User talk:Johnuniq

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

Index of stuff

• Comments re free speech
• Jagged progress • more • genre articles
• Links to highbeam.com from dumps of external links • earlier • more Credo • JSTOR results • JSTOR + Cochrane January 2015
• Gregorian serial date template
• Analysis of EL dump using Amazon S3 very interesting methods from GabrielF
• Module:Number at Hindi Wikipedia request from Siddhartha Ghai
• Discussion with pointer to problem re Nagle's algorithm that should be fixed

Pauley Perrette on ANI

I asked this question on the ANI thread, but didn't get a response (I believe you had signed off for the night). Could you take a moment and give it a look-see, please? Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:09 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

I looked at that and did not see what I could add, but I'll look again. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That's all I ask. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:24 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I'd like to thank you for responding to 13 requests and dealing with the backlog at WP:RFPP yesterday. Clovermoss (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Message for Manchesterunited1234

I'm sorry, i forgot to sign messages, :(, thank you, Manchesterunited1234, January 29, 2020. 21:28 (CEST)

I replied at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Kobe Perez protection

Thanks for protecting this article. But I'm not sure what you mean "try to engage the IP" on the talk page. I believe there were three different IPs (maybe more) changing "soccer" to "football" in January. I have no idea if this was the same individual, and have doubts that an IP would go reading the talk page without some specific prompting. I have always supported mandatory registration when the proposal comes up, due to issues like this. Maybe an edit filter would help? It already displays the BLP notice when editing; perhaps {{American English}} would help or another more specific soccer/football one? MB 04:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@MB: This relates to my WP:RFPP comment at permalink re an IP changing "soccer" to "football" at Kobe Perez.

FYI the same issue in a different country became very heated—see result. I forget how I came to observe that old battle (sport is outside my area) but the combatants had to be peeled off one-by-one because some soccer fans believe that term is belittling, and they fought to change it to "football" because FIFA.

By engage, I meant that we are supposed to follow the WP:AGF playbook. Since an IP is assumed to be a newbie, and given that there may not be a consensus discussion that can be linked to, a new section at the article talk should be created. That would politely outline the issue and would point out that the article, like many others, has used "soccer" for a long time, and that the style of an existing article should not be changed without good reason and clear consensus on the talk page. When the IP is reverted in the future, you would use an edit summary like "revert to consensus version, please see [[Talk:Kobe Perez#Soccer]]" (replacing "Soccer" with the appropriate title). If the IP starts discussing, the normal dispute resolution procedures would apply. If not, requesting page protection would be easier because there would be a clear case of disruption without engagement on talk. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit skeptical that these IP editors would look at the history/edit summaries, but I agree this would be best AGF practice. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. MB 17:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Cluj-Napoca unprotection

Thus far, the results have been lackluster. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: OK, I semi-protected it (edit + move) for a year. See you in 2021! Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Wtij100.7

Would you mind having a word with this editor if they edit again? They are making edits such as these to the WTIJ-LP page, with a clear COI. I have warned regarding the COI, but they made another edit removing "negative" information from the page. I posted a message to their talk page. Since I am at 2RR myself, I am handing this off to an admin, hoping you can help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:54 on February 5, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Groan, I added it to my watchlist but I might not notice future edits. The user might have a sort-of point in that the waffle about "Silence and return" might be reduced to a sentence in History because there's not much point in a mini-article having a significant portion devoted to a bad time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: That part I honestly can't help, no matter how much they'd like me to. :) When four seperate sources (actually there were more, but I limited it to the four to not over do it) all covered the same thing (including the FCC), it was worthy of inclusion here. I understand how the section could be reduced to a sentence, but the chain of events is shown as it happened. With that and with the sources, it becomes the few sentences that it is, detailing the chain of events. I do notice that one of the sources (the Facebook page) is no longer active. I will look and see if something else is available to take it's place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:51 on February 6, 2020 (UTC)

Conv

Sorry about that, I didn't know it should be cvt. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Keith-264: No problem, I'm just doing trivial cleaning. I noticed your name in the history of several of the articles. Thanks for all your great content building! Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI (please a−splain)

preachy ate chew 8r'

This is related to my fix of an edit at Jim Jones. If you search the resulting page for "Lua error" (or easier, search this permalink), you will see three errors due to the edit changing numbers inside a template. If you want to know why I made a certain edit, it might be simpler to ask rather than post the above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Traci Lords

Traci Lords was born in the year 1970 Christy Canyon was born in the year 1968 Traci Lords first legal adult movie was done in the year 1988 it was titled Traci I Love you that is why I changed the date of her birth and you should know she was very good at removing he actual likeness from the internet just like Tori Welles was. I am sorry if I put this in the wrong area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike70 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thunderstrike70: Is this about Traci Lords? An IP made a few edits there (diff) on 5 June 2019 and I reverted the edits soon after. The edits changed the birth date from 1968|5|7 to 1970,5,7 which broke the template. They also changed the place of birth from Steubenville, Ohio to Steupidville, Ohio which is why I did not spend much time wondering whether anything in the edits should be retained. If there is a reliable source specifying the birth date for Traci Lords you could add it to the article with the correct date. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse or reply here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanction overturn

Hello Johnuniq, I overturned your sanction placed on Rusf10 per consensus at AN. I've logged it at WP:AELOG, is there anything else I'm supposed to do? --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@qedk: Thanks, I was thinking of doing that myself. I believe you have done all that is needed. I believe we don't update the WP:AE archive. Johnuniq (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Kobe Perez

Do you remember this article, disruptive changing of soccer to football? You protected it for about two weeks. Same change made again today immediately after protection expired. MB 05:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@MB: Yes, I remember. Actually, I have protected it twice. This round involves 71.9.198.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in a soccer/football battle. Protection should not be used to favor one side in a dispute so, sorry, but I'm not going to do more until my suggestions at #Kobe Perez protection above are followed. We are obliged to assume the IP believes they are saving the world with their great edits and experienced editors need to do a little more. So, please post a polite message inviting discussion and put some reason for why the article should not be changed as the IP is doing. Link to that in the next revert, then ping me if the IP resumes without discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Left another message on the IP talk page and explained in edit summary that they must discuss, but both were ignored again. "footballer" was put back several hours after my revert. MB 16:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@MB: Please humor me. Put a new section at Talk:Kobe Perez with heading "Soccer" and wikitext:

The first sentence of the article states that Kobe Perez plays for [[Union Omaha]] ("Soccer Club") in [[USL League One]] ("a professional men's soccer league"). Because the player and the organizations are American, [[MOS:TIES]] means that the game is called soccer and this article should describe Perez as a soccer player. That should not be changed without discussion. ~~~~

Revert the IP with edit summary "please see [[Talk:Kobe Perez#Soccer]]". If the IP reverts you I will take action. Your message at User talk:71.9.198.21#February 2020 hid the message after a templated warning which is not what I meant. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I did it this way also, which gave the same result, again after just three hours. By the way, I have no real interest in this article or most sports coverage - I just noticed edit-warring by others and tried to stop it. It seems strange that this IP has only edited this article, about an American soccer player, and is adamant about calling him a footballer! MB 03:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@MB: Yes, I know it's frustrating and thank you for looking after the article. I protected it for a week and put a warning at the IP's talk that I will issue blocks if the edit is repeated without consensus. Please let me know of any further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the same IP did it again (how is that possible after your applied protection)? A different IP reverted and Materialscientist blocked for three months. MB 06:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@MB: Brain failure I'm afraid. I move protected it instead of edit protected. I fixed the protection now although it is probably redundant given the block. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's back to "footballer" again. The protection just expired and the article was changed back (the protection was not redundant as this time it was done by a different IP). MB 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@MB: We get a life sentence at Wikipedia I'm afraid. I protected for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

McCann

Sorry to revert you on the Maddy McCann article, but I looked at the links and knowing some of the context from coverage in Private Eye I was worried about some of the conspiracy theories, often targeting living people (e.g. the person dusting the windowsill for prints). This entire article is about four times the size it should be, the whole thing has a massive case of Missing White Woman syndrome. Tragic but in the end really rather mundane. Guy (help!) 23:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guy: No problem, I'll inspect Disappearance of Madeleine McCann at some later time and think about it more. It's true that in the scheme of things, who cares about one child more or less ("Missing White Woman syndrome") but OTOH there is a lot of concern about policing methods and problems that can arise when people are trying to have a holiday. I think a topic like this is where Wikipedia can provide a good service with key information and if certain photos are not available for upload, linking to them is reasonable. The article provides key info about some of the theories swirling around, and that is good. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of K Money for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K Money is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K Money until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Tsirelson's page

I have made edit to the page, based on Tsirelson's own talk page and private information. I am not sure how to handle this better - I am not an experienced wikipedian, and the whole topic is very sad. On the one hand there may never exist an actual public confirmation (except for memorial conferences in a year or two), on the other hand it is silly to pretend that he is alive. Please advise. 132.76.61.51 (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This refers to recent edits at Boris Tsirelson. I requested help at WT:WikiProject Mathematics#Boris Tsirelson. Citing a user's post on a talk page is not acceptable as a reference but this is a very sad situation where normality does not apply. I will wait. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

In the mean time, another person reverted my edit back. I wrote that person too, and am not sure how to proceed. I certainly am not interested in starting a cycle of going back and forth between two versions. 132.76.61.51 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The potential harm of waiting to add this material to Wikipedia until proper sources exist is 0. --JBL (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@132.76.61.51: You should leave the article alone now. Trying to change it again will just result in your IP being blocked or the article being protected so you cannot edit it. Wikipedia must rely on reliable sources even if it means the article is out-of-date. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Will wait then. 132.76.61.51 (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

There is now this: https://en-exact-sciences.tau.ac.il/math/Tsirelsonborisen. I also notified Izno. If both of you are OK, I will edit the page accordingly. Please advise. 132.76.61.51 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That is a reliable source. Please add the information and someone will fix any format problems. The reference page should be archived. Again, someone will look after that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Johnuniq, sorry I reverted your edit here, I don't know how I did it, as I don't usually even visit that page - I must have fumbled the keyboard somehow - how embarrassing! Thankfully, David Eppstein reverted my unintended change, and I got a notification. Sorry again and all the best. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: No problem! Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Advice on RfC proposal

Hi there. Last November you gave me advice here. Today I had push-back to this edit from an experienced editor. Regarding an RfC, I feel the question asked here would be appropriate: "Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic?". Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Lol, I was going to give you a link to a search of ANI archives to demonstrate that the editor who reverted you won't be easy to budge, but I see your user name in several of the hits so you are very familiar with the situation. My honest advice would be to forget about it because any discussion on whether "Trussville has been recognized as one of the most livable cities in the state and country. It was named one of the ten best towns in Alabama for young families" should be removed from its article (diff) would be swamped with ILIKEIT commentary from people with no knowledge of whether the refs are anything more than routine puff pieces and with little interest in improving the article. The problem is that the text sounds exciting and informative (that's what puff pieces are designed to do) and removing it appears unkind. That is my cynical opinion, namely that a campaign to remove that stuff would be a waste of time. However I might be wrong, particularly given the support for removal shown in the March 2015 discussion you linked to. If I were participating in an RfC on the topic I would want more detail than the question posed above including links to at least two examples of the kind of rankings that might be removed. An RfC question has to be short but I imagine (see the March 2015 discussion) that some rankings might be worthwhile and your question suggests that everything looking like a ranking should be removed. A second sentence describing the particular kinds of sources that would be removed would be helpful, and a couple of diffs of such text being removed for examples. If there are known sources for rankings that should be retained, they should be named. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. In the meantime a lively discussion about this has started at Talk:Edison, New Jersey after another editor reverted the pushback. I'm going to join the discussion and elicit input/support for an RfC (and maybe the wording too). What do you think? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad it's being handled but it's way outside my area of interest. My last word is that you should tread carefully given the wall of previous ANI reports about similar clashes. Forget about the past and try to see the situation from the other point of view: why should interesting and reliably sourced text be removed from articles? Focus any discussion or RfC on that. Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Please log ECP of Bangladesh Liberation War

Per the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Enforcement_log, please log your ECP of Bangladesh Liberation War at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#India-Pakistan. Thanks. Buffs (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buffs: Done, thanks. I was aware ECP was automatically logged at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection which made me forget about the AE log. Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

No prob! Buffs (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Chris Langan Bio

Your help and understanding is appreciated. We have been dealing with this particular quite prolific individual for two years now on social media platforms across the Internet (including YouTube, Facebook and Patreon) and it is indeed frustrating. Will I be able to vote on the proposal on the Admins noticeboard or is that just for admins? Can the page be protected again? The option of holding edits from suspect accounts would seem to be reasonable for now.

I am hoping the page can be protected until the men with the butterfly nets catches this guy or he gets a job, whichever comes first. The user in question is indeed the SPA xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. So please check and take appropriate action. We traced the IP to his address. I have read the policy on outing and I hope that this is sufficiently obscure.

I've seen you guys are on it so I'm laying back and moving on. Thanks again. DrL (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Wikipedia is a strange place with strange procedures. Actually, people with plenty of experience here know that the procedures are very well thought-through and logical, but that is hard to grasp when not so experienced. You must stop hinting about other users. We call that outing and it is one of two or three things that will instantly lead to an indefinite block without warning. In your case, you have been warned (see your recent block) which means the standard for what is a hint about another user is even lower. I understand what you are saying but please never mention it again except in an email to the Arbitration Committee. I'm not linking to how to do that because you should not think about the pursuing any case at the moment. Bear in mind that even if another editor were banned, hinting about any personal information regarding them, or how to find such personal information, is still outing and will lead to an indefinite block.

If there is still a significant problem in six months, you could get advice about the next step. However, the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Christopher Langan shows that something will be done and there won't be any problems in the short term. If it makes you feel any better, incidents like this have been going on for hundreds of years and anyone from the newsgroup days knows to fast-forward when seeing rants from those who dedicate their lives to battle.

To answer your question about whether you can vote, in theory the answer is yes. However, I suggest you do not because frankly the opinions of the participants on what should happen will be ignored and showing restraint is a positive. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: I see you got the official advice on article talk that you were welcome to comment at WP:AN and have done so. That's fine. Leave it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnny - I do have a wicked sense of humor and it gets the best of me sometimes. Your advice is well heeded but if I make a mistake (I will try my best to stay within the letter of the rules - I don't want to risk a ban) pls just ban me (DrL) and not my IP. There is another person in my house who is not aware of the situation as of yet (he's focused very heavily on meeting a deadline for a physics paper). If he catches wind of what's going on, he may wish to weigh in on the talk page. I need to keep that option clear for him although my goal is to improve the situation by working with the admins so he won't even need to know about it.

PS I have not revealed my first name (although I declared my IRL relationship for clarity so the admins understand the situation) and would appreciate it if attempts at further outing me were redacted as well. I appreciate your advice and understanding and I realize you guys have tough jobs here. Thanks! ~ DrL (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the indents if you would like to check how that is done. You will not be blocked or banned if you stick to discussing article content based on reliable sources, and provided such discussions are reasonable. That means do not mention other users (just mention content they may have recommended), and comment infrequently and calmly. At Wikipedia, and on the internet in general, it is probably best to not mention personal information such as who is doing what in your house. If you see someone unnecessarily mentioning personal information such as your first name, feel free to mention it here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, for your advice Johnuniq - it does pay off to show restraint and I'm doing my best. Please note that there is one particularly defamatory paragraph (Controversial views) and I made suggested ameliorations to three sentences because each went beyond the content of the cited article violating NPOV and OR, IMO. Pls review the three sections in the talk page concerning that para (Controversial Views)and let me know if my arguments are clear and justify the edits that I suggest. (Btw, I apologize for mixing you up with another editor (Johnnyiu) and calling you Johnny - I know how annoying that can be if you don't use that variant. PS if "that" user crops back up I will let you know - his IP is the 90.xxx one.) TIA ~ DrL (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: You must stop giving hints about personal information concerning other editors, even if those editors are indefinitely blocked. An IP address is considered personal information and should not be discussed except by editors entrusted for that sort of thing at special noticeboards. Apart from the policy (to not mention such things), there is the pragmatic aspect—what good does it do to mention it? If the IP never edits, a mention is a waste of time. If the IP performs a good edit, no one is going to care. If the IP performs a bad edit, you might like to mention the bad edit but do not mention who you think the IP is.

I have no interest in the topic and am not going to get involved. My only concern is to keep off-wiki battles off wiki—people can fight each other on the internet if that gives them satisfaction, but they can't do it here. I will say that ameliorating Christopher Langan#Controversial views might be difficult but I'll leave that for the slow going of Talk:Christopher Langan and WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes

Money emoji

Athaenara • DeltaQuad

Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thankyou, your article of Female Genital Mutilation in India is very informative, i came to know about this for the first time. Thanks for creation of the Article 👍 Zoglophie (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zoglophie: Thank you. The article (Female genital mutilation in India) probably needs updating as there are sure to have been developments in the last year. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Newman move protection

I just saw your question about Ryan Newman (racing driver) on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection from two weeks ago. I did not mean to move-protect the article. I rarely do page-protections. If you have not already fixed my mistake, could you do so or teach me how? Thanks!  ★  Bigr Tex 04:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This relates to WP:RFPP 19 February 2020. If you want to fix the issue, you would visit Ryan Newman (racing driver) and click "change protection" at the top (it would show "protect" if there were currently no protection). Then find the Move settings and click "Allow all users". At the bottom, put an edit summary such as "not needed" in "Other/additional reason". Or, if you want, I'm happy to do it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested Edits

I have added 16 requested edits to the young blood transfusion talk page. Would you please make these edits, or respond on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This is at Talk:Young blood transfusion. Please don't spam the same request to multiple places. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Unintentional revert

Sorry about that; tried to click on “diff”, and got “rollback”. Oops. Will avoid looking at diffs from a tablet in the future. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I've done that. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello. After you blocked Brockhold, a new account Heinznutter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created. It is a DUCK, e.g. [2], [3]. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: I agree that is a problem. However I'm inexperienced in DUCK blocks and despite the fact that I looked at several of their other edits I am not blocking at the moment. See my comments at User talk:Heinznutter#Collaboration. I will follow-up to see if a block is warranted. Please alert me if matters progress but I don't notice. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

PainMan Situaion

Hi!

Several things here:

I am confused! You reference a PainMan section on this Arbitration page but I can't find myself anywhere on it.

Second, I've mostly been using the mobile app (Android). So I was expecting any notifications to show up there. This does not appear to functioning properly. So I didn't see any of these Arbitration thingies until I just opened wikipedia in my laptop browser.

So I'd very much appreciate what's going on! I was in a bit of tussle with some jackhole who thinks he can block me for "incivility." I have not been uncivil to this guy. He's clearly never been on actual social media if thinks that I am.

My position on the use of Irish words for common institutions - it's ridiculous. No one outside of Ireland, and maybe the BBC, uses them. It is confusing for the average reader and forces them to look something up that they would not have to do if the correct English term is used.

I don't see any reason to back down on this. 'After all the official title of Angela Merkel is Bundeskanzler and no one in English is going to refer to her as that. So there is no reason to use Taisioche" when Prime Minister is clearly the correct term.

But I am curious as to what the procedures are. Why there is no "PainMan Section", etc, etc.

Thanks!

PainMan (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)