Jump to content

User talk:Johnuniq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexAndrews (talk | contribs) at 04:45, 28 April 2024 (→The Merchant of Venice: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Uploading images

Hi, I have uploaded the images during the improvement of an article. However, one thing that I'm skeptical about is whether should I choose as my "own work"? The images that I upload are redrawn from the sources, and I have added the source in the summary.

Did I miss something? I'm new at uploading images, and I have no clue how to upload them to Commons even if I have read the WP:MTC. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: I don't know about the status of a diagram redrawn from a (presumably) copyright source. Normally, images would be uploaded at Commons and then used as normal here. In case you haven't seen it, WP:IMAGES has links to relevant pages. You would get better advice at WP:HELPDESK or (if uploaded at Commons) c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. To upload at Commons, you would visit, for example, c:User talk:Dedhert.Jr and use the Upload file link there. It appears you redrew the images so they are your own work but I don't know if you are then legally able to donate your drawing to Commons or Wikipedia using one of the standard licenses. As an example, I uploaded File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2014.svg at Commons. If you click that link, then "view on commons" at the top, you will see where I uploaded it along with the copyright tag I used. Following all that is a bit of a puzzle, good luck! Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About "Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War" and it's talk page

Recently this page's protection was raised.

The reason was proposer gave is editwar, disruptive editing, sock puppet and meat puppet.

Editwar: I have not reverted a single line from the article. I found multiple statements which provided source didn't back it up, grossly misinterpreted which other users also have pointed out and statement taken out of context I've recorded each and every each in talkpage.

But I didn't removed any statement just added inline tags.

The other edits I've done, I've added multiple reference for each statement I've added. I've commented extensively for each edit. Even added references about the citation in the edit description.

A disputed and misinterpreted claim

"Mostly Hindu women were victims..." which he initially added without any source and interestingly, he deleted 5 sources all secondary not original which seems to imply Women were raped irrespective of religion.

An user has given well sourced complain about the claim but he didn't participated in the discussion and didn't defended his claim, i think it's been 15 to 20 days when the dispute was logged. Initially I added inline disputed tag but when it was clear he won't be defending it i restored the original claim which was backed by 5 sources which he deleted before the pov push. I also added additional 2 sources from newyorktimes and a paper from academia.org.

While he wasn't defending his edit he reverted my edit saying no consensus! He didn't improved on the material instead reverted my 3 days of work on this article.

I reverted back and added more references, check the logs if I'm lying. He again reverted back a jouranal published in National library of Medicine and a world renowned book as a primary source. It was clear even if i cite nobel prize winning paper(phrasing wrong) i would get reverted. I documented his destructive and Vandalism in details in the talk page of the article before reverting I don't call it edit war. He actively reverting sentences with multiple references it is clear vandalism.

Also He and the user who proposed protection is involved in similar article "Bangladesh Genocide".

I'm the only active user who is contributing in this article constructively ,by increasing

page security and immediately after reverting every contribution i've done is a blalant gaming the system. He've also removed all the inline tags which questions the neutrality of the article.. plz refer to the talk page of the article.

Take everything i said as grain of salt and investigate yourself.

I also propose, restore the inline tags and revert the last revert, even if you don't do please keep both conflicting view if you don't find the disputed claim as misinterpretion

I've worked hard for 4 days continuously on this, reverting each and every contribution like that feels very discouraging. I'm also want your advice how to handle this.

Salekin.sami36 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Salekin.sami36: This refers to Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and the fact that I applied indefinite WP:ECP protection as a result of a request at WP:RPPI. I'm sorry but I am in no position to adjudicate regarding the state of the article which is a contentious topic. All you can do is make suggestions at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War but you would have to pick one specific point at a time and focus on that. Do not mention other editors and do not use terms such as "destructive". Instead, focus on actionable proposals to change article content, with sources, and keep it brief. There is clearly considerable disagreement and a more realistic approach would be to acknowledge that much more experience with editing difficult topics would be needed. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's a reality of Wikipedia that contentious topics are contentious and the tools to deal with the situation are very limited. See WP:DR which would probably lead to an WP:RFC. It appears "Mostly Hindu women were victims" is your immediate concern and an RfC focused on a concrete proposal to change that wording might be all you could achieve. The article protection is very unlikely to be reduced due to the contentious topic issue. Also, you must not post too frequently on article talk and you must keep comments brief. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the talk page to document the issues with the article and the editor involved,
after all my contribution were reverted which i think done through gaming the system to perserve a certain POV (i think). I won't engage with the topic any further at least for now as my vacation is coming to end, also have done everything that could be achieved(i think) in the current setting. I agree that the topic needed more experienced ones with editing difficult topics but all i could see bunch of IPs and sockpuppets name-calling,blaming each other without doing anything constructive.Salekin.sami36 (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's why the topic is contentious. A relevant essay might be WP:CPUSH but again, I have no knowledge of the topic and no ability to decide who is correct regarding the content. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horse racing distance template

Your new template has worked brilliantly - someone added a new race to the list today, and they used the template and the distance sort has worked. Thanks again, really appreciate your work on this. Bcp67 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm glad {{hrd}} has been useful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Johnuniq. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was just another crank message. Hard to say if it's trolling or genuinely disturbed, but there's no practical difference here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on revert on Robert FitzRoy

You asked "does it make sense to prevent a widow from living in destitution?" Why wouldn't it? I understand widows were often made destitute by the deaths of their husbands. Regarding the edit, I made the change because she had been widowed by this point and was no longer his wife. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message but this sort of thing should be discussed at article talk (Talk:Robert FitzRoy) so others can see it, now and in the future. I might have been wrong in how I read it but someone has added a word that looks fine. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown ECP

Hi Johnuniq, just a quick reminder to restore indef ECP on Chris Brown since the full protection has expired now. Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PolParsEstCat

Hi! I was wondering if you would be willing to lower the protection level of {{PolParsEstCat}}? It is in use on 212 pages, which per WP:HRT is not enough for automatic semi protection, much less TPE (or even XC). Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: I template-protected {{PolParsEstCat}} as a result of a request now archived at 29 February 2020. At the time I asked why protection was needed with a small number of transclusions and was told it was used for categories and problematic edits would create difficult problems. Two other admins were identified as having handled similar requests. If you think there would be a benefit from your request, please make it at WP:RPPD where I have noticed your activity. You might link to the archived discussion and ping the other admins to see if they have an opinion on the category issue. Why not work out how many more of these you might like to move and keep links in a sandbox for a couple of weeks? Then think about whether there would be a real benefit from lowering the protection and consider the alternative of a move request to get several of the moves done in one request. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to go to WP:RFPD. I will address why I disagree with BHG there, but I will address the "maybe do these at all at once" bit here.
My experience with making requests of others (and, I will add, when I am on the other side, e.g. answering edit requests or listings at RMT) is that people usually prefer to have requests broken down into smaller bits, rather than handing off their entire to-do list to someone else. (I also think a mass proposal could have WP:TRAINWRECK issues.)
I will note that I have been making use of WP:RMT when I think the protection is justified, and I certainly make my fair share of TPE edit requests. That is to say, I am considering whether the protection is helpful before requesting unprotection. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP range...still

I'm not the OP, and this isn't the original notification location, but problems are continuing. Wasn't sure whether to notify there or here. Mapsax (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mapsax: Here is fine. I see there is continued edit warring at Talk:WTIC-FM which would justify a longer block (the previous block for Special:Contributions/2601:183:4B00:0:0:0:0:0/40 was one week). However, superficially at least, the IP's edits seem defensible and certainly are not vandalism. What is needed is for someone familiar with the topics concerned to find problematic changes and patiently try to engage the IP at their most recent IP talk page and/or article talk (ideally, there would be a very polite comment at article talk and a link to it at the IP talk with a polite request to respond there). If the IP failed to engage satisfactorily, it would be a lot easier to justify a long block. I've got too much off-wiki turmoil to dive into the details. Can you try it and let me know what happens? Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since as you know, the most recent talk page changes rapidly, and attempts to address issues go ignored, so, added to the lack of edit summaries, it doesn't look like trying any communication would seem practical. Just keep an eye out periodically if you can, and I'll see if there's anything egregious that happens. Thank you for what you've done already. Mapsax (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't put a great deal of effort into it because, as you say, the chance of getting a response is very low. However, if there is no effort it is hard to justify, say, a three-month block on the basis that the IP would have failed to respond. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highly inappropriate warning of a block

Hi. On 08:46, 9 February 2024 , you Johnuniq warned me that you were going to block me, stating, "I will block you if you reinstate obvious nonsense again". I consider this a highly inappropriate warning of a block and it even appears to be misuse of administrative powers. I explained in detail my rationale in my talk page, where there is already a discussion about the situation. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was away from keyboard and did not have a chance to respond before you were blocked for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time sink editors should simply be banned outright.....block will not help behavior in this case as seen by the inability to understand the problem. Moxy- 05:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, yes. Accommodating all comers has benefits but when I speculate about the End of Wikipedia I think it will sink under the weight of unproductive argument. Good editors can't last forever when dealing with nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that it's getting worse. Bon courage (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish protests edit

Hello. When I asked that the Spanish protests page be protected, I also noted that the users who were making those edits, one of them changed the title of the page itself without providing any evidence or sources, and I was never able to undo that. They changed the page to Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024), and they did not provide any evidence. Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024) - Wikipedia

I ask that you please change the title to "2023 Spanish protests against Catalan amnesty" because the protests the page covers were about Catalan amnesty, whereas the current page just says amnesty with no context, and because the user who changed it did not give any sources or evidence that the protests were still ongoing, and everybody else was in agreement that unless someone showed they were ongoing, the protests ended in 2023. In addition, he also changed the duration to say they were still going on without sources or evidence, so when I undid that, I changed it back to October 29-November 18, a duration of 20 days, since that was the reliable dates we had, but the duration was difficult for me to read, and I accidentally put it to 11 months, 3 weeks and 1 day. If you can put those changes in, it would make the article more reliable, and it would be up to date with the most reliable information. Thank you. (2607:FEA8:7221:F600:6D6D:96B4:58C3:9331 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Moving articles when there is a dispute causes trouble. Another administrator has correctly modified the protection to prevent page moving (renaming). I recommend waiting to see what discussions occur regarding the article content then worry about the title later. See WP:DR for dispute resolution and WP:RM for how to deal with title disagreements. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again

Well, I made that mistake twice, and you fixed it twice. Thanks. I think the fix I implemented last time was lost by not being saved.🤦 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this was one of my template fixes, but I've forgotten about it now! No problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twomad page protection

Why did you decide to extended-protect Twomad when both requests (1, 2) were for semi-protection due to IP vandalism? Doublah (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doublah: Something confusing happened with Twomad. While working through the protection requests I looked at the article and its history and decided that the request for semi-protection was appropriate. If a page currently has no protection, I see "protect", click that and set the required parameters. If a page is currently protected, I see "change protection" and can click that and change existing parameters. For this article, I saw "protect", clicked it and set semi-protection. After I clicked the last button, I briefly noticed the protection log at the bottom and saw a very recent "extended confirmed access" entry. I then clicked "change protection" to more carefully look at the log and saw that the log appeared to show that I had changed an existing ECP to semi. That should not have happened and I wouldn't do that intentionally without first asking the protecting admin. I thought about making enquiries but I decided that it would be easier to assume ScottishFinnishRadish had a good reason so I changed the semi that I had set back to ECP. See the protection log which shows the reason: "Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts". Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I draftified the article and it reads recreated there were BLP/BDP issues and disruptive editing from autoconfirmed accounts, so I went to to ECP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am sure you did the right thing. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection

Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late. Someone else has semi-protected. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Johnuniq. You have new messages at Template talk:Convert.
Message added 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Nangaf talk page

Stop deleting comments from my talk page. I will revert your edits if you do. Any editing that needs to happen on this talk page I will do myself, if I see the need. There is no need to reply to this request. Nangaf (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nangaf: My options for dealing with long-term abusers are limited—it boils down to blocking everyone involved. A bunch of stuff is going on here at the moment and it looks like I got confused and blocked 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/44 which does not cover 2600:1004:B163:DD20:35E8:AA31:F2C:B2B8 who posted at your talk. I have watched your talk since noticing the shifting IP turn up there during a noticeboard discussion, I think at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Heiner Rindermann. I have to go elsewhere and don't have an opportunity to investigate further. I can see that you are doing everything correctly and are concerned about third-parties interfering at your talk (I saw the history which shows it has happened before). WP:BMB has enthusiastic supporters and enthusiastic opposers who favor complete liberty. I'm one of the former and keen advocate of WP:DENY so I am afraid you will hear from me again if the IP continues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Would you please look at the discussion on Talk:Grace VanderWaal? It follows some IP vandalism concerning a tik-tok singer named Daniel Larson alleged to be dating VanderWaal. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a comment and will watch. It's minor but has to be prevented. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Armed Forces

Hi I have pinged you in a discussion on this recently protected page, would appreciate your attention on the talk page. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AN

Thank you for your comment here. I note further that the off-wiki "campaign" now, apparently, includes on-wiki physical threats against certain editors (see this ANI report I initiated yesterday). I mention it here so that, being an administrator, you would have a fuller understanding of the depths to which this active campaign is willing to sink. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. That is bad and I would have blocked the IP /64 range for a lot longer than 72 hours if I'd seen it, although I can see the argument that there's not much point with a throw-away IP. Feel free to contact me if you notice other bad things. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

Hi Johnuniq :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddling

You do understand that "what is the point of fiddling with this" is not a valid reason to revert. Please provide a reason why you think my edits did not constitute an improvement. 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Up the Walls (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the appropriate talk page: Template talk:Protection table. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi, Jon. This editor has been pushing infoboxes at two more articles that I worked on extensively. In reverting him, I inadvertently deleted the lead images, and in one case he accused me of vandalism:

Would you please review the last couple days' edits there? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch those two articles for a while but won't act unless more occurs. As you know, the battle continues at WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes and I would have no problem telling someone to give it a rest until that RfC is resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Thinker78 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! I have to say I haven't done anything in recent months to warrant being rewarded but thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abby and Brittany Hensel

Hi, John. I have been resisting this on the grounds of WP:BLP, as none of the sources have confirmed this marriage directly with the subject, but the photos in this New Zealand article look pretty convincing. Do you think it is time to add it to their article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an amazing story. It's strange that such an unusual marriage between US citizens living in the US (I think) has only been noted by The New Zealand Herald. In a few more days, there might be other reports. The photo credit in the nzherald article credits Facebook. I don't know but it's possible that a verified account at Facebook posting about their wedding might be a RS. I would ask for opinions at WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals declined

The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation...

...I have a Android 📱 phone that gets out of hand, keypad got stuck in caps. How do I thank and complement you and other Admins?Four of Sixteen (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend proceeding slowly and waiting for opinions at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Sources into..... Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HELP NEEDED....

....this has something to do with that glitch that caused me to change Wikipedia IDs. I have some kind of inquiry about this in the bell shaped icon. Four of Sixteen (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to write meaningful headings (not "HELP NEEDED....") and you should mention what you are talking about (what glitch? what inquiry?). Information about the bell icon is at Help:Notifications. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It had a glitch that every time I logged in under a old, now terminated account, I got thrown out and had to use another, my current account to log in. A bug caused this to happen. Now I got some graphics issues going on. Is there a bug on here or is my Android phone acting up? Appreciate the help. The announcement about what happened is not only on my user page, but in my contribs as well. Four of Sixteen (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Age

I'm a user on FANDOM and I'd like to ask you a question. Could you show me what would need to be changed to the Age module so that the year is the last numeral, rather than the first. For example, here it is year, day then month, I'd like for it to be month, day then year. I'd gratefully appreciate it if you could show me :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but I need to understand exactly what you mean. Please provide an example of wikitext you would like to enter and what it should produce. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, here you enter {{start date|(year)|(month)|(day)}}. I'd like it to be {{start date|(month)|(day)|(year)}}. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Template:Start date? That does not seem to have anything to do with Module:Age. That template wants year/month/day, for example, {{start date|1993|02|24}} is 1993, February, 24. What do you want {{start date}} for? Its documentation says it is only for use inside a template. Frankly it would be a bad idea to require people to enter month/day/year. Module:Age can accept dates in a variety of formats, for example "February 24, 1993" as a single parameter. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I was using it as an example of how it is formatted. What I'd like to know is how to change Module:Age so that I can do month/day/year, rather than year/month/day. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Module:Age is used for a lot of different templates and how easy or advisable something is depends on exactly what is wanted. This example uses the module:
  • {{age in days|1993|2|5|2024|4|6}} → 11383
I recommend using the following which is hard to mess up:
  • {{age in days|Feb 5, 1993|April 6, 2024}} → 11,383
Using {{age in days|2|5|1993|4|6|2024}} would be guaranteed to result in confusion. Modifying function getDates to do that would require some tricky changes and I wouldn't want to take the time. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, at the Fandom wiki I'm on, we do it in the order I messaged you. Could you message me what would need changing, so that I can do it myself? (I've already imported it there, but it needs the changes I desire) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to talk in abstract terms. What do you do at Fandom? I want to see the wikitext and the expected output, as mentioned above. If you only accept dates written with three numbers m/d/y it would be easiest to put in some code to swap them around. But the only example mentioned so far was for something that does not use Module:Age. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not say, as I'd think to keep my accounts separate, and from people knowing. Anyway, how would you put in such code in Module:Age? The temp. I used as an example was based on the format, rather than anything else. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But I need to know what Module:Age is used for. Is it only used for one template? Does that template always look like the following?
{{example|month1|day1|year1|month2|day2|year2}}
If so, something easy might be possible. However, things would be too difficult if Module:Age is used for any of its other possible templates where a variety of date formats are accepted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The module is currently being used for £Birth date and age", under the name "Birth and age". However, the wiki uses another template called "MDY", whose code is {{MDY|(month)|(day)|(year)}}. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the wanted output from {{MDY|2|5|1993}}? Is it just the date (February 5, 1993) or is it the date and the age? Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on using the templates that are typed at the bottom of the Age module. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here, several templates allow entry of six values (ymd order) or two dates, for example:

  • {{age in days|1990|07|20|1992|9|20}} → 793
  • {{age in days|July 20, 1990|Sep 20, 1992}} → 793

A simple adjustment would accept six values in mdy order, for example, {{age in days|07|20|1990|9|20|1992}}. However, the two dates would no longer work and more adjustments would be needed to make that work as well. I put the simple fix in Module:Age/sandbox. See the following diff.

Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the module I imported to the wiki, but it won't allow to values to be displayed for other than "Birth date and age". I've added "Extract" and Death date and age" to the wiki, so far. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{extract}} uses Module:Date to read the date/time. That means a date has to be a single date, for example {{extract|April 1, 2024}} or three numbers, for example {{extract|2024|4|1}}. I won't be changing that.
What does {{death date and age|2|24|1993|4|12|1921}} display?
If something does not work, you would need to provide an example of wikitext used as input and the exact output that is displayed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter now. It was because I had the dates the wrong way round, didn't import the "If preview" modules and nor did I import the "Main other" template. Anyway, thanks for all the help you've been to me to achieve what I've needed to do :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Requirements

Hey, I saw you undid my change to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P but I don't understand your logic. At present it now states:

  • A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username.
  • It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents.

What is the difference between these two statements that make you feel they're both required? Thanks. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThunderPeel2001: Please discuss issues on the appropriate talk page, WT:Signatures. That provides an easily found history of discussion relevant to the page and gives those watching an opportunity to express an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That IP LTA range again

Hi Johnuniq,

Remember that R&I LTA range you blocked for trolling and ban evasion back in February? Remember how there was some question about whether the /40 or only the /44 was necessary to prevent further violations? Well, the LTA has returned to the topic area, so I'd suggest that a widening of the block to the /40 would be warranted.

(Note that in this case the revert would ordinarily be justified because of the way the discussion on the relevant content left off at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive357#Heiner Rindermann, but it's still a flagrant t-ban violation.)

Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the exceptions to topic bans listed at WP:BANEX is reverting "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons." Now that the discussion at the BLP noticeboard reached a clear conclusion that this material violates BLP policy and must be removed, restoring it seems to qualify as an example of an obvious violation, and my revert is an exception to topic bans as defined by that policy. 2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it remarkable that the IP expects us to believe they just happened to be lurking on Heiner Rindermann's BLP within 90 minutes of when the burner account Tagebücher made its one and only edit to remove the material the IP had been desperately proxying over months earlier. At best, this is more evidence of obsession with a topic area where the community has made it clear they are not welcome. At worst, it's just another ham-handed Joe job. Generalrelative (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying you think that was me? I think you know perfectly well who it was. Even if you won't listen to me about my off-wiki communication with this person, it's obviously the same behavior they've exhibited before. 2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a point, people don't care who is right or wrong about issues like this. We just need the disruption to stop even if a few inoffensive good-faith edits are prevented: Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq Oddly enough this one blocked me earlier this afternoon. The strange part is it lasted for one pending edit (which directed me here in the block message) and then seems to have been fixed.
Awshort (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awshort: Sorry about the alarm. I have no idea why it would have affected you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq experienced this again tonight (currently), but I went to whatismyipaddress.com to try to figure out the issue.
2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40
Blocked
2600:1004:b118:*:*:*:*:*
Me, on Verizon's cell service.
The website above shows it as ISP:Verizon Business, so figured I would give an update since it may affect other users as well.
Awshort (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awshort: A block of 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 applies to all IP addresses that start with 2600:1004:B1. However, it should not affect someone who is logged in. The fact that you posted the above comment indicates you are not affected. Can you say exactly what happened? Were you logged on? What did you do before seeing a message? What was the message? Perhaps record all that if you can next time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moana 2 - please semiprotect

There is a huge amount of IP disruption here. Would you please semiprotect the article? Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Merchant of Venice

Can you or somebody do something about The Merchant of Venice? User:AlexAndrews seems to be waging a campaign to completely rewrite it by continual expansion: 34 changes in 13 days so far. You have already placed a warning on their talk page about procedures and consensus, but they seem to want to interpret WP policies in their own way and it's still happening. As you point out, much of it looks like OR. They seem to be using it as an opportunity to write an interpretative blog, and are not persuaded to cease by other users. Ideally, I would like to see the article rolled back by about 2 weeks, before this user started to inflate it. Masato.harada (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My note at the talk of AlexAndrews is dated 06:14, 22 April 2024. Since then, only one edit has occurred at The Merchant of Venice and it was to add an innocuous external link. My suggestion would be to start a new section at article talk with a concrete proposal. Do not talk about other editors. Just make a clear and simple proposal to take a particular action such as to add some text or to remove some text or to restore a particular version. Then see what other opinions are presented. There is no need to convince everyone. If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate. I will watch and ensure edit warring against consensus does not occur. Editors do not need to respond to everything posted on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping an eye on things. I saw your article-talk comment "Edit warring against consensus will not occur." and some sarcastic remarks flooded my brain. But I can honestly say that I hope you are right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A more accurate statement might have been that it won't happen twice. However, first there has to be a demonstrated and clear consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the long thread is that such a consensus currently exists (on the error-section and the 2 plot sections). It's 3-1 (not overwhelming numbers) and supported by relevant policy. But again, my reading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but it would be crystal clear if a new section had one comment from each of two or three people supporting a proposal and any number of comments from one person opposing it. An obvious consensus (one that doesn't require studying lengthy threads) would justify sanctions if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware until now that I was being discussed behind my back on this talk page, but I see that another editor from the article's talk page managed to find this discussion.

For the record, I am not "waging a campaign to completely rewrite" the article; I am adding encyclopedic content to improve the article.

I struggle to understand why a very small number of editors appear to be threatened by the addition of encyclopedic content to the article, especially when the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:

the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

AlexAndrews (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&oldid=1221145761"