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]

Module:Year in other calendars[edit]

Hi, John. I recently copied Module:Year in other calendars to it works pretty much as expected. But have problem with following line & need to localized.

       -- Converts strings of the format "n BC" to their corresponding
	-- numerical values.
	if type( s ) ~= 'string' then
		return nil
	s = mw.ustring.match( mw.ustring.upper( s ), '^([1-9]%d*)%s*BC$' )
	if not s then
		return nil

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 "s =" above with:
s = s:match('^([1-9]%d*)%s*[Bb][Cc]$') or s:match('^খ্রিস্টপূর্ব%s*([1-9]%d*)$')
To make it display the bnwiki name, you would need to change function numToBC by replacing the first of the following lines with the second (the format stuff is not needed):
return string.format( '%d BC', 1 - num )
return 'খ্রিস্টপূর্ব ' .. (1 - num)
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[edit]

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, (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 {{ping|Johnuniq}} 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#Explicit construction. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Indef of Pyraechmes[edit]

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[edit]

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 <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 <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, <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 {{paragraph break}} 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)
Magioladitis, 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)

(talk page stalker). 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 | 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)


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. "sarah brown" gets to "Page 32 of 312 results" (the site has a total of 410 pages) patron gets to "Page 2 of 17 results" 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 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 reads: "Sarah Brown@SarahBrownUK" and makes no reference to "jane" 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]] [[Significant other|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:

Since, in my view, editors here are giving little heed to the concepts of WP:AT#Use commonly recognisable name 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#Requested move #10.

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)


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#May 2015) 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 | 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)


The name may be entirely innocent. Oh puhleeeze. I'll put you in my Optimist's guide if you're not careful. Bishonen | 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[edit]

Since you commented at User talk:Chrisrus#Topic shift 2 I'm letting you know about WP:AE#The Gamergate hatting thing has blown up again. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented at AE. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Technical issue[edit]

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 (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 (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 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)