User talk:Johnuniq: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:44, 27 June 2013

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.

Archives

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:

Highbeam results

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Wait six months, without sockpuppetry.
Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, but you described my position wrong ;) - I am not saying B is stalking A. (I could but I TRY HARD not to, do you understand?) - I am sure you saw discussions that you called a disgrace, but did you see any recently? More precisely: "disruption" in one of the 18 discussions mentioned? Did you see that A offered any uninvolved editor to check his edits? - You say "there is no way that the history (extending over years) can be ignored", - and I (late to that history, B side last March, converted to A side in September or so) - question that and say: yes we can try to ignore the history and look at the future, and we better do so, the sooner the better, - we had waste of time enough. - Therefore: I am not loyal to Andy (whose help and caring I appreciate), I don't seek measures to be taken against B: let that thread rest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not investigated recent events. Perhaps the situation is as you say, however, what I described above is also correct. Once an editor has spread enough trouble, they won't find it easy to go to ANI and complain about another editor patrolling their edits, so I'm not sorry that I failed to check the current round in a struggle that has persisted for several years. I sense that you and I could be on opposite sides in a dispute, yet find a way to go forward to benefit the encyclopedia, however, not all people are capable of that. At this stage I think that the ANI discussion should close without action. No doubt you and others will monitor future activity and can raise the matter again if it remains as clear as you now see it. I hope the infobox question is settled by people agreeing to leave each other's turf alone (that's pragmatic collaboration, not a violation of WP:OWN). Any future report would benefit greatly if infoboxes were not part of the discussion because it boils down to LIKE vs. DONTLIKE, and war-by-attrition should not be encouraged. It appears that infoboxes were at the core of the dispute in each of the four points listed in the opening post of the report now at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what you say on ANI is correct and unhelpful. I also support that ANI closes without action, so why did you add again? - Infoboxes will never be mandatory, no discussion needed. Infoboxes for Bach compositions, orchestra and operas are accepted! The discussion about yes or no is (only) for composers/performers. - Unfortunately, the two recent reverts were about Bach composition (only single fields, not even infobox yes or no) and opera in an FA (ok, I probably was bold too soon). As said before: please check your premises. It's not about infoboxes, it's about reverting. If you want to go a step further, you look at B's contributions and see how often "BWV" appears, and the history and talk of certain works, such as BWV 103. Today I have no time for more, but if you are interested we can look step by step ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at ANI was finished and would have archived soon. However, someone posted a comment (at "02:56, 23 June 2013") which invited a particular admin (and by extension, any admin reading the page) to draw a negative conclusion regarding Nikkimaria. Why should that go unchallenged? Was the comment I replied to accurate or helpful? The suggestion that the battle is not about infoboxes makes me scratch my head in complete bewilderment. The whole thing is about forcing an infobox into every article, as well as forcing certain fields into those infoboxes. The reverting part of it is simply one person representing quite a significant group of content builders who oppose mandatory infoboxes and mandatory fields in the infoboxes that exist. I have no idea what meaning you intend for the words "It's not about infoboxes, it's about reverting." Are you saying that if A adds an infobox and B reverts, then the problem is B's reverting? I suppose that A would see it like that, but why should others think that? Johnuniq (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last question is too simple. I ask you to show me the "lot" of articles where Andy was adding. Look at the 18 discussions: did he add even one? - I don't see the "forcing" you see and call "the whole thing". Who says "mandatory"? Where can we start talking? - Nikkimaria: she reverted an infobox that I had added twice yesterday, but I can live with it (see her talk, BWV 30, compare BWV 39). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I also don't see where there is a "negative conclusion regarding Nikkimaria" in Ched's post, if that is what you mean. Please help my English, it's not my first language, keep things simple, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I am not aware of anyone going to an article that has an infobox, then removing it because "articles should not have infoboxes"." - That is right, what I get with the removal of an infobox that I add to "my" or "our" articles is rather: compresses badly, cleanup, (no edit summary), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are suggesting that A was not adding infoboxes in the 18 diffs, so that means my comments about his push to add them are wrong? It would be unproductive to spend more time discussing the obvious: the diffs and bitter exchanges show that infoboxes are the central issue regardless of what happened in the 18 diffs. The matter has been causing disruption for years, and while I'm pleased that someone can find 18 diffs that do not show A adding infoboxes, that is not relevant because the current fuss is a consequence of the previous years of disruption.

My remark above 'someone posted a comment (at "02:56, 23 June 2013")' was meant to say that you could use your browser to search ANI for the text between the quotes (the timestamp). That will show you the post I was referring to—nothing to do with Ched. The post was replying to a comment attempting to "identify the problematic editor", and the post suggested that an easy way to do that would be to count the number of times A and B had participated in the ANI discussion. The post attempts to use a mathematical proof to show that Nikkimaria is the problematic editor—a bogus method, and a bogus conclusion because anyone familiar with the very long history knows how the problem developed. It is the underlying issue that needs resolution, not a superficial determination of who is currently more frustrated.

I see what you mean about your last three diffs showing infoboxes being removed. That sucks doesn't it. Imagine if something like that had been going on for years. However, each of the three cases does not show someone going to an article and removing an infobox which had been established in the article. Each diff shows the reversion of someone adding an infobox. A fair way to describe the situation is that a small group of editors are attempting to add infoboxes to articles, and other editors have opposed the additions. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to understand, please: those who are against infoboxes frequently claim their right as the main editor to a page. Where is my right to have an infobox when I am the main editor? That's one problem with the three reverts, not the edit summary or lack thereof which has been noticed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On collaboration

This is my reply to Gerda Arendt, in a subsection for my convenience. Feel free to comment, but I may not have much more to say.
You are caught in a battle between two worlds, and are merely collateral damage. Some people will not (and in fact, cannot) care about how their actions impact upon other people—to them, all that matters is the action, and unintended consequences are irrelevant emotional baggage. When a person like that becomes an editor, they can cause damage regardless of the merits of their actions. Wikipedia relies on a collaborative community: it is astonishing that a group of volunteers has created the world's best encyclopedia, but it is even more astonishing that the community has not yet degenerated into the chaos that is the normal fate of open forums on the Internet. One reason for Wikipedia's success is that nearly everyone focuses on the encyclopedia and its content—people are very pragmatic and anything that helps the encyclopedia is good, while anything that doesn't is bad (I'm paraphrasing myself from higher up on this page). Using that guideline to settle disputes has been very successful—if blocking someone helps the encyclopedia, blocking is the right outcome; if unblocking someone helps the encyclopedia, unblock them.

How is all that relevant to the current case? That's where we enter the world of opinion—my opinion is that the relentless push of infoboxes is causing disruption and is (on balance) not helpful to the encyclopedia because of the damage it causes the community. Note that I am not commenting on whether an infobox is desirable—that is not relevant because some LIKE them and some DONTLIKE them, and they are not mandatory. When two groups of productive editors clash, the best outcome is to drop the matter—go and do something else. The encyclopedia will not die because some articles don't have infoboxes. Perhaps in a year, fresh voices may start a new and collaborative discussion on the matter, and there may be a decision to add infoboxes. If that were to happen, someone would add the required wikitext within two days. The fact that articles had to endure a year with no infobox may upset some editors, but it would be the best resolution for the community and the encyclopedia.

The infobox dispute is just one in a long line of battles between normally good editors. I'm not going to bother finding links, but WP:MOS provides several outstanding examples of such pointless wars. Examples: Should dates be linked? Should linked dates by unlinked? Should a horizontal dash be a hyphen, an en dash, an em dash, or something else? What horizontal dashes should appear in the title of an article? What diacritical marks should appear in a title? The beauty of these battles is that there can be no proof that one side is correct, so the battle can continue indefinitely.

I do not believe in compromise on a fundamental issue. If someone persists in adding fringe views to a scientific article, I will oppose them indefinitely (and would cease contributing if such fringe views ever become accepted due to an influx of Facebook enthusiasts taking over the community). However, I do not regard issues like dates, dashes or infoboxes as fundamental. To me, such issues do not warrant destructive battles, and I would happily resolve them by tossing a coin: heads, we use infoboxes; tail, we don't. Give the losing side a week to vent, and after that block anyone who continues the battle. Raise the matter again in a year.

The community is not sufficiently pragmatic to resolve the infobox dispute by tossing a coin. Therefore, the best outcome would be to cease and desist. The main protagonists are not going to do that. We mortals, however, should not encourage them. I have not added or removed a disputed infobox, and I have not offered an opinion on whether infoboxes are good or bad. My suggestion would be for everyone to adopt that approach because adding or removing an infobox merely adds fuel to the fire—it encourages the participants, and it continues the war. Please just drop the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. I don't have time to read them right now, but will return. Nikkimaria and I came to an agreement, see my talk, - my short thoughts on collaboration, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I had the time to read, and agree with most that you said. If an article has no infobox for a year, so what? (BWV 30, for example). But try to suggest that Richard Wagner will have an infobox for just a year and see what happens ;) - I actually thought "throw a coin" today also. I thought, if Nikkimaria, Tim Riley and I could write a decent article together the last few days, The Company of Heaven (also on my talk, DYK), then Nikkimaria and Andy should write an article together and throw a coin if it will have an infobox or not. I started my thoughts on the topic, more to come. Looking up the history, I found your name also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on Convert at Bengali (bn) Wikipedia

Hi, I am from Bengali Wikipedia. Could you please help us on bn:Module:Convert and bn:Template:convert at bn Wikipedia. Or you can referred to anyone who can help us on this issue. The templates are not working on that Wikipedia. All the content of the page bn:Template:convert disappeared at the page view mode. Also it disappeared the content of many articles as well. e.g see bn:ভুভুজেলা and bn:বাংলাদেশের জাতীয় মহাসড়কগুলোর তালিকা.--Bellayet (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't read anything over there, so I'm only guessing. At Module:Convert, the box at the top ("You might want to create a documentation page...") finishes with a link to "Subpages of this module". Using that link at bn, shows no subpages. However, the module is now more than one page, and you must also have Module:Convert/data and Module:Convert/text. You do not need the sandbox. Later, you probably will want to change some of the units. In that case you would need to install Lua on a stand-alone computer (say a computer at home), and run the script shown at Module:Convert/makeunits. You do not need makeunits on a page at your wiki.

To make the module do something, you need the template which invokes it. That template is Template:Convert/sandboxlua.

The module currently does not correctly handle the display of numbers unless the standard English dot is used for the decimal mark. That is, "1.23" with a dot (also known as a point or a period) is the only thing that works at the moment. After you get the module doing something, you can ask how to customize it for your language. That will need a bit of work.

In summary, you need modules Convert + Convert/data + Convert/text (lowercase "data" and "text", not "Data" or "Text"). You also need template Convert/sandboxlua. Given that, you should see results like these:

{{convert/sandboxlua|70|mi|km}} → 70 miles (110 km)
{{convert/sandboxlua|70|kg|lb}} → 70 kilograms (150 lb)

If you copy the contents of convert/sandboxlua into your Template:Convert, you would get the same results just using "{{convert|70|mi|km}}".

Let me know how you get on. The module is still being developed (and is not used here), but it should work. How did you learn that the module existed? Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that was easy. I have copied the required files over to bn, and put a short test at my bn talk page bn:ব্যবহারকারী_আলাপ:Johnuniq. It seems to work!

The information at the top of Module talk:Convert provides an overview of the pages. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your cooperation. I saw your work at bn Wikipedia and comment on Jimp's talk page. "৪৫৫" is 455 in Bangla, but I don't know what it is. In Bangla Wikipedia we don't have any expert in template as well in Lua. I am expecting responses from Jimp. In parallel, I would like to try the module on bn Wikipedia. If we can fix the problems with lua based template then we'll replace all the convert template with lua. But make workable at bn Wikipedia, we need to customize the module; units and numbers should be appear in Bangla. What do you thing? Is it possible to do that with lua?--Bellayet (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be quite easy to customize the module for your use, although there will be some differences of language that I have not anticipated. A simple word-for-word translation is simple, although it will require a fair amount of work from you to do the translations. I put a list at bn:User:Johnuniq/units showing the 52 units you are using, and I will soon start looking at how a module can receive non-English numbers as input (I know it involves mw.language:parseFormattedNumber, but I haven't used that yet). What puzzles me his how the template is accepting such numbers. See Module talk:Convert for a link to the page used at en.wiki to define all the unit names. You would have to edit a copy of that page (although you only need to change 52 of those units to start with). If you wait one or two days I will have had a chance to investigate a little more. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can do the translations. Just let me know where and what should I translate. You can put message to my bn Wikipedia Talk page for early response. Also take your time to investigate more.--Bellayet (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll alert you, but I'll reply here because I want an easy way to refer to this later in case I need the info again.

I copied the data file to bn. It's large and complex, but you can edit it. It looks like I managed to include a slash at the end of the name, and I can't see a "move" to fix that. The page is bn:User:Johnuniq/Conversion data/. Editing that page will have no affect until I extract the data from it and put it in the module, as described at the link which I suggested you look at above (your reply makes me think you have not seen it).

You can also edit bn:Module:Convert/text. Changes there will have immediate effect. Edit a copy in a sandbox if you like.

Please have a look at the notes I added at bn:User talk:Johnuniq. Johnuniq (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've move the page at bn:User:Johnuniq/Conversion data and checking your links.--Bellayet (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 175: / Line 175: @@
 :Thank you for your thoughts. I don't have time to read them right now, but will return. Nikkimaria and I came to an agreement, see my talk, - my short thoughts on collaboration, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 15:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
+:Now I had the time to read, and agree with most that you said. If an article has no infobox for a year, so what? ([[BWV 30]], for example). But try to suggest that Richard Wagner will have an infobox for just a year and see what happens ;) - I actually thought "throw a coin" today also. I thought, if Nikkimaria, Tim Riley and I could write a decent article together the last few days, [[The Company of Heaven]] (also on my talk, DYK), then Nikkimaria and Andy should write an article together and throw a coin if it will have an infobox or not. I started [[User:Gerda Arendt/Infobox|my thoughts]] on the topic, more to come. Looking up the history, I found your name also ;) --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 == Need help on Convert at Bengali (bn) Wikipedia ==