User talk:Johnuniq

I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise. I'm in a WP:Lua coding frenzy and won't be much use for other stuff for a while.

Index of stuff

Module:Convert:

• Module:Convert and Module:Convert/data
• User:Johnuniq/Conversion data
• User:Johnuniq/Making the units table
• Template:Convert/testcases and Module:ConvertTestcase
• My talk page at test2 with more links
• User:Johnuniq/Convert notes • Fixes needed for current template.

Archives:

• Comments re free speech
• Jagged: misuse of sources progress, more, genre articles
• Re Talk:Galling
• Links to highbeam.com from dumps of external links
• Gregorian serial date template

Highbeam results

Count of links to highbeam.com

• Previous discussion is archived here.

Following shows all results. The new entries start with 2012-08-02.

All links to highbeam.com/doc/something in articles

Date	Unique articles	Unique links	Total links	Increase
2012-02-11	8462	10277	11308	–
2012-03-07	8527	10349	11388	80
2012-04-03	8579	10399	11444	56
2012-05-02	8818	10853	11943	499
2012-06-01	9104	11321	12455	512
2012-07-02	9295	11712	12883	428
2012-08-02	9409	12007	13190	307
2012-09-02	9757	12627	13913	723
2012-10-01	10090	13164	14555	642
2012-11-01	10312	13647	15096	541
2012-12-01	10548	14025	15537	441
2013-01-02	10799	14435	16009	472
2013-02-04	11116	14948	16607	598
2013-03-04	11352	15351	17063	456
2013-04-03	11497	15617	17383	320
2013-05-03	11666	15966	17773	390

For example, the first row shows results from the external links dump for February 11, 2012, counting only links of the format shown (or with "www." in front) in articles. There were links in 8462 different articles, and there were 10277 different links. Some links have been used more than once, giving a total of 11308 links in articles. The final column shows the increase in the total from the previous period.

Since I'm recording facts, the new data required downloading 11 files with a total size of 15.8 GB; those files expanded to a total size of 99.2 GB. I noticed a big jump up and down in the size of the files with external links for highbeam.com (up in August 2012 and down in October 2012). My curiosity then led to making the graph shown above, but I haven't tried to find out what was responsible. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! These results are great. I've added them to the metrics page and will share them with HighBeam next week. Cheers :)  :) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Premature closing of MathSci's RfE against D.Lazard by Future Perfect at Sunrise?

I wish to notify you of a discussion that you were involved in.[1] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Standard offer

For anyone interested, here are some thoughts on WP:Standard offer.

Maintaining and developing the encyclopedia requires a collaborative community. Of course it's difficult to herd cats, and there is rarely total harmony because people are different, and it is very easy for one user to irritate another. While gentler language can be used to make the following point, in essence the community does not care who is right and who is wrong in any particular dispute—it is not Wikipedia's role to determine whether one person is more correct than another. What does matter is finding a good outcome that benefits the encyclopedia—it does not have to be the optimum outcome and need not be fair, it just has to stop disruption and lead in the direction of better articles.

If a banned user has been creating socks and wants to return to the community, they have a couple of options. One unapproved but obvious choice is WP:Clean start—simply create one new account and use that to make helpful edits while completely avoiding any previous problem areas. That is not approved because a sanctioned user should appeal their sanction, and a "clean start" account is just another sock, and in practice most clean start attempts come unstuck because the person involved cannot avoid former problems, even if only once, and is quickly recognized and blocked as a sock.

The second and approved technique is WP:Standard offer. The first step (waiting six months) is essential to demonstrate the required level of commitment. The second step (undertaking to totally avoid topics and editors where there was trouble in the past) is also essential—see "not Wikipedia's role" above. The community is extremely pragmatic, and anything that helps the encyclopedia is good, while anything that does not help is not good. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I have decided that this seems the right course to take. A.K.Nole (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

OK good. So just to be clear this is the standard offer

1. Wait six months, without sockpuppetry.
2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

In your case part 2 is

2.1 Avoid all interaction with Mathsci, including commenting on his activity

2.2 Avoid editing in the topic related to Jordan algebra

If you are happy with this we can progress to the next step which is a discussion on WP:AN where the precise details can be determined and the community can decide if they want to put it into practice.--Salix (talk): 19:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A.K.Nole (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

OK thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer for User:A.K.Nole--Salix (talk): 20:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Johnuniq. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites.
Message added 16:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tweaked #3, let me know if the fixes sufficiently address your concerns. Shearonink (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. I'm watching the page and won't need any more talkbacks thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Banks

What I don't understand is why James Cook isn't being hit the same way and worse, if the little dears are reading about the voyages in school. Any theories? Bishonen | talk 11:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC).

Oops, did you just spill some beans? I don't even know how I ended up watching that page, but yes, Banks must be the current focus of study somewhere. Perhaps Cook is now the historical equivalent of a cliché, and teachers have to think of someone less well known? What would be worse—being sentenced to ten years of patrolling poop vandalism, or six months of teaching the perps? Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What you got against poop vandalism? Best kind of vandalism! Bishonen | talk 23:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC).

LOL—the opposite of the typist's mantra keep the "f" in "shift". I see that irreverance and you are well acquainted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That essay section is poorly written

Did you read my edit summary? If you did then you would know what my problem is with that sentence. It violates policy regarding bolding, it is poorly written, and it is factually untrue stating that common sense is a principle. All that was mentioned in my summary. Please revert your revert, that sentence does not belong.Camelbinky (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I responded at WT:What "Ignore all rules" means. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bircham International University

Hi. I'd be grateful if you could have a look at my message on the Bircham International University talk page and let me know your thoughts. Many thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, although I am still watching that page and would respond to a flare up there, eventually. You may like to clarify Talk:Bircham International University#Article Improvements as it is not clear what is proposed. Please review WP:LEAD—the lead-in to an article is a summary of what is in the article, and should be written after the article. If you are going to promote the interests of a business by ensuring an article is accurate, identifying something that is not accurate would be a first step. I wonder if User:Orlady is still available. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'll leave a message with Orlady. Vivj2012 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). I've commented on Talk:Bircham International University. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC).

Thanks! I've run into a wall of RL issues, so I'm glad that article is in good hands. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

TY

Thank you for looking at the Lulaq situation and stepping in. I likely would have been much harsher in the "don't do that again" sense, but trust your efforts and instincts here. I didn't have the time to research the history to see if it was provoked by another user, so I felt it best to bring it to the attention of the community. Thank you again, — Ched :  ?  14:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm not that optimistic about the case, but we live in hope. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Convert/spell

John
Please User talk:Peter Horn#Convert/spell and Template talk:Convert#Present or current output of convert/spell not elegant if not undesirable Peter Horn User talk 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 13:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I follow Template talk:Convert and have commented there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Your statement about editor A and B is correct and unhelpful. The question is not who is right, but if is permitted to stalk the person you disagree with. The whole list of discussions is great but has nohing to do with that question. - The stalking seems permissible if the other one poses a danger to Wikipedia by disruptive editing. Therefore I asked to show one incidence of THAT (addition of an infobox as disruptive editing), not prolong the thread with something we all know all to well. Repeating: Andy can't even edit ..., --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to reach out to your position and consider the situation as you see it (B is stalking A, and that should stop because A feels harassed). However, as outlined, I have seen a couple of the article talk page discussions and they were a disgrace. I don't have the stomach to find them and refresh my memory at the moment, but I am sure that I saw a small group of editors with a technical interest who were forcing their views on a group of gentle content creators—people who have built core content on important encyclopedic topics. I saw more than a disagreement—it was a knock-down fuck-you argument, all to enforce a non-existent policy that each article must have an infobox. I have carefully avoided mentioning A in any direct manner because I saw that they have some severe health issues. I wish them well, but there is no way that the history (extending over years) can be ignored. I do not support a simplistic solution, namely that B (the only person left standing on the other side) should not examine A's edits. It's ironic that the worst disputes sometimes involve the best editors, but that happens becauses clever people are used to being right, and they sometimes are not good at recognizing that perfection is not achievable, and may not see that a truce (leave the composer's articles alone!) would be best under the circumstances. Yes, the editors on B's side are not blameless, but the solution is simple—just drop the mission to enforce what boils down to a personal preference. We both know that A will never do that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)