User talk:Johnuniq

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

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

Index of stuff[edit]

List of Judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales[edit]

Thanks for your edit to List of Judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales As you say one of the difficulties with Template:Age in years and days gives a nonsense sort with years being sorted before days. Unfortunately the table still has a nonsense sort, which I presume is due to use of one or more of the other templates: Template:Age in days, Template:Age in days/day, Template:Age in years and Template:Age in years and months. Any suggestions on fixing these to a template that includes a hidden sort key? Thanks Find bruce (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Find bruce: I'm afraid that many of the age templates are inconsistent in how they operate. I fixed some issues in List of Judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and will do some more. I think that all that is remaining are some manual "Term in office" values such as where "10 months" has been entered rather than calculated. That will be fixable in a clean manner but I'll leave it for a day or two. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help, thats a great improvement & hopefully I will learn something in looking at your edits. Cheers Find bruce (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I have converted the manual entries to years and days using Template:Ntsh as a manual sort key using the maximum number of days as the value, which I think is consistent with the values from the range in Template:age in years nts. Let me know if there is a better way. Find bruce (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Find bruce: Your edit looks good, and it seems you worked out that {{ayd}} and other templates that use Module:Age use the number of days for the hidden sort key. I think the original text was better for a couple of cases such as for John Kinchela where a term from April 1836 to September 1837 is best given as 17 months, but that's up to people working on the article. I hope that eventually there would be a template which has two dates as input and produces three columns for a table as the output—first date, second date, age, with user-specified formats. That would be a lot better. Johnuniq (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Legend0[edit]

Hi John. Can you help me with my edit request? I am trying to add a |text= option per {{Legend#Full parameter list}}.--Nevéselbert 22:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Neveselbert: I could fiddle but please ask at WP:VPT because it would be better for someone more familiar with HTML to handle the addition. I spend time in Lua modules. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


Since you haven't mentioned the word, perhaps you were not aware that I had a stroke in 30 December 2017–11 January 2018. Reactions have ranged to ignoring it to a kind of taboo. Some wikipedians who know me have been very helpful. In the real academic world, my College have been helping me. Occasionally I freeze up and am unable to speak at all. Fortunately in my speech—which is still patchy—and on the organ those kinds of lapse are temporary, nervous hesitations, and fluency is usually restored: apart from Bach's complex catechism chorale preludes, I have been able to sight-read two of Max Reger's four-piece "easy" 52 chorale preludes.

I have noticed that other academic colleagues have abandoned wikipedia, including one of my closest friends. For me, in mathematics, music, history, etc, my interest has been in editing in a solitary way, using my expertise. Projects like Orgelbüchlein continue or new topics like Bruhat ordering are developed.

On the other hand, others have gone as far as suggesting that I am incapable of writing a précis, i.e. a paraphrase. But editors very quickly learn that; and that kind of humdrum skill is not unlearnt. Wikipedians don't suddenly stop learning the skills of how to paraphrase and summarise passages. Perhaps the moral is that grandmothers shouldn't teach to suck eggs. Mathsci (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my last two comments on the issue have been rather unpleasant, and of course I am extremely sorry to hear about your health problems. I have had some personal exposure to stroke and it is deeply disturbing regardless of how well the sufferer is doing. My best wishes for a full recovery—sight reading complex music shows you are doing well and you are obviously able to write. I don't want a diff, but if claims about your ability are raised, I would be interested to see a link to the section where that occurred.
My comments were intended to be somewhat confrontational in the hope of cutting through and showing that a new approach is necessary. Survival at Wikipedia involves recognizing that other editors, even if disruptive, are people. Pressing a case too enthusiastically creates enemies and motivates them to fight forever. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Hi Johnuniq. Thanks for your kind comments. If I understood what you asked about wikipedia, the actual stroke happened slightly before 29 December, 22:23 on WT:RSN and slightly after JzG and I commented. I was totally incapable of indecipherable the diff of 29 December, 22:23 and there was initially chaos all over. If I had been more alert and aware of what was happening, I should have dialled 999 immediately. But that alas is not the way it works. Best, Mathsci (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Mathsci I, too, am sorry to hear about your recent stroke. However, you seem to be doing quite well, and as Johnuniq wrote above, you write well – quite well, in fact. If I can be of help to you in any way, such as reviewing a paragraph before placing it into an article, please do not hesitate to ask. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for commenting on the Vagina talk page. More input will make a better article, I believe. I'm only replying here on your talk page because the talk page discussions tend to get lengthy and I was concerned that you wouldn't be able to find my reply to you mixed in with all the other comments. It is interesting to me that you have expressed some of the same concerns that I have had about what to include and what not to include in the article. I'm not suggesting that anyone be sentenced to having to read the entire talk page, but in general, discussions have been about the exclusion of content rather than adding content. I guess that is the simplest way I can find to reply to what you've written on the talk page. Ping me here if you would like to discuss things further, continue to be involved on the Vagina talk page, leave me a message on my talk page or even ignore this message if you feel that is best. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   23:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, although what I did was very minor. I have had the page on my watchlist for a long time but have not managed to look at the recent activity until now. I will be paying more attention. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Than you again, more eyes are going to benefit the improvement of this article and will help it on its 'way' to becoming GA. Please note: I am not asking you to support or not support my personal comments or endorse things that I may add to the talk page. The purpose of this message is to thank you for your participation. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   11:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Range contributions for IPv4[edit]

Hi, John, I always think of you when I think of IP ranges. Frustratingly, I don't know how to find the contributions from an IPv4 range any more, because X!'s useful range contributions at now redirects to I struggle to understand what use that is altogether, and it's definitely not for range contributions. (Or if it is, it hides that function deep in its innards.) Do you have a tool to suggest? Preferably a little-old-lady-friendly tool that is quick and simple to use. My god, I'm grateful the section above doesn't have the article name in the header. Bishonen | talk 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Use Wikipedia! Support for range contribs was added last fall in the native interface. Example. --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Use uh... what was that? Well, never mind, I suppose I can look at anybody's contributions, then change the name/IP to the range I want? That's what they call a little-old-lady kludge. When I do it with your example, I get this. That's a bit of all right, isn't it? Perhaps I shouldn't have blocked it. (With regard to Vaishya, that you have semi'd, there was obviously no need.) Bishonen | talk 16:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Yes, it works with IPv6 ranges too. I could've kissed MusikAnimal when I saw it working. Calculate ranges using this and plug in the result here on Wkipedia, with the listing having full gadget support. Beautiful! --NeilN talk to me 17:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, let's all have an orgy with MusikAnimal. I wonder if it was in one of the Administrators' Newsletters I got... I do need to read them more carefully. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC).
Haha!! I love me a good WikiOrgy! <3 Range contributions was announced in the October 2017 Admin News. @NeilN: I was super excited to tell you when it first got deployed, but you were MIA at the time!

@Bishonen: We only recently redirected XTools' rangecontribs to Special:Contribs, indeed because there is now native support, but also we didn't want to port that tool to the new XTools (at The old XTools needed to retire once and for all, so rangecontribs went with it. Instead, it'd be better to work on phab:T145912 (giving you the extra features XTools gave you), but it seems people have lost interest in that, myself included. If you are interested in seeing that happen, say so :) It's a volunteer project, so for me at least the social motivation needs to be there for it to be worthwhile. Perhaps you all are content with the basic support Special:Contribs now gives you, which is A-OK.

See also phab:T152850 (range calculator) which hopefully will happen sooner than later, but as NeilN says we have some external tools for it at least. MusikAnimal talk 01:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bishonen: As NeilN says, Special:Contributions now supports ranges for IPv4 and IPv6. If you have a range in mind, just replace "Bishonen" in Special:Contributions/Bishonen with the range, for example, or 2604:2000:a866:6800::/64
Or, if you have some IPs, you first need a range calculator. {{blockcalc}} still works, and it now links to Special:Contributions. See the "c" links in this example which uses
Range Contribs
64 64 3 c
9 8 2 c
1 1 c
3 1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Aha, your {{blockcalc}} links to contributions now? That's great. Most convenient. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

Removing of templates around references?[edit]

I read your edit comment, by I don't understand why you made this edit. Nor do I understand what you think you've achieved. Do you mind explaining further? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: The guideline is Wikipedia:External links#How to link which advises using plain wikitext in the external links section. The original links used {{cite web}} and included an access date and licensing information. Neither of those are relevant to the EL section. Was there some reason to use cite web? Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
a) Thanks. (I hadn't previously noticed Wikipedia:External links#How to link).
b) Agree that the access date is not useful. Personally, I'm ambivalent about including licensing information, but have been scolded for leaving it out. Agree that Neither of those are relevant to the EL section.
c) Was there some reason to use cite web? - because it reminds one of what data to include, but more particularly, because it formats references consistently. (e.g. the plain links you've used don't mention the author nor, when available, the date of authorship.)
So, incorporating your comments about removing access date and licensing information, I still think using the template is the better option. I'm surprised that WP:EL in general and WP:ELT in particular don't seem to include mention of {{cite web}} and/or similar templates. Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it depends what you're used to. I have seen a large number of EL sections and very few of them use citation templates. The whole point of an external link is that it either works to provide useful information (per WP:EL) or it should be removed. The author, access date, licensing, and other citation fields, are all totally irrelevant. It is dangerous to rely on how other articles are written because they might be wrong, but in this case it might be useful to look at other EL sections and see how they are formatted. Indeed, Oatley, New South Wales#External links has other links that do not use citation templates. The place to ask for opinions would be WP:ELN. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Lombard grammar[edit]

I just corrected what I had done wrong. I accidentally mistook the curly brackets for square brackets and thought it was a link. Thanks for reporting. Skainstellungen (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Skainstellungen: Thanks for fixing it. I wasn't sure about the IP's edits so I thought it best if you checked it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Units prefixes were invented for a reason[edit]

How is "4,294,967,296 (232) octets" clearer without the 4GiB shorthand remark I will never know. :(

It takes some real arm twisting to force file browsers to report sizes of such big files in bytes, let alone in octets. (Yes, I know that RFCs like to refer to 8 bits as an octet and that a byte is technically not standardized as 8 bits). 2001:569:79AE:3200:6CC5:4790:B7D1:F2B4 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please continue at Talk:IPv6#64 KiB. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Escargoten (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

Dear John, You replied to a question I posted at the Help Desk. Your comments were extremely clear and helpful. Thank you! LindaPenn04

LindaPenn04 (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@LindaPenn04: Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit wars[edit]

Dear John,

Thank you very much for your comment on my contribution to the Saba Mahmood page. I understand the rules but there is a user who repeatedly deletes my contribution without any satisfactory explanation. To me, their explanations are baseless and libelous. What should be done under these circumstances?

Ysgp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysgp (talkcontribs) 02:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ysgp: Hundreds of people every day reach similar conclusions on a large variety of articles, and it's likely that people reverting your changes also have a similar view. The formal response is to review WP:DR but what it means is that there is no shortcut. Stop edit warring and instead put your arguments on the article talk page. If there is no progress in, say, two weeks, ask for other opinions at a relevant wikiproject; see the list at the top of Talk:Saba Mahmood. Do not spam requests around the place. Instead, try to pick a page where recent activity has occurred and which seems most relevant to the issue. Then ask for opinions and wait. After that, try WP:DR. The word "libelous" is very strong. Please review WP:NLT which says that editors must not threaten other editors with legal action (you can take legal action, but you can't use Wikipedia to threaten). If you really think libel is involved (are you sure?), you could post at WP:ANI asking for more urgent attention. However, you would need to demonstrate that the text in question violates WP:BLP. Also, please stop posting large amounts of text in the edit summary. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

John: I did not mean to threaten anyone with legal action and I have no such intention. However, I have been falsely accused of violating FERPA and maligning a person while all I did was citing the content of a Wikileaks document without any interpretation. In any case, I will follow your suggestions. Since there is a character limit, I did not think "posting large amounts of text in the edit summary" would be a concern. I will be careful in the future if I keep using the site. Ysgp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysgp (talkcontribs) 03:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy Easter[edit]

Happy Easter also. Thanks for the hatting, that was going nowhere fast. In the cold light of day, there may have been a series of unfortunate coincidences and events. Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think a couple of us noticed Talk:Annunciation (Memling) after the skirmish at WT:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. My thoughts (not directed at you obviously) are that I'm sure it is vitally important that all the rules regarding image sizing are followed precisely but I'm not confident that the best result for the encyclopedia follows from doing that during a mini infobox battle. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Happy Easter from me too and thanks for hatting that thread yesterday. I won't get back here for a few days, but when I do I'll use that article to teach myself how to use image scaling instead of fixed px size. The issue is that I've never found the the instructions very readable, but with a few hours to play I think I might get it right. That article is a good playground, particularly with the selection of images there and the way they should be aligned with points made in the text. Doing it when I was seeking clarification for another issue seemed counterproductive because I tend to get a little flustered under those types of circumstances. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Not withstanding but in cases we we need to read around the rules to find their intent. All has ended well here. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you![edit]

Barncompass.png Barnstar of Pathfinding
Thanks for helping people find each other. I believe that Wikipedia only works because of editors like you, who can point out where to go and whom to talk to. Thank you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...[edit]

Any idea what "thank you for removing those refs" refers to? I assumed you had blanked some comment by me or CT or someone about how the IP was 420 ("removed" a "ref[erence]" to an IP as a sock), but your contribs don't support this; was it just a random remark about something completely unrelated? Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The "Johnuniq" in front of the comment indicates a reply to me, so the reply refers to my edit. Please check ANI's history to see my edit summary and the edit which changed refs to links. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing[edit]


There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Bug in template?[edit]

Please read Talk:Eve Graham#Age regarding what looks like a bug in {{Birth date and age}}. With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I replied there to agree with other comments that the template is working well and the problem was due to caching. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit at WP:NOTIFICATIONS[edit]

Hi there! I was just wondering why you reverted my edit on WP:NOTIFICATIONS. You provided an edit summary, which I appreciate, saying "not correct at enwiki." However, I know for a fact that the milestones part and the welcoming part was true in January, see File:Wikipedia, SkyGazer 512 being welcomed by a notice.png. Are you saying that the notifications have been changed since then? If so, then I apologize for bothering you, but it would still be helpful to know.--SkyGazer 512 What will you say? / What did I do? 00:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss issues on the talk page. I'm trying to work out a reply now. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing the stuff on my userpage. I didn't know how to use those Wikipedia widgets so I left them how they were. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Luigitehplumber: Thanks for the note, happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
You’re welcome! Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


"That is nonsense. The issue concerns this MfD."

Bingo! Explained here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, in fact, situation normal. For posterity, this concerns my comment at WP:VPP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Age doesn't like cardinal to word[edit]

I came across Schott frères and North_Texas_Mean_Green#Alumni which are both throwing a ParserFunction error which I suspect has only been happening since you moved to the Age module a few weeks ago. In short, both {{Age}} and {{Cardinal to word}} seem to work fine on their own :

  • {{age|2011|6|6}} → 7 (7)
  • {{Cardinal to word|7}} → seven (seven)

but something goes wrong when the latter supplies an answer to the former, unless one uses {{age in years}} :

  • {{Cardinal to word|{{age|2011|6|6}}}} → Expression error: Unexpected < operator
  • {{Cardinal to word|{{age in years|2011|6|6}}}} → seven (seven)

I assume this is some kind of subtle data type issue? As an aside, I came across these because they were wrapped in {{tf}} templates that had the effect of changing the tracking category from Category:ParserFunction errors to Category:Parserfunction errors which is obviously not ideal - is there a way to tf-proof categories? Le Deluge (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this, and I'm sorry that I overlooked updating the documentation at {{age}}. I just fixed the two articles using a new feature that age provides. Examples:
  • {{age|2011|6|6|format=Cardinal}}Seven
  • {{age|2011|6|6|format=cardinal}}seven
That is hilarious about tf changing the tracking category, and explains why I did not notice (I have been frequently monitoring Category:ParserFunction errors).
The problem was due to a request at Template talk:Age#Detecting if the 4/5/6 parameters are used. A quick summary is that some infoboxes ask for two dates which are passed to {{age}} to find the age at the time of an event in the past. A common error is that people only provide one date, in which case the current age is shown. To detect that error, {{age}} now outputs hidden text to say "only one date was entered". Putting {{age|2011|6|6}} in Special:ExpandTemplates shows exactly what the template outputs, including the hidden text which fouled up {{Cardinal to word}}. Age also handles ordinals as shown in the examples on the talk page ... and which I will document real soon now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Le Deluge: Oops, I meant to ping you. By the way, I replaced the cardinal error above with fixed wikitext so this page is not in the error tracking category. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I can stop feeling guilty because I updated the documentation at {{age}} three weeks ago (beyond my recollection horizon). However it would be hard to decode the error reported here from the docs. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Re convert fixes[edit]

As far as I know a range is shown by a dash – not a hyphen - Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Agreed. However, while correcting {{convert}} errors I have sometimes shown syntax which is easier for people to use. Editors often learn how to use convert from what they see in articles and they should know that a hyphen is the recommended way of producing a range. The output is always a proper en dash, but the input can be a simple hyphen. For example, in this edit one error was fixed but also the first of the following (which uses an en dash) was replaced with the second (which uses a hyphen):
  • {{convert|1000|–|2000|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 1,000–2,000 ft (300–610 m)
  • {{convert|1000|-|2000|ft|m|abbr=on}} → 1,000–2,000 ft (300–610 m)
The outputs are identical. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I was hoping that it would turn out that way, thanks. I saw that you put + between a convert to more than one system of measurement such as distances in nautical miles, land miles and km, is there anything else I should know (I did this by copying, trial and error too)? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Plus has been supported for a long time but is not used much. It always works for a combination output unit whereas a space can fail in some unusual cases. I have started using plus to fix syntax errors like {{convert|12|nmi|km|mi}} (replacing it with {{convert|12|nmi|km+mi}}) for a couple of reasons: plus always works, and a plus might be more self-explanatory than a space. See here for what the plus does. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Excellent; if there's anything else that you notice in the way I've used the convert template, please let me know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


Hello, Johnuniq. If in English Wikipedia are so stubborn as to disobey references in English, leave it with errors, as is. The reference is only 70 years old. It's funny that being an encyclopedia, they are so misinformed. I, from this minute, stopped contributing here. Penquista (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have replied at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you comment on this AN thread?[edit]

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm watching, and I recently added Tham Luang cave rescue to my watchlist, but I don't think there is a need to comment further at this stage. Thanks for raising the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: WP:VOTESTACK... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomasTomasTomas (talkcontribs) 14:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 19:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing silly drive by tags. 7&6=thirteen () 19:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I was going to nominate you to be WP:Editor of the week but see somebody beat me to it.

You have 55,555 edits to half as many articles. Over a decade of consistently good service. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia. 7&6=thirteen () 19:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Another Sealioning RfC[edit]

Talk:Sealioning#RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning

(Notifying everyone who participated in the previous RfC.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Parapsychology NPOV Noticeboard[edit]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Leigh (talkcontribs) 12:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This relates to parapsychology. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

IP is also editing List of examples of convergent evolution[edit]

Hi, I see you are watching Convergent evolution. The IP is trying the same game on the list article. Seems to be totally immune to requests for discussion and so far nobody has chosen to block them. We could ask for both articles to be semi-protected, I guess. Meanwhile you might like to add the article to your watchlist, perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Ha ha, I was leaving that for you! OK, I'll get involved but procedures are required so please post at Talk:List of examples of convergent evolution with something like "Recent edits" (if no better title is suggested) and briefly outline the problems with the IP's edits. If that's done I can post a gentler message at the IP's talk. At the moment, an onlooker might not see why we weren't engaging with the IP and that would complicate the issue. Because the IP is not adding obvious junk, no one will protect the articles or block the IP unless attempts at engagement can be seen. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Done. Let's hope it helps. As you say, I've tried repeatedly to get them to discuss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: I'm sorry to be picky but I would recommend rewording your comment (just edit it). Forget about "force through" and so on—that sort of thing is immediately seen in the history. The IP could just as easily say that we are forcing through our opinions. Also, don't say "repeatedly been explained", just link to the explanation if there is one. Explanations in edit summaries don't really count when the issue is not simple vandalism. What the article talk page needs is a brief statement of why the IP's proposals are not improvements, talking only about article content. That's the first step of what is needed before any hope of an administrative response. I can supply the second step which is to gently explain the situation on the IP's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Tweaked the wording. It's all yours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any new activity from the IP at the moment and Convergent evolution has been semi-protected for a short time. I am watching Convergent evolution and List of examples of convergent evolution and will attempt to engage with the IP if they repeat. Please let me know if problems arise on any other pages. I still cannot see a rationale for why the IP's edits are being reverted—the fact that a couple of editors don't like them is not enough. However I will attempt to explain to the IP that they are obliged to justify their proposed changes on talk and wait for consensus. For reference, talk is here and here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP then noticed this discussion. The issue appears to persist at multiple articles... —PaleoNeonate – 20:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: Thanks for requesting semi-protection but I don't think anything more than 1 or 2 days will result and the person behind the IPs won't be dissuaded. My above comments regarding "rationale for why the IP's edits are being reverted" still stand because an onlooker would see nothing unusual about their edits. I left comments at + + but they have not led to a response. It would not be desirable to edit war without a clear rationale on the talk page of each article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Committee Clarification Request[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Clarification request: Paranormal (October 2018). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Huma Abedden[edit]

Completely disagree with your subjective labeling of “drive-by” tagging on Huma Abedeen article. Your argument does not support removal in reference to MoS. The specific tag asks for a review. Arbitrarily removing tags and proclaiming “drive-bye” does not automatically equate to such. I provided a discussion and opened the forum. Replacing the tag as this was not adequately discussed. Don’t step on my edits because you don’t like tags. Tags are available for a reason. This kind of conduct is frustrating and no wonder many new editors get run off. Not a new editor bye the way. 0pen$0urce (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is my revert of a tag added at Huma Abedin in June 2016. That was ​2 12 years ago! Putting generic complaints on a talk page (Talk:Huma Abedin#POV check!?!?!?!) is not helpful. First, please use standard punctuation. Second, give examples of text in the article that need attention and say why. Please use the article talk page for that, not a user talk page. See WP:DRIVEBY. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)