User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 13

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

Highbeam results

Count of links to
  • Previous discussion is archived here.

Following shows all results. The new entries start with 2012-08-02.

All links to in articles
Date Unique articles Unique links Total links Increase
2012-02-11 8462 10277 11308
2012-03-07 8527 10349 11388 80
2012-04-03 8579 10399 11444 56
2012-05-02 8818 10853 11943 499
2012-06-01 9104 11321 12455 512
2012-07-02 9295 11712 12883 428
2012-08-02 9409 12007 13190 307
2012-09-02 9757 12627 13913 723
2012-10-01 10090 13164 14555 642
2012-11-01 10312 13647 15096 541
2012-12-01 10548 14025 15537 441
2013-01-02 10799 14435 16009 472
2013-02-04 11116 14948 16607 598
2013-03-04 11352 15351 17063 456
2013-04-03 11497 15617 17383 320
2013-05-03 11666 15966 17773 390

For example, the first row shows results from the external links dump for February 11, 2012, counting only links of the format shown (or with "www." in front) in articles. There were links in 8462 different articles, and there were 10277 different links. Some links have been used more than once, giving a total of 11308 links in articles. The final column shows the increase in the total from the previous period.

Since I'm recording facts, the new data required downloading 11 files with a total size of 15.8 GB; those files expanded to a total size of 99.2 GB. I noticed a big jump up and down in the size of the files with external links for (up in August 2012 and down in October 2012). My curiosity then led to making the graph shown above, but I haven't tried to find out what was responsible. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! These results are great. I've added them to the metrics page and will share them with HighBeam next week. Cheers :) :) Ocaasi t | c 20:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Premature closing of MathSci's RfE against D.Lazard by Future Perfect at Sunrise?

I wish to notify you of a discussion that you were involved in.[1] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Standard offer

For anyone interested, here are some thoughts on WP:Standard offer.

Maintaining and developing the encyclopedia requires a collaborative community. Of course it's difficult to herd cats, and there is rarely total harmony because people are different, and it is very easy for one user to irritate another. While gentler language can be used to make the following point, in essence the community does not care who is right and who is wrong in any particular dispute—it is not Wikipedia's role to determine whether one person is more correct than another. What does matter is finding a good outcome that benefits the encyclopedia—it does not have to be the optimum outcome and need not be fair, it just has to stop disruption and lead in the direction of better articles.

If a banned user has been creating socks and wants to return to the community, they have a couple of options. One unapproved but obvious choice is WP:Clean start—simply create one new account and use that to make helpful edits while completely avoiding any previous problem areas. That is not approved because a sanctioned user should appeal their sanction, and a "clean start" account is just another sock, and in practice most clean start attempts come unstuck because the person involved cannot avoid former problems, even if only once, and is quickly recognized and blocked as a sock.

The second and approved technique is WP:Standard offer. The first step (waiting six months) is essential to demonstrate the required level of commitment. The second step (undertaking to totally avoid topics and editors where there was trouble in the past) is also essential—see "not Wikipedia's role" above. The community is extremely pragmatic, and anything that helps the encyclopedia is good, while anything that does not help is not good. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I have decided that this seems the right course to take. A.K.Nole (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
OK good. So just to be clear this is the standard offer
  1. Wait six months, without sockpuppetry.
  2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
  3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.
In your case part 2 is
2.1 Avoid all interaction with Mathsci, including commenting on his activity
2.2 Avoid editing in the topic related to Jordan algebra
If you are happy with this we can progress to the next step which is a discussion on WP:AN where the precise details can be determined and the community can decide if they want to put it into practice.--Salix (talk): 19:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. A.K.Nole (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
OK thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer for User:A.K.Nole--Salix (talk): 20:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Johnuniq. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites.
Message added 16:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tweaked #3, let me know if the fixes sufficiently address your concerns. Shearonink (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. I'm watching the page and won't need any more talkbacks thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Banks

What I don't understand is why James Cook isn't being hit the same way and worse, if the little dears are reading about the voyages in school. Any theories? Bishonen | talk 11:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC).

Oops, did you just spill some beans? I don't even know how I ended up watching that page, but yes, Banks must be the current focus of study somewhere. Perhaps Cook is now the historical equivalent of a cliché, and teachers have to think of someone less well known? What would be worse—being sentenced to ten years of patrolling poop vandalism, or six months of teaching the perps? Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
What you got against poop vandalism? Best kind of vandalism! Bishonen | talk 23:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC).
LOL—the opposite of the typist's mantra keep the "f" in "shift". I see that irreverance and you are well acquainted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That essay section is poorly written

Did you read my edit summary? If you did then you would know what my problem is with that sentence. It violates policy regarding bolding, it is poorly written, and it is factually untrue stating that common sense is a principle. All that was mentioned in my summary. Please revert your revert, that sentence does not belong.Camelbinky (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Bircham International University

Hi. I'd be grateful if you could have a look at my message on the Bircham International University talk page and let me know your thoughts. Many thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, although I am still watching that page and would respond to a flare up there, eventually. You may like to clarify Talk:Bircham International University#Article Improvements as it is not clear what is proposed. Please review WP:LEAD—the lead-in to an article is a summary of what is in the article, and should be written after the article. If you are going to promote the interests of a business by ensuring an article is accurate, identifying something that is not accurate would be a first step. I wonder if User:Orlady is still available. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I'll leave a message with Orlady. Vivj2012 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). I've commented on Talk:Bircham International University. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC).
Thanks! I've run into a wall of RL issues, so I'm glad that article is in good hands. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for looking at the Lulaq situation and stepping in. I likely would have been much harsher in the "don't do that again" sense, but trust your efforts and instincts here. I didn't have the time to research the history to see if it was provoked by another user, so I felt it best to bring it to the attention of the community. Thank you again, — Ched :  ?  14:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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


Please User talk:Peter Horn#Convert/spell and Template talk:Convert#Present or current output of convert/spell not elegant if not undesirable Peter Horn User talk 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 13:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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


Your statement about editor A and B is correct and unhelpful. The question is not who is right, but if is permitted to stalk the person you disagree with. The whole list of discussions is great but has nohing to do with that question. - The stalking seems permissible if the other one poses a danger to Wikipedia by disruptive editing. Therefore I asked to show one incidence of THAT (addition of an infobox as disruptive editing), not prolong the thread with something we all know all to well. Repeating: Andy can't even edit ..., --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to reach out to your position and consider the situation as you see it (B is stalking A, and that should stop because A feels harassed). However, as outlined, I have seen a couple of the article talk page discussions and they were a disgrace. I don't have the stomach to find them and refresh my memory at the moment, but I am sure that I saw a small group of editors with a technical interest who were forcing their views on a group of gentle content creators—people who have built core content on important encyclopedic topics. I saw more than a disagreement—it was a knock-down fuck-you argument, all to enforce a non-existent policy that each article must have an infobox. I have carefully avoided mentioning A in any direct manner because I saw that they have some severe health issues. I wish them well, but there is no way that the history (extending over years) can be ignored. I do not support a simplistic solution, namely that B (the only person left standing on the other side) should not examine A's edits. It's ironic that the worst disputes sometimes involve the best editors, but that happens becauses clever people are used to being right, and they sometimes are not good at recognizing that perfection is not achievable, and may not see that a truce (leave the composer's articles alone!) would be best under the circumstances. Yes, the editors on B's side are not blameless, but the solution is simple—just drop the mission to enforce what boils down to a personal preference. We both know that A will never do that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you described my position wrong ;) - I am not saying B is stalking A. (I could but I TRY HARD not to, do you understand?) - I am sure you saw discussions that you called a disgrace, but did you see any recently? More precisely: "disruption" in one of the 18 discussions mentioned? Did you see that A offered any uninvolved editor to check his edits? - You say "there is no way that the history (extending over years) can be ignored", - and I (late to that history, B side last March, converted to A side in September or so) - question that and say: yes we can try to ignore the history and look at the future, and we better do so, the sooner the better, - we had waste of time enough. - Therefore: I am not loyal to Andy (whose help and caring I appreciate), I don't seek measures to be taken against B: let that thread rest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I have not investigated recent events. Perhaps the situation is as you say, however, what I described above is also correct. Once an editor has spread enough trouble, they won't find it easy to go to ANI and complain about another editor patrolling their edits, so I'm not sorry that I failed to check the current round in a struggle that has persisted for several years. I sense that you and I could be on opposite sides in a dispute, yet find a way to go forward to benefit the encyclopedia, however, not all people are capable of that. At this stage I think that the ANI discussion should close without action. No doubt you and others will monitor future activity and can raise the matter again if it remains as clear as you now see it. I hope the infobox question is settled by people agreeing to leave each other's turf alone (that's pragmatic collaboration, not a violation of WP:OWN). Any future report would benefit greatly if infoboxes were not part of the discussion because it boils down to LIKE vs. DONTLIKE, and war-by-attrition should not be encouraged. It appears that infoboxes were at the core of the dispute in each of the four points listed in the opening post of the report now at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

The discussion at ANI was finished and would have archived soon. However, someone posted a comment (at "02:56, 23 June 2013") which invited a particular admin (and by extension, any admin reading the page) to draw a negative conclusion regarding Nikkimaria. Why should that go unchallenged? Was the comment I replied to accurate or helpful? The suggestion that the battle is not about infoboxes makes me scratch my head in complete bewilderment. The whole thing is about forcing an infobox into every article, as well as forcing certain fields into those infoboxes. The reverting part of it is simply one person representing quite a significant group of content builders who oppose mandatory infoboxes and mandatory fields in the infoboxes that exist. I have no idea what meaning you intend for the words "It's not about infoboxes, it's about reverting." Are you saying that if A adds an infobox and B reverts, then the problem is B's reverting? I suppose that A would see it like that, but why should others think that? Johnuniq (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The last question is too simple. I ask you to show me the "lot" of articles where Andy was adding. Look at the 18 discussions: did he add even one? - I don't see the "forcing" you see and call "the whole thing". Who says "mandatory"? Where can we start talking? - Nikkimaria: she reverted an infobox that I had added twice yesterday, but I can live with it (see her talk, BWV 30, compare BWV 39). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
ps: I also don't see where there is a "negative conclusion regarding Nikkimaria" in Ched's post, if that is what you mean. Please help my English, it's not my first language, keep things simple, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You say "I am not aware of anyone going to an article that has an infobox, then removing it because "articles should not have infoboxes"." - That is right, what I get with the removal of an infobox that I add to "my" or "our" articles is rather: compresses badly, cleanup, (no edit summary), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you are suggesting that A was not adding infoboxes in the 18 diffs, so that means my comments about his push to add them are wrong? It would be unproductive to spend more time discussing the obvious: the diffs and bitter exchanges show that infoboxes are the central issue regardless of what happened in the 18 diffs. The matter has been causing disruption for years, and while I'm pleased that someone can find 18 diffs that do not show A adding infoboxes, that is not relevant because the current fuss is a consequence of the previous years of disruption.
My remark above 'someone posted a comment (at "02:56, 23 June 2013")' was meant to say that you could use your browser to search ANI for the text between the quotes (the timestamp). That will show you the post I was referring to—nothing to do with Ched. The post was replying to a comment attempting to "identify the problematic editor", and the post suggested that an easy way to do that would be to count the number of times A and B had participated in the ANI discussion. The post attempts to use a mathematical proof to show that Nikkimaria is the problematic editor—a bogus method, and a bogus conclusion because anyone familiar with the very long history knows how the problem developed. It is the underlying issue that needs resolution, not a superficial determination of who is currently more frustrated.
I see what you mean about your last three diffs showing infoboxes being removed. That sucks doesn't it. Imagine if something like that had been going on for years. However, each of the three cases does not show someone going to an article and removing an infobox which had been established in the article. Each diff shows the reversion of someone adding an infobox. A fair way to describe the situation is that a small group of editors are attempting to add infoboxes to articles, and other editors have opposed the additions. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Help me to understand, please: those who are against infoboxes frequently claim their right as the main editor to a page. Where is my right to have an infobox when I am the main editor? That's one problem with the three reverts, not the edit summary or lack thereof which has been noticed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

On collaboration

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need help on Convert at Bengali (bn) Wikipedia

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

I'm afraid I can't read anything over there, so I'm only guessing. At Module:Convert, the box at the top ("You might want to create a documentation page...") finishes with a link to "Subpages of this module". Using that link at bn, shows no subpages. However, the module is now more than one page, and you must also have Module:Convert/data and Module:Convert/text. You do not need the sandbox. Later, you probably will want to change some of the units. In that case you would need to install Lua on a stand-alone computer (say a computer at home), and run the script shown at Module:Convert/makeunits. You do not need makeunits on a page at your wiki.
To make the module do something, you need the template which invokes it. That template is Template:Convert/sandboxlua.
The module currently does not correctly handle the display of numbers unless the standard English dot is used for the decimal mark. That is, "1.23" with a dot (also known as a point or a period) is the only thing that works at the moment. After you get the module doing something, you can ask how to customize it for your language. That will need a bit of work.
In summary, you need modules Convert + Convert/data + Convert/text (lowercase "data" and "text", not "Data" or "Text"). You also need template Convert/sandboxlua. Given that, you should see results like these:
  • {{convert/sandboxlua|70|mi|km}} → 70 miles (110 km)
  • {{convert/sandboxlua|70|kg|lb}} → 70 kilograms (150 lb)
If you copy the contents of convert/sandboxlua into your Template:Convert, you would get the same results just using "{{convert|70|mi|km}}".
Let me know how you get on. The module is still being developed (and is not used here), but it should work. How did you learn that the module existed? Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, that was easy. I have copied the required files over to bn, and put a short test at my bn talk page bn:ব্যবহারকারী_আলাপ:Johnuniq. It seems to work!
The information at the top of Module talk:Convert provides an overview of the pages. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'll alert you, but I'll reply here because I want an easy way to refer to this later in case I need the info again.
I copied the data file to bn. It's large and complex, but you can edit it. It looks like I managed to include a slash at the end of the name, and I can't see a "move" to fix that. The page is bn:User:Johnuniq/Conversion data/. Editing that page will have no affect until I extract the data from it and put it in the module, as described at the link which I suggested you look at above (your reply makes me think you have not seen it).
You can also edit bn:Module:Convert/text. Changes there will have immediate effect. Edit a copy in a sandbox if you like.
Please have a look at the notes I added at bn:User talk:Johnuniq. Johnuniq (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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


...for your comment at WT:Civility. I wanted to reply to the part about removing unhelpful posts from people's talk pages, but I wanted to keep the discussion focused on the proposed addition over there, which is why I'm responding here. Anyway, in my experience (which is probably less than yours) removing others' posts, however unhelpful, often causes more drama than just ignoring them. I've seen so many cases where an angry editor posts on another's talk page, the latter reverts, the other one posts again, revert, revert, revert, and then they show up at a noticeboard, uninvited parties show up, people try unsuccessfully to explain WP:Refactor, and it's just a mess. As an alternative, I think something along the lines of this meatball essay on defending each other would work better.

Also, I agree with you that this alone probably won't solve the current mess...I don't think it will hurt, but my main goal is to prevent it from happening again. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I was just checking out your userpage. My wife, not a week ago, recommended that I read the Drive book you mentioned, saying I'd like it. I think I will. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Re talk pages: sure, but that's why I said community support would be needed. I suppose the idea is too radical to gain traction, but it would be worth trying. Naive editors (or trolls) who cannot understand a plain "go away" need to be controlled somehow. Re Pink: the animated lecture is very good, and I'm sure the ideas are applicable to Wikipedia's success. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

research on Wikipedia and the news media


I've been doing some research on how Wikipedia uses the news media. Specifically, I've compiled a dataset of about 250 news websites and the number of times Wikipedia links to each of them. User:Ocaasi recommended that I share this with you.

Here is my (very preliminary) writeup: User:GabrielF/NewsCitations

I'm still working on this, but I would greatly appreciate any thoughts that you might have on either the methodology or the results before I present it to the Wikipedia community at large.

Best wishes, GabrielF (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That is absolutely fascinating, and I wish I had time to study the technology you used. When I analyzed several external link dumps (see #Highbeam results above), I used Python scripts running on my computer. Another massive job I have in mind is finding a way to grep a current dump of articles to produce some kind of database of a template of interest (in my case, {{convert}}). For example, I would like to occasionally produce a list of all articles that use certain options in a particular template, without relying on klunky techniques like "what links here" or tracking categories (both of which will not work if a template is implemented as a Lua module—something I've been working on for a ridiculously long time). I had been wondering about WP:LABS, but I'll need to examine exactly what you did as it seems a sensational approach.
I should do a sanity check on some of your results—would you like me to download the May 2013 EL dump, then search it for the number of links to a few URLs? My search for Ocaasi counted all links in articles to* or to*, case insensitive, where * could be anything. If yes, please supply a specification of what URL or URLs to look for.
In your report, you might like to mention whether the numbers are for articles only, or for all pages. I'll try to make some time to study it later, but some RL stuff has been interfering with my module work, and if I don't get on with it soon I won't be able to regain any momentum. I am sprinkling my thoughts on various topics that I notice in my watchlist, but I'm not spending any serious time on anything other than Module:Convert but will watch your report with great interest. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Good grief, I see from my table above that I already have the May 2013 EL dump. It seems like a year ago that I did that work... Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Result of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Johnuniq. You have new messages at WP:AN.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


I'm writing an academic article on people-participation in the 'production' of Shakespeare studies.

I noticed that you had recently provided some edits for the Wiki Shakespeare page, and wondered if I might ask you some questions about that?

This project is at a very early stage so I've not yet refined or worked out a fixed methodology. So the questions are also not yet fully formed. (And I am aware that you also contribute to many other pages.)

1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page?

2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist?

3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages?

3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time?

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content?

5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page?

6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page?

7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of connection, community and collaboration?

8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered?

Many thanks for taking the time to read this!

TheoryofSexuality (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I have a negative attitude about requests like this as they can be seen as not using Wikipedia for its purpose (developing an encyclopedia); surveys can also be intrusive. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for bothering to respondTheoryofSexuality (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

But may I say that your section on collaboration was interesting and a good read? TheoryofSexuality (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad someone has read it! Good luck with your survey. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I've read it too and completely agree with you, John. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, thank you. Let's hope things at Arbcom work out. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom 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/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 17:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect

Thanks for your input at the MfD. It'll be nice to get it deleted, although, as I've just noted at the MfD, it would have been simpler to just redirect the page. I don't do enough thinking, that's the trouble. Do you suppose some clever coder HINT HINT might create one of those mysterious anchor things at Wikipedia:WIKISPEAK#respect, so I can re-point the redirect WP:WADR there? It would be a pity to break all those links. Bishonen | talk 13:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC).

It's a shame, and another indication that the world is a big place full of strange people (for any third-parties, naturally I wouldn't dare refer to Bishonen as "strange"—I am referring to an editor who was both unable to understand humor, and unable to let it go). At any rate, I think I've done that, and I also changed WP:WADR to get it all done. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
On reflection, I see that I didn't have to do anything because the "respect" anchor was already there (as your Wikipedia:WIKISPEAK#respect link shows). I added "WADR" as an anchor ... not sure why I thought that was needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
(You wouldn't dare? How about referring to Darwinbish or Cassandra as strange?) Yeah, I thought it had to be already there, but I couldn't figure how. Thanks! Bishonen | talk 09:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC).

A kitten for you!

Iris cat.jpg

Recent contretemps have at least introduced me to a whole bunch of sensible new editors. Yeah!!

User:Carolmooredc 20:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mythology RfC

Hi John. Sorry for the disturbance but due to comments received by an editor I added a clarification to the RfC at talk:Mythology: [2]. Since you already commented there, if you care to comment on your acceptance or not of the change you can simply indicate so at the talkpage. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I am watching and the only reason I hadn't commented again is that it is often best to reduce the drama level in a pointless discussion like that—just let it fade. However, the clarification is exactly what I had in mind when first supporting the RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much John. I agree with your well made points and I hope it gets finally resolved. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


I'm not sure how much longer I can keep my temper - I pretty much lost it last night and the whole thing is becoming frustrating once more today. There is something not right here: others have accused them of pov-pushing previously and I certainly think that there may be an element of that, mainly because of the extent of wikilawyering and some bad experiences at Narendra Modi. But it mostly seems to be trollish stuff. If I just ignore - DFTT - then what do you think might happen? I know and appreciate that you are trying to explain things to them but, really, it is already becoming a time-sink. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Good luck keeping cool! We'll see how things go. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

ID dispute resolution

As you know, we have frequent disputes on the Talk:Intelligent design page that focus on distinguishing Intelligent design from the teleological argument. I have started a new section on the dispute resolution noticeboard for this and listed you as a participant in these disputes. If you have some time, please stop over and explain what your proposed resolution is and why you believe this to be the case. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.


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 find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi John. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know that BRD is not really for new editors. It is for experienced editors and advice given on BRD is intended for those editors. Also it is considered best practice to engage editors directly on their own talk page if needed. I have indeed given this very advice to new editors at the Teahouse. Discussion is, perhaps, one of the most vital aspects of Wikipedia. Discussion may take place on the article's talk page or on the editors talk page or elsewhere. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard will take requests based on extensive discussion regardless of whether it is on the article's talk page or the editor's talk page.--Mark 16:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Module:Convert and non-arabic digits


I just saw your comments at bugzilla (bug 34193) and at User_talk:MarkAHershberger#bn:Template:Convert. I had some time ago developed a template at hi-wp to do numeral conversions between arabic (international) and nagari numerals. This was before Lua.

That template is very limited in the amount of work it can accomplish. If I interpreted your comments at User_talk:MarkAHershberger#bn:Template:Convert correctly, you've basically made the convert module accept other numeral systems.

Would it be possible to make a separate module specifically for numeral conversion (including formatted numerals)? I'm asking since convert is not the only template with numeral trouble. Many infoboxes contain years, populations, GDP etc. and some maintainance templates use date parameters. For all these to accept different numeral systems, the only way I can see is that before passing the numerals to parser functions, they wrap the parameter in a template which calls a module to convert the parameter into parser-acceptable numerals.

Could you create such a module at hi-wp (to replace the currently used hi:साँचा:अंक_परिवर्तन)? It would be loads of help.

Thanks in advance.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a coincidence, as I was thinking of finding someone at hi.wp to ask whether the convert module would be useful there, and have started looking at what converts are in use. My life is rather full at the moment, and I do not feel in the mood to decode the tricky template syntax at hi:Template:अंक परिवर्तन, so I'll explain what I have. The code in the convert module can translate a number like ১২,৩৪৫.৬৭ (bn.wp) or ૧૨,૩૪૫.૬૭ (gu.wp) to 12345.67, and vice versa. It also handles non-English number grouping and decimal mark. The module has to be customized to the particular language. That is, each wiki would have a different module containing a table of digits and alternatives for "," and ".", if wanted. I'd be happy to adapt what I have for hi.wp but I would need a specification. My guess is that you want something like the following:
Template:to_en which takes a number in the local language and returns that number as a string of en digits.
Template:from_en which takes a number in en digits and returns the equivalent in the local language.
Each template could call a different function in the same module. I assume from_en should insert group separators, and should use a Unicode minus if negative (that is, if the input starts with a hyphen), while to_en should remove group separators. The convert module has a bunch of code that decides when to use scientific notation. That might be tricky for your application, so I'm wondering if simple numbers like 1.23 are ok, or if 1.23e45 (1.23×1045) also has to be handled. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
What you have described seems mostly complete from the requirements perspective. Here's the specification needed:
Single template for conversions: (possibly modifying the current one). It should invoke module functions per the parameter named प्रकार supplied (to decide if the output is to be in en numerals or hi).
Current Input template parameters
1st unnamed parameter: the number input
2nd unnamed parameter (optional): the number of digits the output is to be limited to (example usecase: to return numbers padded with zero, like month numbers or dates, or to return years in 4 digits)
parameter प्रकार (this translates to "type"):Supported values: अरबी for international numerals and नागरी for devanagari numerals. This specifies which type of numerals are to be output regardless of which type of numerals have been input.
Also note that the current template works even if one of the first two params is in one numeral system and the other in the other numeral system. Usecase for this is infoboxes where one parameter may be from the use of the infobox while the other might be hardcoded in the infobox itself.
The template outputs error messages recognisable by parser functions if it detects either of the first two unnamed params not to be acceptable number inputs.
Also note that if the प्रकार param is not specified, the template auto-detects which type of numerals have been input and returns numerals of the other type. (This is an edgecase-ish use leftover from the template's early development. Not sure if we'd want this implemented in the module)--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Input handling
Module should be able to handle formatted numbers as input. This would be including decimal . and comma sequence for the international style numbering (million, billion ...) and the Indian style numbering (lakhs, crores ...).
Also, like the current template, it should output the required numerals regardless of what type of numerals were input. This means that if the output type of en_numerals is specified, it should work even if the input was in en itself. This feature is needed since we can't know if an infobox user will input en numerals or hi numerals.
Output handling
Output options needed would be for changing the comma style (both comma styles should be supported in output), the numeral type (to be handled by the template parameter).
Error Detection
Like the current template, if the input is not a valid number, module should output errors detectable by parser functions (ie using a <strong class="error"> output).
Regarding the scientific notation, I don't think it is needed as of now (though I can't say for sure). It would be needed for the unit conversion module though. So, if we're to have separate modules for unit conversion and numeral conversion (with the unit conversion module calling the numeral conversion module), then it would be needed.
Again, a big Thank You for any help you can give, and I hope this clarifies the needed specs. Feel free to ask if any clarification is needed.
Also, you might want to look through the documentation of hi:साँचा:अंक_परिवर्तन. Even if you can't understand a word of hindi, it should be pretty clear what the template does. The documentation is pretty exhaustive (with usage examples).
Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
PS: I'm an admin at hi-wp, so if you want/need anything imported there from some other wiki, just let me know. :) --Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Spec summary

The following is my summary of what I think is wanted. Sorry I'm so verbose...

To make it easier for me, I will use English words for this description:

  • number = name of template
  • type = प्रकार (specifies wanted output language)
  • int = अरबी (international numerals: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
  • dev = नागरी (devanagari numerals: ० १ २ ३ ४ ५ ६ ७ ८ ९)

The possible input formats are (where p2 and type are optional):

  • {{number|p1|p2|type=int}}
  • {{number|p1|p2|type=dev}}


  • p1 = input number (int or dev numerals); like 12 or -12,345.6
    Any commas are removed (even if invalid: "1,2,3,4.5,6" = "1234.56").
  • p2 (optional) = length (a number using int or dev numerals)
    p2 must be empty or a positive integer with no commas or decimal mark.
    Output is padded on left with int or dev zeros so total length is p2.
    Is zero a valid value for p2?
    If p2 is small, is output truncated, or is p2 ignored, or is it an error?
  • type (optional) = "int" or "dev"; specifies wanted type of output.
    type=int gives int output; p1 might be int or dev
    type=dev gives dev output; p1 might be int or dev
    If no type given, the type of the output is the opposite of the input.

If an input is invalid, output an error message with text and format to be worked out later.

Ignore scientific notation at the moment.

The output is formatted by inserting commas:

  • 1,234
  • 12,345,678.12345
  • १,२३४
  • १,२३,४५,६७८.१२३४५

For dev output, the first group before the dot is three digits; other groups are two digits. That's been implemented for the Bengali wiki, although I suspect that specification is not fully correct, judging by Decimal mark#Examples of use.

Always insert commas? Always three-digit groups for int? Always three-then-two-digit groups for dev?

Please check the above and either correct it or add a note below. Likewise, if anything is missing, add it.

I had a quick look at hi:साँचा:अंक परिवर्तन.

  • Why does {{अंक परिवर्तन|12345}} sometimes give an error, and sometimes not?
  • Why does {{अंक परिवर्तन|2.5|3}} give an error?
  • Why does {{अंक परिवर्तन|20.5|3}} give "०२०"?

Very briefly, what does the template fail to do? Hmmm, maybe "एक्स्प्रेशन गलती: अनपेक्षित < ओपरेटर" is an unexpected error? I don't need details, I'm just wondering how much of the current template I should assume is working, and which I therefore need to emulate.

By "very limited" do you mean the template is too slow, or that you would like to add features but it's too hard? Or it's got bugs that would be hard to eliminate?

While mucking around, I had better use a temporary template. That is, I won't edit your template until we agree there is a working alternative. What name should I use for a test template? Convention says it should be "Existing name/sandbox", but that might be a bit klunky? I guess it doesn't matter, please decide and put a link here (to a nonexistent page at hi.wp), and I will create the page in a day or two.

I have copied the convert modules to the Bengali and Gujarati wikis (although an admin at bn must have done an import of just one revision of one of the modules). I put a link to the en module in the edit summary, which is probably good enough, but an import is the correct procedure, so if you think it worthwhile, please import each of these modules:

I suppose you may as well import the doc page?

I will try a few things in the next couple of days, and may make a post like I did at the Gujarati wiki. I was going to test how the convert template works at hi.wp before doing anything, but since you're here, you may like to do the imports now. Even if it turns out that your convert templates are working fine, you may like to look at what the module can do (there is a page with Bangla examples at bn:User:Johnuniq/Translation). I'll probably have some questions in a day or so, and I'll ping you—would you prefer a note at en or hi? Johnuniq (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologise. Being verbose in advance is much better than something messing up later.
I'm not sure if we want to accept numbers with any comma format. I think only numbers with a valid comma format should be acceptable ie the formats 1,23,45,67,890.123 and 123,456,789.012 should be acceptable, but 1,2,3,4,5.6 should not be acceptable. This should ensure that the user is not inputting two numbers where one is needed. E.g: a user might input two values for population in an infobox. If we accept incorrect commas, then the article may end up with an erronously high population.
Handling of padding with zeroes to make total no of digits p2 is currently done by the padleft magic word. So if p2 is less than the number of digits in p1, then padding isn't done, no truncation (see mw:Help:Magic words#Formatting for exact specs) So, yes, 0 and a negative number are valid inputs.
Regarding the commas and decimal in output. Since the current template doesn't support formatted input/output, so there's currently no parameter for it.
Since adding a module will make this possible, we need to add a parameter called स्वरूपण or फॉर्मेट (let's call this format in english).
So, if the format parameter is not specified, the output should be unformatted, ie decimal will be there, but no commas.
Possible values for format could be भारतीय (Indian) and अंतर्राष्ट्रीय (international).
If Indian is specified, the commas will be first for 3 and then for two digits (Indian numbering style of lakhs, crores...)
If international is specified, the commas will be after 3 numerals (international style of millions, billions...)
Both these comma formats need to be availaible for both type=dev and type=int.
Current template's behaviour:
{{अंक परिवर्तन|12345}} sometimes gives an error and sometimes not because I was only able to get the template to work for all input/output for the whole numbers 0 to 9999. Anything other than that (including larger numbers like 12345, decimal numbers like 2.5 and negative numbers like -1) are currently unresolved edgecases/exceptions which I wasn't able to fix with the limited capability of parser functions.
Likewise {{अंक परिवर्तन|2.5|3}} gives an error because the current template can't handle the decimal point.
{{अंक परिवर्तन|20.5|3}} giving "०२०" is also an unwanted exception/edgecase
Per above inputs 0 to 9999 and ० to ९९९९ should be assumed currently working, and behaviour for that should be emulated.
By very limited I'm refering to the current template's inability to handle formatted number input/output, negative numbers and decimal numbers. Basically I meant that it can't be fixed without a Lua module since any parser improvements would cause the template to exceed parser limits.
You can't edit the template actually, even after its ready. The template is used on the main page of hi-wp and is hence cascade-protected.
Existing name/sandbox ie hi:साँचा:अंक परिवर्तन/sandbox would be fine to begin with.
Regarding the convert template at hi-wp: its a mess. I tried fixing it a few years ago with partial success, but couldn't fix everything since various parts had been copied over various points of time, leading to incompatibilities within the structure itself. Finding and eliminating them was a headache and I gave up on it.
The worst bug I remember (which I couldn't fix fully) was that if the template was used more than a few times, the entire article content just vanished. The wikitext was there, but viewing the article gave a blank (don't remember if I checked the html output or not).
I'll do the imports (hopefully today).
Although I really don't mind if you leave me a note at en or hi, if you're planning to make a note at the hi-wp village pump, then it might be better to leave a note at hi. That way, other hi-wp users might notice the discussion and give us some more views/ideas.
Again, I can't thank you enough for this. Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Spec question

I'm going elsewhere now and will contemplate the above later, but one thing I've been wondering about is why you would want a missing "type" to mean "the output type is the opposite of the input". I'm thinking that if a wikignome sees {number|1.23} they are likely to think they should help by changing the "1.23" to "१.२३", and that would (I guess) totally break the intended purpose of the template. For that matter, why use only one template with a dual function? Why not have two different templates, one for converting dev-to-int, and one for int-to-dev? I'll do a better job if I can understand the thinking. Johnuniq (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, firstly, I've imported the modules you linked to above. But, an MW bug happened during the import and some of them might not show in the history that they were imported, even though a log entry was created.
Regarding the "output opposite input" logic: Its actually a leftover from the early development of the template. I actually don't like it either. Personally, I would prefer output in international digits since the usage for this template is probably going to be maximum in other templates to pass on numbers to parser functions. However, I don't remember where the template is being used without the type parameter to convert international numerals to devanagari numerals. If we change this logic, it might break something important. (If its going to be some time before you begin work, say, a week; then I could check for and fix such breakable usages, then we could make the default output international digits).
About having one template instead of two: To put it succinctly, this template is basically a wrapper for parser functions. Its use is to be in templates (infoboxes and such) to allow the use of those templates without having to worry about numerals. So, a wikignome is highly unlikely to encounter this template, since it will probably never be used directly within articles. (If someone wants to change numerals within article text, they can just go ahead and change it, no need to use a template for that).
So, the use of this template is going to be within other templates (making this a metatemplate?)
Now, since we cannot know what type of numerals a user will enter into an infobox, we need to support both format input in the same template. Considering this, if we make two templates, we'll be supporting this in two templates, and as far as I can see, that would be more work to maintain (if you think it would be less work, feel free to enlighten me on why).
Also, we would eventually probably want that users can specify in the infobox which type of numeral output they would want visible in the final infobox output visible in the article. If we were to make two templates, this would mean changing the number template name based on an infobox parameter. On the other hand, one template would mean changing a number template parameter in the single template. I just find the latter simpler and easier to understand (though there'll probably not be much difference in coding).
To clarify the above:
Suppose Infobox foo uses param population and area. It then passes these to params to parsers to calculate the density (say, without using a convert module or anything, direct parser use)
here's what we want the template to do:
article using infobox foo ----infobox foo parameter in unknown numerals and unknown formatting----> Infobox foo ----unknown numerals with unknown formatting----> number ----international digits in format acceptable by parser----> parser functions ----parser output----> number ----desired output for infobox----> infobox ----> article
Hope this clarifies the intended use for the template.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Spec question 2

Thanks for the info, and thanks for importing the modules, which I'll look at later. Re the bug of several converts blanking the page: that's what prompted someone from to ask for assistance (see above). I couldn't work out what was causing the blanking, and stopped wondering when I found that using the module fixed it. The translations are going quite well, and most converts over there should now be working and giving Bangla output.

I understand what you're saying about compatibility. No problem. Later we can think about whether two templates might be desirable, for a gradual change from one procedure to another. All the work will be done in a module, and the template will be one line which simply passes the parameters to the module. It would be easy to have extra almost-the-same templates which call different functions in the module in order to implement a new system.

If you really want, I'll reject input with commas in unexpected places, but are you sure? Formatnum does what I proposed (that is typical for a programmer—why do a bunch of work to check for valid commas when you're going to remove them, and why reject input due to a misplaced comma?):

  • {{formatnum:1,2,3,4.5,6|R}} → 1234.56

It would be great to require users to enter correct wikitext, but should we really reject "12,34,567" where it is possible someone was thinking of three-then-two grouping? Should "1234,567" be rejected? Don't sweat about justifying your decision—I'm happy either way—I just want the issues to be considered.

It seems that you really need three different behaviors:

  1. Input Module should remove commas and return int digits without padding (input may be dev or int). Parameters are not required, and any parameters are ignored.
  2. Int output Module should output int digits with optional formatting (inserting commas in groups of three by default, but three-then-two or not at all, if specified).
  3. Dev output Module should output dev digits with optional formatting (inserting commas in groups of three-then-two by default, but just three or not at all, if specified).

I've started on a module. We'll see how my week works out, but I hope there will be something to look at in a few days. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Re the comma checking, what I had in mind was that both comma formats would be acceptable as input, but anything other than that would be rejected. But, seeing that formatnum accepts comma-stupidity, you're right, we aught to do the same. Its less coding work, a hopefully slightly faster module, and less work fixing articles. We'll see how it goes with ignoring stupidity, and if we end up with the world's population becoming 7 billion billion (instead of 7 billion) in the infobox, then maybe I'll ping you to not accept comma-stupidity (really hope something like this doesn't happen).
Also, re the default comma output format. three then two for dev and three always for int is wrong. The default behaviour should be same (preferably no commas to avoid any controversies). I'm asking for no commas since I want to avoid any potential WW-III scenarios on the hi-wp VP. Numerals are a highly contentious issue which have in the past had polarising effect on users. Since the whole point of having this template is to provide equal support for both numeral systems, dividing comma-systems between the two would be wrong. That would just make the pro-dev users shout "See... we told you... international numerals are not for hindi... they don't even use our numbering style... see the infoboxes...".
So, to avoid any future headaches, don't keep different default output formatting for the different numeral systems. Keep the default output unformatted for both.
Also, I'll think about fixing the convert template once this is done, since that will be a much bigger project than this.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Spec question 3

Above you said "we need to add a parameter called स्वरूपण or फॉर्मेट" (format). Do you mean that one of those names will be used, but you haven't decided which yet? Or, do you mean you would like both names to work (they are equivalent)?

Should a negative number be output using a Unicode minus? I guess yes as that would be best when displayed as wikitext, and because it seems to work in parser functions:

  • {{#expr: −123 + −7}} → -130

The above is "Unicode minus 123" + "Unicode minus 7" and it works, so the module could always output Unicode minus if negative.

For simplicity, I'm planning to reject input numbers like 1.23e4. Is that a problem?

Similarly, I'm planning to reject numbers that are too big or too small to be represented in a reasonable way without scientific notation. I think the permitted range would be 1e-4 to 9.9e13 (0.0001 to 99,000,000,000,000). Is that a problem?

The convert module does not have the limitations I've just mentioned, but it is already mega-complex, and there would be a lot of pain involved in either copying and adapting large slabs of code from that module, or in making the input and output functions accessible for use both in the convert and number modules. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant one of the names. And now that I think of it, I'd prefer स्वरूपण since its much more difficult to misspell than फॉर्मेट (फॉर्मेट फ़ॉर्मेट फॉर्मैट फ़ॉर्मैट फौर्मैट फ़ौर्मैट फौर्मेट फ़ौर्मेट are possible variations). They are equivalent, with स्वरूपण being the translation and फॉर्मेट being the transliteration of format, but since this is a metatemplate, स्वरूपण alone should be fine. If users want different param names, we can handle that in the infobox.
Yes, negative numbers should be output with a unicode minus.
No, rejecting numbers like 1.23e4 is not a problem since that will most probably only be needed with convert.
1e-4 to 9.9e13 range is fine.
Of course I'd expect the convert module to accept larger and smaller numbers both along with support for numbers in scientific notation, but we'll go into detail about that after we're done with this.
Also, question: for this module, will I need to do any system lua installation or something? Same question for when we get to the convert module. I'll need to know in advance if I have to download anything larger than an MB (will also need to know if it can be downloaded on one computer and then installed on another, without any network connection between the two).
Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
@Siddhartha Ghai: I've worked out that I should ping you when I reply.
OK, that's all good. I'll probably start doing some testing at hi:साँचा:अंक परिवर्तन/sandbox in a few days.
You do not need to download anything to make either the new module or the convert modules work. For convert, the modules are divided into program and data, and if you ever needed to update the data module you would need to install Lua and do various stuff. However, it's best if I do all the work of managing the modules until everything settles down, and I have a long-term plan to fix the script which generates the data module so that it can be run on wiki—if that were done you would never need to install Lua. If the fix I just mentioned never happens, someone from hi would need to install Lua to do updates to the data, but you do not need to think about that for at least six months. You may want to be autonomous (so you don't need me to tweak things), and you could think about that mid-2014.
What should I call the new module? If there were no other considerations, I would call it Module:Number, but I understand what you said earlier about strong feelings concerning how things work and what they are called, so whatever you think is fine. I will create the module (using your name), and will change the sandbox template to invoke that module. I may start with English so I can more easily check what's going on, but the template parameters can all use Hindi later. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, please clarify the rules for lakh/crore grouping. I tried to get this precisely defined for use at the Bengali wiki, but I'm not sure I got a full response. For my simplicity, and for compliance with what I was told to do, I implemented grouping such that the first three digits before the dot are grouped, and after that every group is two digits. However, the table at the bottom of Decimal mark#Examples of use says there should be (from right-to-left): three digits, then two, then two; after that, repeat three, two, two, etc. I wasn't worried about the possible defect as numbers large enough to show the distinction are rare, but I had better know what is correct. Is it likely that one rule applies to most places? In particular, would the rule that applies at probably also apply at Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, eventually I do plan to become autonomous. In fact, till I read the bug comments, my intention had been (and still is) to start studying Lua in a few weeks. I can wait for the convert fix which makes downloading and installing lua unnecessary. In case that doesn't happen, the hi-wp user who downloads/installs lua will probably have to be me.
The module could be called hi:Module:अंक परिवर्तन, along the lines of the existing template.
The rules for lakh/crore grouping are: first three, then always two.
The example of 1 lakh crore being written as 1,00,000,00,00,000 given at Decimal_mark#Examples_of_use is incorrect (and I'm correcting it). The use of terms higher than the crore in the Indian numbering system such as arab, kharab, neel/shankh (see Indian_numbering_system for list) has been dropped in most modern usage with the numbering repeating after crores (thousand crores, lakh crores and so on). However, I have never seen this being applied to the comma structure in writing. So while someone may read 10,00,00,00,00,000 as 1 lakh crore (instead of 10 kharab), and maybe write that as such (instead of using higher order words), the comma structure is not changed. For future reference, I'm confirming this comma structure on the basis of first-hand experience, Indian_numbering_system and hi:अंक.
Although I am mostly sure that the comma structure remains the same in other Indian languages too, it is not impossible that it may have changed somewhere. So, in case you have to implement this on any other indic wikis in the future, I'd advise you to consider three then two as the default unless a user specifies otherwise.
Again, thanks for the help, thanks for being so patient with my extremely verbose responses, and thanks for taking the time to clearly understand the specs before proceeding.
Looking forward to implementation.
Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ready for test

@Siddhartha Ghai: I've started testing. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reported issues/questions at hi:User:Johnuniq/number.
Also, where would you prefer to be notified from now on, here, on hi:User talk:Johnuniq, or on hi:User:Johnuniq/number only?
Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably don't bother notifying me would be best unless something urgent comes up, or it looks like I've missed a message. That is, just post at the number page (I saw your comments earlier and will respond later). I will probably check my hi:Special:Watchlist at least once a day over the next week or two, particularly since I hope to add something regarding convert soonish. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

talk page edit

Sorry then. I honestly did not imagine that you would find it important to present that post as a reply to something when it is not written as a reply to anything? Won't that just make it difficult for people to reply in the place you now fill? I think my re-factoring was quite conventional.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you also deleted several intervening edits. I am trying to imagine how you can do that by accident, but I'll assume good faith. Please be a bit less hasty :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster: This relates to Talk:Intelligent design.
Possibly you think my comment is unfit for its intended purpose—fine, no problem. However, it is still my comment and should not be moved to a corner convenient for someone else. It is true that some editors post frequent walls of text which can disrupt discussions, however that problem is clearly not coming from me.
Of course I removed your comments which were an editorial on why you moved my comment, and I am puzzled about why you restored your text which is no longer correct given that my comment is where I put it. When removing the refactoring of my comment, I could not judge what to do with the associated commentary, nor disentagle other unrelated comments (seven edits to one talk page in under an hour, with no intermediate edits by other users).
The reason that I posted on your talk page was to tell you that I had reverted your edits so you could restore those that were relevant—that's why I said "Please add any comments you wish, but refrain from refactoring mine". Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Johnuniq I do not see anything in your talkpage posting which indicated you had massively deleted all my posts, including posts which were in quite different parts of the talk page. And I see no reason why you could not just have deleted the offending section break, which was after all the only aspect of my editing you are disputing as far as I can understand. Please do show a bit more good will.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster:That may explain why there is a communication problem at the article talk because the message I left on your talk started with "I have undone your recent edits at Talk:Intelligent design", and if someone left me that message I would think that they had undone my recents edits. Why would I carefully put my comment back to where I posted it and move your comment where you said you had moved my comment? It just does not make sense. Why would I notify you if all I did was to restore my comment? It just does not make sense. See my "nor disentangle" message above for why I found it too burdensome to work out exactly which edits of the seven I might leave and which I might undo. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but most people would just delete the section break, so I see nothing obvious. Also, I see nothing self-evident about writing a post but failing to mention the most critical information you need to warn a person about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something. What do you think "I have undone your recent edits" means? Johnuniq (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for editing my talk page

I would prefer it if you refrained from doing so in future.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (Talk) 00:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@L'Origine du monde: LOL! It's bad to ban great art (NSFW) from a user page, but it's good to ban someone who has made two short comments (1+2)! Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Neither constructive, nor helpful.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (Talk) 00:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Spelling edit

Hi, Johnuniq --

I made a spelling correction on a page you created in template space here. (I periodically search for and correct the misspelling "eigth", along with "tweleve" and "Julliard"; everyone needs a hobby.) Considering the name of the page and context, I wanted to make sure that this was not an intentional misspelling. If it was, feel free to revert my miscorrection. TJRC (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! My brain was clearly not working well that day because I put the typo in the spelling module, and I was just repeating its output in the comment. The word I was looking for was eighth (not eight). I fixed the module (diff).
What's puzzling is that I received no notification for your message here. It is in my "notifications", but there was no red shield as normally happens. Isn't progress wonderful? Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to look into this Lua thing. I'm pretty good with Python, but the arcane template syntax has scared me away from all but the most simple template editing. TJRC (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I can recommend Lua, although learning it by mucking about here would be the wrong approach IMHO. I installed Lua on a local computer and learned it there. Much better. Lua is very strange and frustrating, for example, there is not even a split function (although there is an mw library which implements a split, see mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual. However, Lua is very fast and simple, and those are powerful compensations. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Race and intelligence

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion has been proposed at the above named request for clarification, which you commented on. The motion can be viewed here. Please feel free to register your comments at the clarification request. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 19:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

U.S. gal links

Could you take a look at the following two conversions and see why the links for U.S. gal are different.

Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I inserted an asterisk into the definition of "l impgal" (with many other changes) on 2013-03-30, and that single character difference means the link uses the "customary units" prefix, namely U.S.. However, "l impgal" does not have that asterisk. I have no record of why I thought one should have an asterisk and the other not. I was trying to make the links compatible with the template, and may have thought there was a reason, or probably I just got confused. I remember that I had trouble deciding when the customary units link should appear because there were inconsistencies between the templates for different units. I guess it would be best for me to remove that asterisk next time I update the units so the module does not have that strange inconsistency. Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
After some thinking I removed several customary units prefixes so the links in the above examples are now the same. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent contribution to Penis Talk

Thanks NeilN; no decorative images thanks; anyone objecting to my edits should try WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello! I have undone your [edit] as it was not appropriate to that article space. Your edit description was also misleading as you removed no image.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (Talk) 00:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've put back your perfectly suitable comment. And L'Origine du monde, the edit summary contained the name of the section header as all default edit summaries do. --NeilN talk to me 00:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
He used NOTFORUM as edit description for this contribution -

Please do not use Wikipedia for any sort of campaign—some may be pro, and some may be anti censorship, but no editor should use an article or talk page as a forum to promote their personal views. Any proposal regarding the encyclopedic topic of this article needs to focus on benefits to the encyclopedia, without an editorial on "censors". Anyone with access to the Internet will have no trouble finding enough human penis pictures to satiate any appetite—in fact, this article has the handy Penis#Humans section which links, naturally enough, to Human penis. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 19 September

WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought says

Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines.

In line with that policy, I have removed this discussion to this page.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (Talk) 00:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Johnuniq was commenting directly on your talk page posts. He was not engaging in general discussion about the topic or asking for help. --NeilN talk to me 00:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
User:NeilN and User:Charmlet this edit clearly attacks me, rather than my argument, and violates WP:Soapbox in the following section.

"Anyone with access to the Internet will have no trouble finding enough human penis pictures to satiate any appetite—in fact, this article has the handy Penis#Humans section which links, naturally enough, to Human penis."

This is an opinion which he seems to believe, and has explained before, but it has little relevance to the suitability of

[[:File:Non-human penises Iceland Phallological Museum.jpg|thumb|right|Penises of minke whales on display at the Icelandic Phallological Museum]] as a lede image which is the discussion I removed it from.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (Talk) 01:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, since L'Origine du monde wants discussion here, this is what I think, bottom line:

  • Johnuniq, your edit was fine.
  • L'Origine du monde, your revert of John's comment was wrong. I don't think you'll find anyone who would support your actions. Please don't do it again.

--NeilN talk to me 01:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talkcontribs) 01:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)