagree with you about is on whether an article needs to be tedious in order to be precise/accurate. (I know that's not exactly what you said ;-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE
I think you're right. Please consider taking it to AE yourself. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Groan, I suppose I should. However I think I'll defer and think about it later. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Shariah Page
Hi, About the Sharia law Wikipedia page: Through communication and by watching lectures and speeches given by Muslim scholars, I have come to learn the majority view of Islam on many topics such as slavery and women's rights. Happening upon the Sharia page, I couldn't help but notice such discrepancies as: -Islam allows men to abuse their wives -Minor females can be married off by their fathers -Islam promotes slavery -Apostasy is forbidden and apostates must be killed, in all cases. -Sharia law is inhumane among other examples of false information on the page I corrected the information by explaining Islam's view on concubinage, slavery, and women's rights, removed sentences giving incorrect information such as above^^, and overall attempted to convey the proper view of Sharia law on several matters spoken of in the page. I believe my edits have been reverted because I did not give proper information on what I was editing in the edit summary? Here I am explaining my reason for my edits, and I hope the edits will not again be reverted. Shifasabaat (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit summary in my diff meant that any problems with the article should be explained at Talk:Sharia. Issues regarding an article should be discussed at the article talk page so that other editors can participate, and so the discussion can easily be found in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Kitten for you. Sorry for my destruptive edits to Wikipedia about pedophilia and Wikipedia's Child Protection Policy. Please forgive me.

Frogger48 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC) 
 * @Frogger48: Thanks, but please stop posting about pedophilia anywhere on Wikipedia. I saw your edits at WT:Child protection before you posted here and I was thinking of removing your comments as that page is not the place to announce that you will no longer be posting there. In addition, the most recent comment before your recent posts was at 20 August 2015—there should be no activity there unless something substantive arises. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I understand. Frogger48 (talk)

Lua: for loop of ipairs not starting at 1
Sorry if you have already answered me the same/similar question before. My temporary solution is to check if the key 'i' is smaller than my targeted initiator, e.g. 10: for i, v in ipairs(table) do	if i < 10 then -- do nothing else result = result .. 'whatever' end end Just not sure if there is a better way than this. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Sameboat: That code is fine. I have done very similar things, but usually I have only needed to skip the first entry. That is, instead of 10 above, my code had 2. One of my programs uses an alternative like this:

local function example(start, fields) for i = start, #fields do       local v = fields[i] -- Do something. end end
 * Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TBH I nearly forgot about the # operator. After a quick search, the Lua 5.2 Reference Manual suggests that this operator "may be removed in future versions". So any comment on this? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Sameboat: No, it's not talking about # being removed. The description for add includes  where h is a handler defined in a metamethod for an item that is not numeric: note that h is called with two arguments, the two items to be added. Something similar happens for the unary minus and # operators. In other words, it would be possible to have a table with a metatable that provided a __len function, and using #t where t is such a table would call the special __len function with t as an argument. What the manual is saying is that right now, __len is actually called with two arguments where the first is t and the second is a dummy argument used for simplicity so all handlers work in a similar manner. The manual is saying that in the future the second dummy argument may be removed. By the way, Special:Version shows we are still using Lua 5.1.5 and a little care is needed when reading the 5.2 manual because some minor details are different. For example, there is a __pairs metamethod in 5.2 but not in 5.1.5. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Photo in question
I understand you had issues with your edits on the page I created, so you'll need to understand some background; there is a topic on this same image here Talk:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases wherein the consensus reached was that a)since this was an unsourced image uploaded by a wikipedia user, it could not be validated as a Catholic priest. and b) "we do not seem to know anything about what it is trying to actually depict". The file simply states "Catholic"...but that is only the file name. So, to correct this I have uploaded a similarly unsourced/unverified file and named it "anglicanpriestchasingchildren.jpg" so there won't be any more need for dispute. Just a simple example of saying something enough times and it becomes true by consensus I guess. Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Trinacrialucente: Please discuss article issues on the article talk page. Naturally I looked at that page before reverting. I will mention here that identical images are not desirable, particularly when not attributed, and the name of the image is not the point:
 * File:CatholicChurchAbuseScandalGraffitiPortugal2011.JPG
 * File:Anglicanpriestchasingchildren.jpg
 * Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ...
That was ... fun?!--Cahk (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Cahk: Thanks for cleaning up my user page. It's good to see that Wikipedia can provide entertainment for bored trolls as well as being an encyclopedia! Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Huma Abedin
You've commented at WP:AE#Nocturnalnow. It seems unlikely that admins will hand out topic bans. Can you think of any other remedy that would help ensure that WP:BLP is followed? Sending things to BLPN doesn't do much good these days. Applying a 1RR might not be enough. At times like this I wish the admin could just wave their hand and impose some neutral-looking wording on the article, but we can't. Any other ideas? Long-term protection? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston: It's going to be a very long year leading to the election! Campaigns have always been a difficult time here, but Wikipedia is now universally used and people know that anyone curious about Huma Abedin will visit our article, so opponents will want to ensure that negativity is thickly applied. The community is not ready for 500/30 to be applied to articles like that, although it's quite possible that the whole topic will have to be given that treatment when the election draws closer. I agree that 1RR would not be enough—the problem there is that an IP can pop up as often as wanted, and additional SPAs could easily emerge, so it would be a good editor who would end up blocked despite the fact that experienced observers would see that BLP was a valid reason to revert. Callanecc fully protected the article until 9 November 2015 and that would normally have been a great decision, but I'm not so sure in this case as only the SPAs may hang around to resume. I don't think there is enough evidence yet to support WP:AE action, and I suppose there will have to be an RfC regarding the disputed wording, although there are many ways to rephrase undue negativity to highlight the misfortunes of the subject's husband. After an RfC, and finally to address your question, I can't see any option other than an admin choosing to topic ban anyone who persists with trying to workaround the spirit of an RfC result, particularly if they are an SPA. There is no policy against persistence or being an SPA, but discretionary sanctions are purposely very wide to allow such issues to be considered. It's going to be a very long year! Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cat in Sandbox
Admire your deft corrections but not your sense of humour; it's a big piece in the Guardian today, about Lloyd causing Cats to shit. Your sandbox comment was perfect! Kalpa108 (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At Andrew Lloyd Webber, I reverted your edit which changed the name of Webber's company from Really Useful Group to Cat Laxative Inc. with edit summary "Fixed typo" and no other explanation. I'm sorry about any resemblance to humor when I suggested editing in the sandbox, but I haven't caught up with the Guardian. If it's a joke, it should not be at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! Re: me foulup
Hi, minor but annoying error on my part, dunno if you caught it or not. I just realized I had the wrong diff at the end of my reply to you at Talk:Acu, end of the section on the Ernst review. The diff my strengthening the summary wording stronger is in fact this, not this; the latter is simply the original, weaker (and I agree less accurate) diff. (Fixed at talk.)

I can only assume that Mercury is retrograde, if not in this, then some parallel universe: surely there's some logical explanation for my error. (Just checked: our Mercury is not, so it's got to be a parallel one, then.) Cheers. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 06:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Middle 8: No problem, I'll examine it all later, and thanks for alerting me. I've been taking a brief holiday from acupuncture and its talk but will check everything since my last post in due course (probably not today). Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama
— Preceding unsigned comment added by VS6507 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 November 2015
 * Please don't post so much about every little disagreement. Stick to the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Communication Protocol
Hello, Johnuniq

I am Cherdchai Iamwongsrikul, and I have some suggestions that I would like you to review.

I would like to suggest that the term "Communications Protocol" is ungrammatical. And the grammatical term should be "Communication Protocol".

In case there are two noun words, the first noun gives more detail to the following noun. And the first noun must be in "Singular form".

Let's think about these questions.

How do you call a kind of business which washes, cleanses, and waxes customers' automobiles ? - Car care business OR - Cars care business ? Car care business is the correct one.

How do you call the making use of illegal labor of many children ? - Child labor OR - Children labor ? Child labor is the correct one.

How do you call a kind of brush which usually people use this kind of brushes to brush not just one tooth but many teeth ? - Tooth brush OR - Teeth brush ? Tooth brush is the correct one. Note: Tooth(singular), Teeth(plural)

How do you call a kind of paste which usually is used not just for brushing a tooth but for brushing many teeth ? - Toothbrush OR - Teethbrush ? Toothbrush is the correct one.

How do you call a place especially made for parking many cars ? (Not just for 1 car to be parked) - Car park OR - Cars park ? Car park is the correct one. We can see that even the place is used for parking many cars, it is still called "car park", not "cars park".

As the word "system" is singular and the word "Communications" is plural, the grammatically correct term should be "Communication". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherdchai Iamwongsrikul (talk • contribs) 10:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think everyone else missed such an obvious error? And they named the article Communications protocol without noticing the error?
 * By the way, this is my user talk page. My comment on your talk included Please explain why you believe your change is warranted at Talk:Communications protocol.
 * Please do not attempt to talk about the issue here because other editors need to see the discussion as they may want to give their opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Watching?
Could you reply at my talk please. Regards Widefox ; talk 10:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not watching your talk. I periodically review my recent edits to see if my comment is still "current", and sometimes add a follow-up. I have replied, but I never imagined there would be any need for all the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Haresandhounds
Did you look at this editor's other edits?among other problems he used [this website]. Doug Weller (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller: Yet another ugly website—I'm glad to say my revert was before those blatant edits. I checked a couple of earlier contributions and they were either ok or had been undone. I'll try to look occasionally. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * LinkSearch self-reminder: click to check if links added
 * User indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Giving music you may remember, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you! I enjoyed the cantata and might sample others. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Cold Fusion (LENR) - Publications -- Current state of research
After I re-inserted this material I was entering my comments in Talk. So, yes, there was nothing there at that time. However, it is there now. (Talk about timing!!)

I will re-insert the article material for now.

Please read Talk and comment. If you have any objections to citing one of the leading scientific journals in India, please note them explicitly.

I also think that you should actually READ some of the articles before you do anything.

Thanks. Robert92107 (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor for whom you left a talk page caution. The thread is Professor JR on political articles. Thank you. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

AN discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Discussion at CIVILITY". Thank you. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)