User talk:Johnuniq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Index of stuff[edit]

Strange edits on ccTLDs?[edit]

Can you take a look at the ccTLD pages. There have been some rather strange additions/edits to these pages (cu/ke/al/br/in and a pile of others) with fake stats being added by IP addresses. The .cu one was a bit mad with a claimed registrations number of about 600K when there are only 6K according to the cu NIC site. The .cn ccTLD didn't have 49 million domains and .co didn't have 69 million either. Seems to be a persistent pattern of iffy edits. Thanks. Jmccormac (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jmccormac: Ouch, a lot of pages are listed at {{ccTLD}}, and a lot of nonsense. I don't want to watchlist them all, but if I have some time I'll review "Related changes" (Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:ccTLD). Please let me know if there are other pages being hit. Presumably the motivation is some excitement about making money by exploiting domain name registrations. Thanks for noticing the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like persistent vandalism on ccTLD pages from an IP rather than any attempt to fluff up numbers. There are fake stats being added and edits with actual sourced stats being reverted along with nonsense claims mentioning 2018 etc. I just reverted the co and br pages to their last known good versions. The .cn, .al, .ro and .in pages have all been hit today again. It seems to be an ongoing issue. Jmccormac (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jmccormac: I see what you mean. I can't tell whether it is an attempt to be helpful, or malicious/playful/trolling. Please see my sandbox (permalink) where I collected some information. Feel free to add anything pertinent. I was thinking of posting a report at WP:AN to get opinions. What do you think? Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, the reason I used a sandbox is because I am looking for extra evidence. If you can point to unequivocally bad edits, please do so. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The reverts of good edits are continuing and fake stats are still being added and stats from the registries are being removed. It is a widespread issue (just checked .br and the registry domain count with link has been replaced with fake counts.) The start date on some of ccTLD pages has an "available since" date added that is prior to the launch date. There is also a history of fake stats being added to smaller African ccTLD pages like .sn with 69 million domain names. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.sn&type=revision&diff=789424502&oldid=787261790). On the .gn page, there's the fake stats and the claim that the ccTLD has been active since 1990 when the IANA (https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/gn.html) registration date for the ccTLD is 1994-08-09. There are similar incorrect launch/registration date edits to other ccTLD pages. The IANA database is the official TLD database and details the launch dates, sponsors, contact details and nameservers. The Ugandan ccTLD page has had fake stats added: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ug&diff=prev&oldid=789078389 ). The Nigerian ccTLD page also has fake stats and start date information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ng&diff=prev&oldid=789254775) The Albanian ccTLD page has similar iffy edits and additions: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.al&diff=prev&oldid=789504051) The .ph page also has had fake stats added: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ph&diff=next&oldid=790390662 ) The .gm ccTLD page has had fake stats (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.gm&diff=prev&oldid=789182180) and false start date information added. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.gm&diff=prev&oldid=789636457) It looks like a longterm pattern of fake stats and start dates being added to what are primarily ccTLD pages. The .ke page has also had a fake 900,000 domain count added but the infobox has the accurate figure from the registry. Some of these smaller ccTLD registries don't publish domain counts. Jmccormac (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jmccormac: I have a good understanding of DNS and related issues, but am very much out-of-touch with the details that the IP is engaging. People at a noticeboard where I might report this will have even less knowledge. That means easy-to-understand evidence has to be prepared. Evidence that uninvolved editors can check.
It seems unlikely that .sn would have 69 million registered domains, but weird stuff happens with domain registration and for all I know there are a handful of "valid" domains, and 69 million junk domains that have been temporarily registered. It is very unsatisfactory to add numbers like that with no source, but how is it known to be fake?
Consider diff at .br. Someone who is not familiar with the details (such as myself) will look at that diff and see perfectly reasonable additions of citation needed and other minor adjustments. Please spell out exactly which text is blatantly wrong, and how the fact that it is wrong can be checked. I can see that adding "registereddomains=950,000" with citation needed is unhelpful and could easily be trolling, but how is it known to be wrong? Adding a URL with a nonexistent domain (http://www.nic.net.br/) is very unhelpful. However, is that a URL which might work for some TLDs? If it is, the addition is just unhelpful, not sanctionable. The text added is inappropriate, but it does not appear to be vandalism.
The "S.O.C.O." edit summaries appear to be related to S.O.C.O. (Scene of the Crime Operatives). There is no doubt that the edit summaries are garbage/trolling, but onlookers at a noticeboard would regard them as merely a quirk of the editor, and not sanctionable.
@Kvng: Would you mind reviewing a few edits by 81.135.204.201 and giving an opinion on this mess? Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The two I've looked at are a mixed bag. this one dithers around quite a bit and has not particularly helpful edit comments but seems to land well. this one looks like a good faith effort also dithering and unhelpful edit comments but is not a net improvement (and was reverted). I'm not sure there's anything nefarious going on here but it looks like there will be more effort required to review these edits than is justified by the potential improvements but that's a general issue we have with an encyclopedia anyone can edit. ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Have been going back through the dubious additions and fake stats. Some of the stats are available from the registries and I've added those with links and links to subdomain naming policies. @Kvng I added the domain name count from the Chinese registry count. I added the actual domain name counts from the .br registry site with the refregistereddomains like to the .br registry stats page but the IP editor removed them and replaced the fake stats. There is a history of the IP editor adding fake stats along with a CN tag. The IP editor also reverted @Yamaguchi先生's edits/reversions. Some of these fake stats are just completely weird like the 69 million domains on various ccTLD pages. The .com tld only has about 127.7 million domains so any large addition or increase on a ccTLD would not have gone unnoticed. There are also repeating numbers in these fake stats as if they are cut and pasted. Some of these ccTLD registries are very small operations and are often run out of local university Computer Science departments. They don't go adding tens of millions of domain names when their domain name counts are often below 50K. That would increase their ccTLD zonefile from a relatively small zone of a few hundred KB to one approaching about 7GB or so. The .ly registry and .ro registry publish their domain counts on the index pages of their registry site and I've added these. The .ng edit introduced a PPC parked website, the nic one, as a registry site. It also had the 69 million domains fake stats added. I've cleaned it up and added the official registry count and reference. Some of these small ccTLDs have enough problems without iffy Wikipedia stuff adding to them. It might be necessary to step back through these edits. Jmccormac (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the IP editor is back reverting good edits, adding fake stats, messing with start dates. Jmccormac (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work. I did some reverting, but the issue will need to be escalated. I would like some way of demonstrating to uninvolved editors that at least some of the numbers are fake. I need a diff and and a brief explanation that a particular number is wrong because ..., with one or two links that would allow the fact that it is wrong to be checked. If that is not possible, what is the best that can be done? Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jmccormac: I expanded my sandbox. Please have a look and see if there are any obvious mistakes, or whether anything more can easily be added. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There's another revert on .ke this morning which completly contradicts the domain count in the infobox. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ke&oldid=prev&diff=792081666 ). There are some other iffy edits on other ccTLD pages like .ci where the same fake stats claims (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ci&diff=next&oldid=789075447) are applied. According to the .ci registry page .ci registry it only has 9,158 domain names but the iffy edit has it at 9,500,000. There are some sources on the web for gTLD counts ( http://www.registrarstats.com/TLDDomainCounts.aspx ). The Canadian ccTLD registry has its 2016 annual report with the top ccTLDs and their domain counts ( https://cira.ca/factbook/domain-industry-data-and-canadian-Internet-trends/domain-name-industry ). It shows the .co count at 2,018,450. Some of the other ccTLD registries publish periodic reports which also have similar stats on the ccTLDs. Took a quick look at the sandbox and it seems OK. Will go through it in detail later today. Jmccormac (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Just checked the .ng and it has been hit again. The IANA start date for .ng is 1995 ( https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/ng.html ) but the nonsensical edits have 1990 and 1994, the fake 69 million domains stat and a lot of fake subdomains. Jmccormac (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that .ci information is very helpful and I added it to the sandbox. In about 24 hours I will post at ANI and I will ping you here to let you know. You might then add a brief comment at ANI to the effect that you are familiar with domain name management and am sure the edits are nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I spent a few hours going back through the edits on the smaller ccTLD articles. It seems that the .uk and .dk articles were not hit but they are some of the larger European ccTLDs. The ones being hit were small ccTLDs that often had no published domain count or accessible registry site. Some of the 69 million domain edits were in complete disagreement with the registry counts in the infoboxes. The ccTLDs, apart from the repurposed ones like .co and .tk, tend to have a fraction of the population of the country and the registrations are dependent on the state of the country's internet infrastructure and economy. The ccTLDs with over a million domains tend to be in larger and more developed economies. Jmccormac (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a reference in an ICANN study on the African DNS market ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/africa-dns-market-study-final-06jun17-en.pdf ) where it refers to the size of the total African ccTLD market on page 117. It is referring to the Domaintools site (http://research.domaintools.com/statistics/tld-counts/ ) and estimates the total number of domain names in these ccTLDs to be about 2.9 million. Jmccormac (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. I added that to the report which is now at User:Johnuniq/ccTLD. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jmccormac + Kvng: Please see the report at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Commented on the ANI. The IP addresses seem to be dynamically assigned and will change every few weeks or when the router is rebooted. Semi-protection of the ccTLD articles might be the best option. Jmccormac (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for warning me about nonsense ~Kvng (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It was very easy, but thanks! I think you know that we are active in networking articles (me not much), and I must have been watching your talk from something that arose a couple of years ago. It's amazing how far nonsense can spread. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It is also very easy to give barnstars to competent editors such as yourself ;) ~Kvng (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Transclusion problem[edit]

Hi John, I was wondering if you would look at a problem I'm having on User:SlimVirgin with the transclusion of User:SlimVirgin/Articles (collapsed within the "Articles" banner). As you'll see, when you click on "show", the top of /Articles is missing from the top but it appears at the end. Without going to a lot of trouble, do you have any idea what might be causing that? SarahSV (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarah: I started playing with this at User:Johnuniq/sandbox2 which transcludes Template:Convert/sandbox2 (an almost never-used template). Using a template means I can test it more easily. Interestingly, the problem goes away if I do a global search and replace, changing {{TFAIMAGE}} to {{green}}. I'll be elsewhere for a while but will ponder this more, and may have to resort to WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
John, thank you! I hate to cause you so much trouble. Perhaps I should just get rid of {{TFAIMAGE}}? SarahSV (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
No, not yet. Let me have a look. I'll do that soon. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no rush for this, by the way. It's been like that for a while, so please take a look at your own convenience. I'll be very grateful for any help at any time. SarahSV (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sarah: Weird! Have a look at it now. I temporarily removed the "::" indent before TFAIMAGE. That messes up the appearance, but it seems to avoid the problem. I'll continue looking (techo people love techo problems) but if you are around you might say if the transclusion works on your system now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
That's so bizarre. Yes, page is showing properly now. Thank you! SarahSV (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
My last experiment broke it again. I'll leave it for a while but will return. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sarah: I'm planning to post at WP:VPT asking for help regarding the simplified test at User:Johnuniq/sandbox2. Do you mind the attention that would bring? I won't do it at the moment as I'll move on to other things. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking first. I think I'd prefer not to have that much attention on the page. I'll probably either remove it from my user page or remove "::". Thanks again for looking into it. I wish I could remember what I did last time to get rid of it. SarahSV (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You could fix the problem by editing Template:TFAIMAGE and deleting the newline at the end of the long line that starts with "}}". That would move </div><noinclude> from a separate line to the end of the long line, with no space between the two lines. That should not cause any problems, but explaining why you had done that edit to whoever is watching the template may take a fair bit of effort.
Meanwhile, I have edited User:SlimVirgin/Articles to expand the TFAIMAGE template so it is not used. That works around the problem, and I guess you would be happy to work with that. I do not think "id="mp-tfa-img"" which the template includes is needed on your page so I omitted it.
It's a bit irritating how the TOC includes "About me" + "My work" + "Contact". I don't see a clean way of avoiding that.
I believe this is now settled (no VPT). Let me know if there is something else, and congratulations on that fantastic list! Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
John, I see you've fixed it. Thank you so much for working your magic! I'll edit that template to avoid anyone else experiencing this and will have fun trying to explain why. SarahSV (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy[edit]

Please note that I am not very familiar with the Gamergate controversy other than what I read here and there. The controversy isn't very well known in my area also the article(s) I posted is not about gamergate but a detailed criticism of the video series in question. They may be related but the not a reason by the user to remove criticism from someone (In this case who also happens to be a feminist) that is not part of the Gamergate movement. I have removed anyparts that apeared to be OT in anyway but summerizing over 5 articles is hard so I only posted about the articles and a few relevant parts from the 1st article. UmdP 11:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@UMDP: This relates to my post at your talk. The facts overwhelm opinions in a situation like this. Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is obviously part of Gamergate controversy (search the latter article for the title of the former), and as I mentioned, Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games has a box at the top saying "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions"—the "subject" links to the GamerGate case. It was clear that you are not familiar with the background because edit warring on an article under discretionary sanctions is not done. If you want another opinion about what I posted, you could try asking at WP:HELPDESK. That is more a how-to page, but a quick question will probably get a direct answer. For example, you might ask whether WP:NOTCENSORED applies to the edits in question (as I said, no it doesn't). Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Controversial Content from Casanova[edit]

The "controversial" content is about homosexuality. I thought it would less likely be deleted if I titled it controversial instead of homosexual. Garfield7380 (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The content was deleted from another article by a homophobic editor. It may be of interest for some readers to know that Casanova speaks of homosexuality in his own memoir. Garfield7380 (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This concerns Histoire de ma vie and should be discussed at the article's talk page (Talk:Histoire de ma vie). Recent edits diff added a "Controversy" section with text extracted from a primary source by an editor. It does not matter what the section title is (although "Controversy" is not a good choice—who said it is a controversy?). Suppose the book contained a couple of paragraphs on how lovely roses are—should the article have a section on roses? The answer is no, not unless a reliable secondary source has described the author's views on roses, or otherwise commented on the significance of the text. That is basic policy—WP:SYNTH, as mentioned in my edit summary. If there is to be a reply, please copy the wikitext from here (I fixed the formatting of the original post), and make a new section at the talk page of the article. By the way, there is no point linking Histoire de ma vie when writing on the page with that title. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Extract[edit]

Hi! I would like to use the name Template:Extract for another template with a very different purpose (see this essay I'm developing). I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Extract and it looks like there are zero articles currently using it. However I notice that the template calls the Module:Age, and I'm not too sure on how Lua modules work, so I'm afraid I may break something if I just move the current Extract template to some other title and then code the template I need under the title "Template:Extract". I noticed you're the most active user on the Module:Age, so I thought you could help me out. Can we somehow free the "Template:Extract" title so I can re-use it? If not, I may come up with another name for the template, but "Extract" is really the most appropriate. Thanks ! --Felipe (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In principle, no problem. However, I would need a couple of days to collect my thoughts and work out a new name, and handle the small number of places where the template is used. I put a lot of effort into Module:Date and Module:Age but was then too exhausted to get much work out of them. They are more consistent and don't have the occasional glitches exhibited by the many templates that implement data functions.
I just had a look at Wikipedia:Cascading content and I would prefer to see some support for the proposal before bothering to investigate what moving {{extract}} would entail. Has there been a discussion about it, or has anyone suggested it would be desirable? I often see {{main}} used in summary sections and I do not recall seeing a case where the summary was the same as the lead of the main article. The summaries I recall are usually quite a bit shorter than the main lead. See Anarchism for an extreme example, including cases of multiple main articles. Also, editors often rebel against attempts to require a rigid structure. Are you sure this is going to work? Let's not debate the merits here, but I would appreciate it if you would let me know when a discussion occurs so I can follow it. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Thanks for your thoughtful reply! I've been testing the "cascading content" technique in the Spanish Wikipedia and just now decided to try to spread it here. In the Spanish Wikipedia it got consistent support, but not much has been done yet, partly because it's rather new. Anyway, I understand your argument and I agree: I will finish the essay and start a discussion about the technique using some other template name (maybe Template:Introduction) and if it gathers some support I'll contact you again. Cheers! --Felipe (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your continuous collaboration. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Johnuniq, a continuously editing collaborator on a wide variety of articles, (active since 2009) to be an Editor of the Week. He always uses the edit summary to explain his actions and is extremely helpful in technical matters even extending to Interwiki cooperation. He supports those who do significant content development and realizes that it's getting along with other editors and engaging with their comments that is the hard part of Wikipedia editing. He is active at WP:ANI and at the Village Pump.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Shakespeare Droeshout 1623.jpg
Shakespeare is a favorite topic
Johnuniq
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning August 6, 2017
A supporter of those who do significant content development and realizes that getting along with other editors can be the hardest part of Wikipedia. He strives toward that end.
Recognized for
his continuous collaboration and great contributions
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Congrats J. Very well deserved. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow, thanks very much! This is most unexpected and very welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The banner will be displayed at the WER Project page, the Editor of the Week page and in the WER Hall of Fame. ―Buster7  09:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much Buster7! However I'm beginning to wonder if a mistake a has been made (LOL!). All I've been doing lately is fiddling with modules and their consequences, currently at bnwiki. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
No mistake...well deserved. I putter around Wikiland looking for candidates for EotW. I thought your comment about getting along amongst ourselves was most important and needed to be shared. I'm a fiddler, myself! LOL ―Buster7  13:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Technical Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar - technical works.svg The Technical Barnstar
For your technical help on Bengali Wikipedia. Thank you._

Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! That is most impressive. And thanks for all the work you did in getting bn:Module:Convert set up at bnwiki. Good grief, that's over three years ago. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC) 

ANI sit[edit]

Originally this was for ANI, but I don't want to see any action taken, and it's too much of a roadmap.

I have no idea if they are antisemitic or not, nor have I looked at any of the history here. But if after being accused of it, why would they ever go the "one of my best friends" route, whether true or not, has been seen as pretty much a confirmation of what one is accused of, for at least a half-a-century, and immortalized in media and memory? Any action after that is pretty much inevitable. And there is also the original "attack" - it's calling out yet another structure that's classically seen at problematic; why use this in the first place. There's no clear indication that the comment was meant personally. Though Norton is clearly wrong about this being a bad time - I don't see why local politics in one place, should impact the following standard procedures ... if it does, we better suspend WP:AFD for the rest of the current administration for this locale's senior government! I suspect that this thread is being let die, because there's little to it really. A much more serious issue in my eyes, is that User:Sitush told someone "F... Off" in what was otherwise a reasonably civil conservation, is a much bigger concern, and I'd think is really the only thing here that is actionable. I'm also unsure why they keep referring to India - which unlike the USA has proper national newspapers of substance - and there is also no requirement for national coverage. Given the editor's long history of personal attacks or unacceptable language, as well WP:CIVIL violations such as in May 2012 September 2012 August 2014 September 2014A September 2014BJuly 2017 ... and many more far too numerous to list. At the same time though, he is a valued editor, who dares touches highly toxic topic areas in systemically racist societies, with great skill. I don't think anyone wants the obvious action taken; though perhaps applying battleground techniques applicable in places with real wars, to articles about little old ladies. Nfitz (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Perhaps it should have been an ANI. Then you would have been put in a position where you would have to explain the "roadmap", whatever that may be. I'm not, btw, active in areas relating to "systemically racist societies" - I'm not even sure what those may be but castes, for example, are not races and they're probably my most prominent single topic area. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
You know, drawing someone a roadmap? I was trying to be complimentary in general. Caste not race? I'm no expert - perhaps not - I simply assumed so, because of the very evident physical attributes of the Dalit when you seem them in the street. I'm no expert though ... what do I say then - castist? I don't know the appropriate word if it's not racist. Has there been DNA studies? I'm really ignorant on the topic actually - and just drawing my own assumptions from my own observations. Nfitz (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting that responding "fuck off" to a direct accusation of being antisemitic is a "much more serious issue". That suggestion would be very misguided. There are a few editors left at Wikipedia with a strong sense of ethical behavior, and for them an antisemitic slur would be intolerable. Wrapping the slur in a few words designed to evade WP:NPA would fool only the very naive. I'm not sure if "no clear indication that the comment was meant personally" was intended to say that this comment was not a direct accusation of antisemitism. Any such conclusion would be completely mistaken. Leaving the words and their plain meaning aside, if the comment was not meant personally, its author would have quickly explained they were not making an accusation of antisemitism when challenged on their talk. That has not happened. In fact, the user has disappeared in an attempt to have the ANI report here fade away without their needing to retract. Some editors are known for doing that, and searching ANI archives would show this is a repeat. It is obvious what Sitush's original comment meant—the article concerns a holocaust survivor who was well known in a city of under 200,000 people for recounting her experiences, and using plain language to describe the article as it was at the time (permalink) would require care and sensitive language. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not, I just haven't seen a direct accusation of anti-semitism. Sitush started with I just know someone will be waiting to shout "anti-semitism and Norton replied with When you say "I am not antisemitic, but ..." you are. This accused no one in particular about anti-semitism, nor could be applied directly to anyone in particular. Sounded more like a warning that is not the best way to approach the discussion. I don't see why Sitush even mentioned the issue. And the odd "but my friend" come back ... which honestly sounded like he was pulling our leg a bit, because it's such a famous retort. Nfitz (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I've mentioned your above response to NFitz in the ANI thread. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Johnuniq - rereading this again, I notice that above you said if the comment was not meant personally, its author would have quickly explained they were not making an accusation of antisemitism when challenged on their talk. That has not happened. um, actually it has and very early on. So now they got a harsh warning and still this continues! Nfitz (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I had a look at your talk and User talk:Nfitz#July 2017 + User talk:Nfitz#August 2017 (permalink) told me all that I needed to know. Anyone wondering what I said earlier about "you all" can find my 11:26, 18 August 2017 comment at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I was only pointing out that your comment above on August 18 at 11:02 UTC saying that Norton would have tried to explain if it wasn't an accusation seems to be unaware that he did explain this on August 16 at 17:26 UTC already had. I'm not sure the relevance of my history to that observation. Nfitz (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Bad words, isn't the issue. If I fucking, fucked up my fucking typing of fuck, then there's nothing in it. Personally, I saw someone telling someone to fuck off as very uncivil, disparaging, scornful, and therefore an insult. I'm not sure what you WP:CIR and WP:NOTFORUM comments relate to - I clearly stated, I'm just looking to understand the issue, not litigate the case. Isn't asking questions a good thing? If you can't be bothered to WP:AGF please kindly go fuck off. Nfitz (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Qatar[edit]

Thanks for the note; I was unaware that they now had a good number of IP addresses. Nyttend (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Inflammatory opinions?[edit]

You reverted my close for including "inflammatory opinions". Given that there were no opinions in there besides "unfortunately", would you care to explain? DarkKnight2149 15:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to "(Potential WP:DIVA? Only time will tell)"? I would suggest reading DIVA, because it pertains to users threatening to retire when discussions don't go their way. That was a genuine possibility, given that he claimed to retire because he was displeased with the result of the discussion. And it wasn't an "opinion" of any sort, given that I merely pointed out that it was a genuine possibility. Please read people's edits before you revert them, because there are no "inflammatory opinions" here. In fact, I was probably one of the most neutral people in that discussion. DarkKnight2149 15:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:DIVA Nutshell: "Don't threaten to quit, or otherwise make trouble, if you don't get your way. Wikipedia is not about you."
ANI report filed by Mathmensch: "It would be beneficial if measures are taken against this sort of unfriendly behaviour..."
ANI result by Swarm: "Both editors are reminded to focus on content, not contributors, and refrain from making uncivil remarks. No further action is necessary here."
Mathmensch response: "I have left the English Wikipedia, since I can't explain the rationale behind every one of my edits three times, and was verbally attacked by User:Joel B. Lewis and User:Triacylglyceride, who didn't want to realize their mistakes, and the admins didn't take any action, and to the contrary User:Swarm blamed me."
My closure: "Unfortunately, Mathmensch has allegedly retired as a result of this discussion (potential WP:DIVA? Only time will tell)."
I have nothing else to add. DarkKnight2149 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The ANI section was 90% closed (see permalink) when you added (diff then diff) an extra close with the following text (with names changed):
Unfortunately, Example has allegedly retired as a result of this discussion (potential WP:DIVA? Only time will tell). Place holder has nothing to add with to the re-opening of the discussion. Again, until things get worse, there's really nothing to do here.
A closing statement is the most prominent part of a discussion, and is often taken as the "last word"—a neutral summary of consensus. Good closes attempt to deflame situations—individual comments may have strong criticism, but the close should attempt to find a middle ground. Particularly given that the close was totally unnecessary—it was already 90% closed, and closes are never required—if a final close were wanted, it should have been of the "nothing more needed" variety. There is nothing more inflammatory than painting the retirement of an editor with "allegedly" and "DIVA". I was thanked for my revert of the close. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
"a neutral summary of consensus" - That's precisely what I thought I was leaving. You see, the two were engaged in mutual incivility and the discussion ended with both of them being reminded to be respectful of each other. The discussion was unnecessarily re-opened by another user to specifically place blame on one specific user (which wouldn't result anything constructive; just more conflict). That is why I closed the case. As for Closing Statements, they are meant to provide a neutral summary of what has transpired, why it is being closed, and what the result is. In this instance, one of the involved users had allegedly retired, while the other stated that they have nothing to add. That's what I stated in the close. And yes, I noted the very-real probability of WP:DIVA for the reasons mentioned above. You and Swarm seem to believe that I made a poor judgement call on that front, and I respect that. DarkKnight2149 15:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Darkknight2149: I hate to say it but I'm going to be blunt. All of your commentary in that thread was inflammatory and unhelpful, and I'm not sure why you insisted on involving yourself in that way. I assume you were trying to be helpful, but you weren't. My comment chastising uninvolved non-admins for unhelpful input was primarily directed at you. The fact that you even broached the subject of a ban just shows that you had no understanding of how we deal with minor incivility and you had no business commenting in that thread. Swarm 02:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Swarm: I am very sorry you feel that way. At the time, I thought I did a helpful job in de-fusing the situation and helping both users (who were equally uncivil) to come to discus the disagreement civilly. That's all I was trying to do, and my statements were certainly neutral. DarkKnight2149 15:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, would the two of you mind telling me what you mean when you say "Inflammatory"? The word, as I know it, means arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings. None of what I said comes close to fitting this bill. Is it possible you simply misread implied emotion in my statements? DarkKnight2149 15:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The intentions of the person who writes a closing statement are unimportant. What matters is how most people would interpret the words written. If an editor is frustrated and states they have retired, the most inflammatory thing that can be done is to draw everyone's attention to WP:DIVA. Whether everyone can understand that is not relevant for its truth. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
But you ignored the question above - How exactly are you and Swarm defining the word "Inflammatory"? Make no mistake - this isn't sarcasm, it's a genuine question. DarkKnight2149 23:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
You also neglect that I didn't accuse him of DIVA, I stated that it was a genuine possibility. And, as DIVA states, threatening to quit because things don't go your way is disruptive. DarkKnight2149 23:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
S/he didn't threaten to quit if things didn't go their way. Everything Johnuniq and Swarm have said is correct. --JBL (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Joel B. Lewis: There was a neutral close where you were both calmly reminded to continue the discussion civilly (which is about as fair as you can get). When you weren't sanctioned like Mathmensch asked, he allegedly retired because "I can't explain the rationale behind every one of my edits three times, and was verbally attacked by User:Joel B. Lewis and User:Triacylglyceride, who didn't want to realize their mistakes, and the admins didn't take any action, and to the contrary Swarm blamed me." That is why I mentioned the very strong possibility probability of DIVA.
And, I should probably bring up that the DIVA thing wasn't even the main close. It was literally a minor note relegated to parenthesis. If that is what is being considered "inflammatory" (whatever their unique interpretation of that word is), then that (if anything) is what Johnuniq should have removed instead of the very purposeful close in general. Nothing about "Unfortunately, Mathmensch has allegedly retired as a result of this discussion. Joel B. Lewis has nothing to add with to the re-opening of the discussion. Again, until things get worse, there's really nothing to do here" can be remotely construed as "inflammatory". DarkKnight2149 17:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Counting to 327[edit]

Your question on a source for displacement has me saying no, there isn't: the bore is 4", the stroke 3.25", which produces a displacement of 326.73ci or 5354cc. GM, like most car companies, rounds up. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This relates to me reverting a change where an IP broke a {{convert}} at Chevrolet small-block engine.
I was going to say that it is possible to tell convert to round the input as follows:
  • {{cvt|326.73|CID|L|adj=ri0|1}} → 327 cu in (5.4 L)
However, that does not give the wanted output (assuming 5.3 L is wanted) because:
  • {{cvt|326.73|CID|L|3}} → 326.73 cu in (5.354 L)
If 5.3 is really wanted, the convert template would have to be replaced with fixed wikitext:
  • 327&nbsp;cu&nbsp;in (5.3 L) → 327 cu in (5.3 L)
Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd say the template has it right: 5354cc rounds up to 5.4 l; you need a 325ci (or 326) to get 5.3, both under 5350cc. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Template problem - can you help?[edit]

Hi, I see that you have the template editor user right. I am wondering if the error regarding {{small}} that appears at some caste-related articles, such as Menon (subcaste), is being generated by an error in {{Infobox caste}}. I can see the {{small}} being used there but the syntax is bewildering. Might I be right? Do you know whether anything can/should be done about it? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: Sure, if it's easy I'll fix it and claim credit, and if it's not I know someone who can fix any template issue. However, I can't see a problem. {{small}} should only do something if a footnotes parameter is present in {{Infobox caste}}, and I don't see it. I suspect that the infobox wikitext should be fixed to change the first of the following lines to the second:
| data43     = {{small|{{{footnotes|}}}}}
| data43     = {{small|1={{{footnotes|}}}}}
The 1= would fix a problem if footnotes happens to contain "=". Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. I certainly do not know what the problem is but someone, sometime clearly thought there was a problem and hence the pages are being included in the maintenance category. If it actually makes no difference then perhaps the category needs to be considered? Aside from being fairly clueless about template syntax, I am also poor regarding accessibility issues (screenreaders etc) and perhaps that type of thing is the rationale behind the "error" category. So much to learn, so little time! - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I missed the fact that Menon (subcaste) was in the hidden Category:Pages using small with an empty input parameter. I'm not sure whether using {{small}} in an infobox is compatible with WP:ACCESSIBILITY which says "In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page font size". If wanted, I could find someone who understands such things to decide the fate of small. Meanwhile, I edited the infobox (diff) so the tracking category will no longer appear, although I had to WP:PURGE the article to see that (I add ?action=purge to the URL). Let me know about any other template concerns. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
That worked well, thanks. It has taken me a while to get back to this but your change has removed a fair number of affected articles from the category. - Sitush (talk)

ANI[edit]

Thanks for your efforts in the preceding section - I'll try to get my head round them soon, when the effects of my meds wear off. Meanwhile, I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_behaviour_of_Nfitz. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that the problem is continuing after all this time. I commented at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Burden of Proof and Intelligent Design article[edit]

Not claiming whether it is a religious or non-religious argument. Questioning validity of source in establishing the assertion. The burden of proof is on claimant. The source is not satisfactory, for which the reason is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The scar face (talkcontribs) 06:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No idea why your sixth edit at Wikipedia should be here. The article talk page (Talk:Intelligent design) is the place to explain why a change is desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Midway International Airport edit revision[edit]

Good morning.Last night,at 3:23 on September 19,I edited the acreage of MDW (airfield) and you reverted my edit back to what it was.Did you check my sources that I referred to to confirm my edit (change)? I believe not.These are FAA approved sources used by the aviation community.I cited Airport IQ 5010 (References #2),MDY airport skyvector and airport-data.com and they all concur, MDY covers an area of 650 acres (1.02 sq.mi.),not 640 acres.Your source or sources may be outdated,but Airport IQ 5010 and MDY (airport code) skyvector are right up to the minute with their updates. I know my edit was correct.These are the most reliable up to date sources there is.Thank you for your time and have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow that. At Midway International Airport you changed
covers one square mile ({{convert|1|sqmi|acre ha}}) → covers one square mile (1 square mile (640 acres; 260 ha))
to
covers just over one square mile ({{convert|650|acres(260 ha}}) → covers just over one square mile (650 acres(260 ha[convert: unknown unit])
and I changed the last line to:
covers just over one square mile ({{convert|650|acres|disp=or}}) → covers just over one square mile (650 acres or 260 hectares)
Ideally we should be discussing this at Talk:Midway International Airport and you could alert me by using {{ping}}: {{ping|Johnuniq}} Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a problem now? No. We are good.Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

val/units request[edit]

GB doesn't work. — Cpiral§Cpiral 21:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I added kB, MB, GB, TB as they are likely to be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not just "may"[edit]

I routinely work through stale userspace CSDing the problematic pages, blanking the useless ones, and sending the occasional promising page to Draft and/or AfC review. I'm prohibited from moving things directly to mainspace, but at least I can give some useful abandoned work a fighting chance to be noticed and mainspaced with these moves. I'm not aware of any other user that does this on a regular basis, though there may be others. Ricky used to do it and he wrote most of the instructions for the WP:Abandoned wikiproject. I can't say much more but you are a smart person. Legacypac (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm planning to wait and see what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)