User talk:Johnuniq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise.

Index of stuff[edit]

Notification experiments[edit]

A recent addition to WP:Notifications#Technical details 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.

  1. [[User:Example]]
  2. [[User talk:Example]]
  3. [[Special:Contributions/Example]]

Let's try Special:Contributions/Bishonen. Will that rouse Sleeping Beauty? Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: 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. --Redrose64 (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)[edit]

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)


Your opinion please, on how User talk:Robert McClenon/DN does or doesn't qualify WP:UP#POLEMIC, 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 outrageous action 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[edit]

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 truth 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?[edit]

Thanks for the hatting. Never seen a meltdown like that in realtime before. --Orange Mike | 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)


Information icon 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.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: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[edit]

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)


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)

(talk page stalker) 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 | 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, @Black Kite: 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[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack_campaign_being_waged_on_User-page. --NeilN talk to me 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm thinking. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Blenhim Palace[edit]

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)