Jump to content

User talk:Johnuniq: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎No personal attacks: not a personal attack, not showing ownership
Line 557: Line 557:
::I assumed that {{u|Nancygerette}} was [https://www.linkedin.com/in/nancy-gerette-mcclernan-366a762 Nancy Gerette McClernan], the [https://www.pinkerite.com/p/who-is-behind-pinkerite_25.html creator of pinkerite.com]. I don't think that we should reinstate your [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] just because the {{tq|possibility hadn't occurred}} to you that you were making a personal attack. You don't [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOR|own]] the [[Steven Pinker]] article, and we should be encouraging [[WP:NEWBIES|newcomers]] to contribute. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&mdash;&hairsp;<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Freoh|Freoh]]</span> 14:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
::I assumed that {{u|Nancygerette}} was [https://www.linkedin.com/in/nancy-gerette-mcclernan-366a762 Nancy Gerette McClernan], the [https://www.pinkerite.com/p/who-is-behind-pinkerite_25.html creator of pinkerite.com]. I don't think that we should reinstate your [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] just because the {{tq|possibility hadn't occurred}} to you that you were making a personal attack. You don't [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOR|own]] the [[Steven Pinker]] article, and we should be encouraging [[WP:NEWBIES|newcomers]] to contribute. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&mdash;&hairsp;<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Freoh|Freoh]]</span> 14:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Freoh|Freoh]] Please drop the personal attack accusations and the [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content]] nonsense. It clearly was not meant as a personal attack unless you think Johnuniq isn't telling the truth, and I see no evidence backing "own". [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 14:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Freoh|Freoh]] Please drop the personal attack accusations and the [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content]] nonsense. It clearly was not meant as a personal attack unless you think Johnuniq isn't telling the truth, and I see no evidence backing "own". [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 14:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
::::I agree that it probably wasn't {{tq|''meant'' as a personal attack}}, but I don't think that means that the personal attack should be reinstated. I was pointing to [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOR]] to inform {{u|Johnuniq}} that Wikipedia policy advises against the kinds of {{diff2|1135849174|comments}} {{they|Johnuniq}} made about {{u|Nancygerette}}, which seem written {{tq|with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions}}. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&mdash;&hairsp;<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Freoh|Freoh]]</span> 17:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:45, 28 January 2023

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

Binksternet edit war

The user Binksternet has been doing an edit war on the Chris Kirkpatrick wikipedia page and has removed almost all the content, even though it has had reputable sources added for all sections. Please revert that users changes to what it was before, as that wikipedia page is now very sparse and not professional at all. Please protect that page from future disruptive editing by that user. Katerpillarfly (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to Chris Kirkpatrick. In my response at requests for page protection, I had a major typo. I meant to write You should be asking questions at WP:Teahouse. They would tell you that the text in your version of the article has too much non-encyclopedic detail. The general advice about dispute resolution is at WP:DR. The first step is to post to article talk (Talk:Chris Kirkpatrick) with a justification for the proposed edits. However, as I mentioned, you do not yet have sufficient experience and you should start by asking questions and seeing if anyone agrees that your text is appropriate. Finally, it is you who are edit warring—Binksternet is one of, I think, three editors not counting ClueBot who have reverted your changes. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an edit war, but my attempt to fix the vandalism to the page. Almost all of the stuff that has been deleted from that page is referenced (it is no longer non-encyclopedic as I have added references for all of it, taken some stuff out, and changed the wording for many paragraphs) but it is all being deleted without even being checked. Please check it and see for yourself. VH1 documentaries, Rolling Stone articles, interviews, and direct quotes from reality shows he has been on have been removed for no reason. Katerpillarfly (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I ask is that you revert the most recent changes that Binksternet did, because that was the edited version that had been improved but was changed without checking. Katerpillarfly (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to start learning how to get on at Wikipedia. Otherwise you will be blocked. The article talk page has not been edited in over two years. You have not asked questions at the Teahouse or anywhere else that I can see. Wikipedia uses a very strict definition of "vandalism" (see WP:VAND) and suggesting that changes by other editors is vandalism is a personal attack. Text like "Despite their struggles, Kirkpatrick's family was a very musical one" is fine on a personal website or perhaps in a opinion piece in some media outlet. It will not stand at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was talking with Binksternet on their talk page and we have some understanding about it now. They have given me feedback to allow the changes. Katerpillarfly (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amhara page

By who? 213.137.70.112 (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the history of the article. If there is a problem, please spell it out. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There is a problem. How come all those sources are getting removed ( including the main image on the page ) like this? It’s not the first time that is happening. 213.137.70.112 (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to be very precise about what you mean. Talk about "all those sources" and "main image" is not adequate. You posted about this using a different IP (213.137.70.127) three hours ago (permalink) and that IP and the one you are using now have no other edits. See WP:TP for how to reply to comments. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

User:Hneuhauser is adding External links to numerous articles linking to a document collection (I am guessing the user works there). The links do not give any information other than the fact that the collection has some papers related to the subject, and it doesn't even state whether it is the principal repository of the subject's papers (which I know it is not in all of the cases I have checked. Please advise or bulk revert. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groan, that's what anyone can edit means. See external links noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

House of the Dragon protection

Oops! Sorry. BusterD (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BusterD, no problem! I was tempted to protect House of the Dragon myself due to the frenetic activity. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Persistent hunting talk page

Please do archive the talk page or is there some other way to indicate that the talk page comments have no relevance to the current content of the wikipage to which they refer IsaacGouy (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I archived Talk:Persistence hunting. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming a musical

Today someone changed the title of (moved) a Lloyd Webber musical to the new title Bad Cinderella. The musical has only been produced, so far, in the West End under the title Andrew Lloyd Webber's Cinderella, but today it was announced that the upcoming 2023 Broadway production will be titled Bad Cinderella, which is, admittedly, a better title for the musical. However, per WP:CRYSTAL, I can't help thinking that this was premature, even if it happens as scheduled. See also WP:NAMECHANGE. Also, the musical's first major production, in London, was under its original title, so I wonder if it is correct to change the title even after a second production opens under that title. Is there a clear rule for what happens when a work of fiction that was successful under one title changes to a new title in subsequent editions/productions? If you agree that this is, in any case, premature, would you kindly (1) return it to the prev name (but with today's subsequent changes preserved, (2) advise about what you think should be the case after the Broadway production actually begins previews under a new name and/or gets reviewed under the new name; and (3) can you think of a kind way to inform the editor who moved the article, Jasonbres, of what he ought to do in such cases? Plus, maybe we should give the WP:MUSICALS project a heads up.... Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what would be best but have left an on-the-fence request for opinions at Talk:Bad Cinderella#Article title and WP:CRYSTAL. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack?

This editor has stricken-through information in an archive, claiming that my Talk page content was a personal attack, when I think clearly it was not. What do you think?

As you can see, this is part of another infobox dispute at Talk:Maddie Ziegler by an editor who has never previously edited the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, is there nothing better for people to do? Are Twitter and Facebook down at the moment? Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Here he is trying to dissuade another user from reverting infoboxes per consensus. And also here! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

Hi John,
I noticed this online link[1]. This might result in more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS.
Google translate: ""The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Wikipedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."

Another link:[2]
Google translate:[3] "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Wikipedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Wikipedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."
Google translate of one of the comments:[4] "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"
- LouisAragon (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. Links to any affected articles will be needed if it results in anything significant, along with possibly a report at WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tail wagging the dog

This IP (through several addresses), has been going around changing the description of people to match their categories? (note the edit summaries), and seems to be wrong in most cases. Consider, for example, this Golden Globe and BAFTA award-winning actress/singer. S/he wants to delete the statement that the subject is also an actress. S/he has done this on many articles and has edit warred about it. Would you kindly take a look? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I issued a warning here and here. All the IPs seem to be one person and are listed at Special:Contributions/2601:580:C100:2B60:0:0:0:0/64. Let me know if they continue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think this edit was after your warning, right? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see User talk:2601:580:C100:2B60:44E5:F2DE:215D:59A8. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are well

I hope you are well.

Not sure if you recall, but you participated in a previous appeal to my topic ban. To my disappointment at the time, you did not support my appeal. I currently am appealing again at the administrators noticeboard. I hope that the concerns you expressed may be lessened or completely alleviated this time around. If not, I would appreciate you share what concerns you have with me so I can address them to you before you reach a verdict if you chose to. I look forward to conducting a dialogue with any inquiries you may have.

Best regards SecretName101 (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nakedtruth

Regarding this DS notice you gave last week, I 100% agree that this user is solely focused on Hunter Biden and in a disruptive manner. They returned just a few minutes ago to disrupt some more. Since you're an WP:UNINVOLVED (I assume?) admin and I am quite INVOLVED, would you mind considering a topic ban or a p-block? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC?

Can they just keep opening more and more discussions until they win? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMaddie_Ziegler&type=revision&diff=1120104371&oldid=1118791715 -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the only recent RfC and I'm afraid it is part of the approved bludgeoning process. If there were a recent (say in last six months) RfC on the same topic, I would be willing to remove another attempt but if not, the RfC will have to run. I can monitor the situation and prevent undue argumentation. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Does everyone who voted just above have to vote again? Can the recent participants on both sides be notified? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is judged on the comments given in response, not what someone might have commented a few days earlier. It's ok to ping people who recently commented (or post on their talk), but the same very neutral alert has to be given to all people who commented since a chosen cut-off date. Anyone who has already responded at the RfC obviously does not need to be notified. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dev0745

You had warned him to stop misrepresenting sources and stop using unreliable sources on September,[5][6] but he has continued it.

His misrepresentation of sources happened throughout was already called out on October - November 2022 at Talk:People_of_Assam#Tea_Labourers. Instead of agreeing with the problem he was edit warring by terming another editor's edit as "please don't speard propaganda".[7]

His edit here just yesterday[8] is not supported by the given source. The source mentions "Mahli" only once in a table at p.65 but it has nothing to do with what he cited ("Historically they were treated as untouchable caste due to their occupation") by using a misleading page number "53".

On Kol people just yesterday, he described "some grievances has been come out from the adivasi leaders that the Biharis used to call them 'Kol' which means pig, that in turn aroused bitterness and hatred against the Biharis" (from source), a lame slur as: "According to another theory, Kol means Pig."[9] There is no "theory".

Used completely unreliable source here on 7 November.

I believe he seriously needs a broader topic ban. He is already under a topic ban related to WP:ARBIPA,[10]  and he is not stopping his cherrypicking, misrepresentation of sources and use of stereotypes for history. Srijanx22 (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Srijanx22: I'm trying to understand your third paragraph above starting "His edit here". I see "Mahli" mentioned in the table on p.63 where "63" is the printed page number at the bottom of the text. That is page 65 of the pdf. However, p.53 (printed page number) contains "Maheli" which is presumably an alternative spelling. Page 53 contains "the government of Jharkhand categorises the Mahelis ... as a Scheduled Tribe. In Tapu, however, in many contexts, the Mahelis were treated as the untouchable caste of the village". Bear in mind that I'm uninformed and short of time due to off-wiki issues. However, the edit in the given diff seems supportable by the text I have quoted. The English is poor but it does not (given my limited understanding) seem to be a misrepresentation. Please clarify. I don't need a long explanation, I just want to know if you are withdrawing your above third paragraph and, if not, what is the problem. I'll look at the rest of your comment when this is sorted out. However, I probably won't return for 24 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck it and improved that particular edit here to highlight the PDF more accurately.
I had a look into another article where he has used this pdf source and I found Lohra (tribe) which he created on 30 October. Here, he has made a clearer misrepresentation of another source by claiming "those who were following tribal religion or not following Brahminism were included in Backward tribes", contrary to the source that makes no mention of "Brahminism" or even its broader form "Hinduism".[11] It mentions "Buddhism" (a different religion) but it couldn't be a typo because it talks about "person who professes Buddhism or a tribal religion" while "following tribal religion or not following Brahminism" gives a completely different picture. The text version of this PDF can be accessed here. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storm598 and Mureungdowon

Hi. Back in January 2022, you closed this AN/I report about Storm598 with no sanctions, as the editor claimied they were going to stop editing for an extended period of time. Storm598 was a Korean-based editor with knowledge of South Korean and Japanese politics, who applied standards and definitions of those politics to articles about American and European politics, with frequent inaccuracy, misleading the readers of those articles. Their account has not edited since then. Storm598 was the subject of multiple previous AN/I reports, many of them (if not all) initiated by me.

Now, however, beginning in August, another editor has appeared with knowledge of South Korean and Japanese politics, who is applying those standards and definitions to American and European politics, and edit warring in the process. This editor -- user Mureungdowon -- appears to me may be Storm598 editing with another account in order to avoid scrutiny.

You can find a comparison of the two editors contributions here. Bear in mind that the new editor has only 463 edits, so this amount of overlap is very significant.

I would appreciate your looking into this, and doing whatever you think is appropriate, or passing along any advice on how to proceed (I did not file at SPI because Storm598 is not blocked or banned). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I see many examples of the two editors enthusiastically editing ideologies but I haven't found two edits adding the same claim. If you know of any such diffs, you might add them, but don't go to much trouble because I think this will have to be approached as a new case. I have no recollection of the 27 January 2022 ANI report, but it looks like I closed it 20 hours after your post due to my concern about the editor entering TMI territory with "anxiety symptoms" and the like, coupled with the undertaking to take an extended break. It could be argued that that is exactly what happened so a block now is not appropriate. I have issued a clear warning although I imagine you will need to return here and let me know about the next occurrence. Please try to patiently engage them on one or two article talk pages while focusing on the issue and without mentioning the history. No more than two articles please. I will then be able to assess how appropriately they are responding to the content/sourcing issues. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, much appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convert and new SI prefixes

Just to let you know, I've added 4 new SI prefixes in Module:Convert/text/sandbox which can be deployed the next time you do an update of the Convert module. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I saw those prefixes and thought convert would have to be fixed. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Augustus Harris

Hi, I'm confused about your revdels on that page. Did you mean to revdel while at the same time keeping the messages on the page, or am I missing something? LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 02:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did mean to leave the message. The revision-deleted text had already been deleted with an edit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Hello Johnuniq: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, MasterMatt12 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

MasterMatt12 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and Seasons Greetings! Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays from me too. I hope your holiday season is a wonderful one! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Hi Johnuniq, Thanks very much for your comments at AN, which were much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Five Pillars

Hello, you did revert an edit on the five pillars, explaining the (legal) status. The action is being based on a personal opinion, not a reliable source. The talk page writes in the section FAQ: " Is this page a policy or guideline, or the source for all policies and guidelines? It is none of those. It is a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles, begun by User:Neutrality in 2005 as a simple introduction for new users.". This can be checked in the history of the page. Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use a user talk page to discuss edits. Instead, use Wikipedia talk:Five pillars where other editors will see it and will more easily be able to find it in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2023 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful, thanks! Seasons Greetings! Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

Happy New Year!

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Johnuniq!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are at the right place. I'm another no-thanks to Facebook. Thanks and cheers! Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

opinion on Telephone call recording laws

Hey Johnuniq! Given your revert on the latest edit to Telephone call recording laws, and the level of consecutive vandalistic edits from non-(auto)confirmed users in the history of that page, would you think semi-protection would be justified (and beneficial) to encourage content creation instead of problematic modifications? Thanks! Silikonz💬 02:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silikonz: I saw your plea at requests for protection a week or two ago. I'm watching for a while and will take action if I notice suitable disturbance. Please let me know if 24 hours passes and I seem to have missed it. Thanks for your efforts at that article and don't worry about it because I will protect if disruption occurs. I have to wait for that to happen and occasional problems don't count. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the response. Happy holidays! Silikonz💬 03:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Johnuniq, though not as recent as you specified, would just like to inform you that this just happened yesterday. Also would like to inform you about the spam on the talk page, here and here. Thanks, and have a happy New Year. Silikonz (alt)💬 23:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty weird. I semi-protected the article for six months and talk for one month. Thanks for monitoring the problems. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and Happy Holidays! Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkle1

I left a long, custom warning regarding Sparkle1's behavior at their talk page here. Sparkle1 removed part of it, believing it was a template [12] (it wasn't) and responded saying my comments were "ridiculous" and was fairly hostile in their response [13]. This is exactly the kind of behavior people have been referring to. Sparkle1, in the same diff, also attempted to assert they have broken no rules. I made it clear to them they most emphatically have broken rules. They then banned me from their talk page (edit summary).

To be clear; I am not asking you to block. I don't think it good form to block an editor who is upset about getting a warning and venting about the warning. I am asking you to keep eyes on their behavior, as will I. Hopefully this warning sinks in and they amend their behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new era

Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy new Jurassic era! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 16:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks B, that helps quite a lot. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Johnuniq!

Happy New Year!

Johnuniq,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding National Library Board Singapore ID into Wikipedia

Hi, a happy new year to you! I am writing from the National Library Board Singapore. This is in reference to my question in an earlier post in Template talk:Authority control (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Authority_control/Archive_6#Feeding_Wikidata_identifier_into_Wikipedia).

We have created the the identifier National Library Board Singapore ID (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P3988) in Wikidata and would like to expose it in English Wikipedia under authority control. E.g. The National Library Board Singapore ID l26-DGZwOIE only exists in Wikidata (http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q6974124), but not found in the authority control of the English Wikipedia article National Library Board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Library_Board).

I've tried adding the National Library Board Singapore ID l26-DGZwOIE to the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Library_Board based on the solution you provided. However, the identifier does not display in the Wikipedia article. Am I missing something here? Nlbkos (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Would you please investigate the above. I have some off-wiki problems and have not followed {{Authority control}} for quite a long time.
@Nlbkos: MSGJ is taking a few days off at the moment but with luck will return soon and may be able to assist. It might be better if this request was moved to Template talk:Authority control but here will do for now. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do when I can. Happy new year! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing official Instagram post

Hi, Johnuniq. Can you please check whether I cited this Instagram post acceptably? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruthie_Ann_Miles&diff=1133322937&oldid=1133315242 If not, please modify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my scene but the general rule is that children are not named nor are their ages given without good reason. I don't see why more than the NYT reference is needed nor why there would be a need for the article to precisely identify the deceased child's name or age. The point is that the actress and her young child were hit by a car and the actress was injured and the child killed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And I'm so sorry for posting this to your user page. My brain was not working last night! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

Is this hatnote appropriate? If not, would you kindly let the user know? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fantasticks&diff=1135208706&oldid=1133509875 Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The connection is a bit vague but probably ok. I'm not sure how many "For..." hatnotes are appropriate. There aren't enough for a disambiguation page. Anyway, I edited the link so the anchor works and I would leave it at that. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haddon Hall (opera)

Can you please look in on the recent edits at Haddon Hall (opera)? The remaining dispute ("Mannerses") is very minor, but I think the editor's edit warring for their preferred content is wrong; if they can articulate some reason why their change is preferable, they should bring it to the Talk page. What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch it for a while. If something happens, leave it with me but remind me if I miss it for 24 hours. It is always worth putting a message on article talk. In this case you would just say that the text is too awkward and unfamiliar. If anyone is interested they can comment but the fact that you put something on talk helps avoid edit warring accusations. That is, it's better to get in before approaching 3RR. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please remember not to make personal attacks against other editors. Describing a new editor as a "nutcase" based on their off-wiki behavior is not civil.      — Freoh 05:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? My "nutcase" was a description of the author of the attack website. I have no interest in describing another editor that way. I suppose that someone quickly reading my comment might misinterpret it—are you really sure it needed to be redacted? This refers to comments at Talk:Steven Pinker#Pinker's long time support for race pseudoscience where an editor has an evidence-free claim that a BLP subject is racist.
I've just read a preview of this comment. Are you saying that the person who posted the attack at Pinker's talk is the author of the website? That possibility hadn't occurred to me. That thought raises all sorts of questions (is it the editor's user name which makes you think that? if so, they would need to either change their user name or verify their identity; would it be desirable to import an off-wiki campaign to Wikipedia?). Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that Nancygerette was Nancy Gerette McClernan, the creator of pinkerite.com. I don't think that we should reinstate your personal attack just because the possibility hadn't occurred to you that you were making a personal attack. You don't own the Steven Pinker article, and we should be encouraging newcomers to contribute.      — Freoh 14:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freoh Please drop the personal attack accusations and the Wikipedia:Ownership of content nonsense. It clearly was not meant as a personal attack unless you think Johnuniq isn't telling the truth, and I see no evidence backing "own". Doug Weller talk 14:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it probably wasn't meant as a personal attack, but I don't think that means that the personal attack should be reinstated. I was pointing to WP:OWNBEHAVIOR to inform Johnuniq that Wikipedia policy advises against the kinds of comments they made about Nancygerette, which seem written with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions.      — Freoh 17:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&oldid=1136085831"