User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Murder of Denise McGregor created

I found an article from the time - looks like it made the front page. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

1r

John, you obviously didn't see the language Viriditas used. There is no excuse for that kind of behaviour - especially from her. I'll stand by my admin decisions and this was one I am particularly proud of. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: There's no need for us to agonize about this, but I want to clarify that I wasn't speaking in favor of a sanction at WP:AN/EW. I think blocking good content builders for occasional lapses is very unhelpful so I'm not complaining about that. The problem is that I have seen other areas subject to 1RR where occasionally an editor just cannot grasp that the topic is under 1RR, and they further do not accept that the restriction applies to them. That is extremely irritating for the other participants who know what 1RR involves. The current message to the editor is essentially "good work, carry on". That's fine, but it should be accompanied with a clear statement that 1RR does apply and they need to be careful in the future, and need to join discussions rather than perform further reverts (which are very broadly construed in an article under 1RR). I saw your diffs of the comments from Viriditas on their talk and agree they are not good, but that's separate from the 1RR issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi John. Well, I'll concede that perhaps I didn't make it quite clear enough what a 1r is, but there is so much kerfuffle these days about drastic blocks and admins wielding power rather than wisdom, that I felt it better not to block this otherwise relatively good and serious editor. I was however extremely taken aback by Viriditas's behaviour because she has a long history of incivility and personal attacks and she's already under Arbcom sanctions. Such concerns are far greater for me than relatively innocent cases of 1r or 3r. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI case about your bullying and obstructionist behavior

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding creation of toxic editing environment through bullying and other obstructionism. The thread is Time wasting, ad hominem, obstructionist, bullying, poisoning the well at WP:CIVILITY talk page.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. SageRad (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I shortened the section title to something more reasonable. You should still be able to find it though. HighInBC 15:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fortunately I arrived late. The closed discussion is at permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Need a module for bn.wiki

Hi, i need your help. I need a module for detecting English letters. why? because many user upload image/file from english wiki, they also copy-peast image infobox and they don't translate infoxbox. so using this, we can track untranslated infobox & translate them. I need following function: see this, I describe everything here. Thank you. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aftabuzzaman: That's easy and would be a very short module. It could be incorporated in an existing module if preferred, for example bn:Module:এর. The template would just invoke the wanted function from that module. Or, a separate module might be easier to maintain—whatever you like. If you reply with a link to the module I will either add a function if an existing module, or create a new one. Also, please link to the exact template you want created. I'm guessing "englishdetect" is for my benefit and you would actually want to use something else?

If the input is "aউইকিb" the a and the b should be processed, so the result is "aউইকিb" with just one category at the end? Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A separate module would be better. Please create a new one. I want to use ইংরেজি সনাক্তকরণ as template and module name. You can redirect from "englishdetect" to bengali name. And yes, just one category at the end. Thank you for helping --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aftabuzzaman: That's finished. I put links at the bottom of bn:User:Johnuniq. That includes a link to bn:User:Johnuniq/sandbox which has a quick test. Let me know if there is a problem! Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I found a problem. It need to be fixed. Please see bn:ব্যবহারকারী:Johnuniq/sandbox#Problem --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That's tricky. I replied there and I suppose you are watching. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to unlink any wikilink. Your suggested rules are acceptable. go ahead --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, that should be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's working. Thank you. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Please strike out or clarify your comment at Are

Hi, Since you did not realize I had other thousands of edits, your initial details were reasonable, but now the comment about my number of edits should be struck or clarified, I think. At least the words: "The editor needs a far wider range of experience", in my opinion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The WP:AE request is not yet closed, but this is how it looks now. I don't see any reason to alter my comments because they are factually correct regarding your current account, and you have added a clarification about your previous accounts in your statement. The number of edits is an extremely minor issue—my central point was that there is an over-emphasis on the topic of Hillary Clinton (and Huma Abedin in view of her connection with Clinton). That point is still valid. By the way, WP:CANVASS says that an editor should not use non-neutral posts requesting support: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Sameboat - 同舟. Thanks for your message, greatly appreciated. Seasons Greetings! Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hi John, I hope you have a Happy Christmas and that 2016 is a good one for you. Thank you for everything you've done on Wikipedia over the last year. All the best, SarahSV ^(talk) 07:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Thanks a lot—you are too kind. Much appreciated. Best wishes for the new year! Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Request for comments on the plan proposed at Template_talk:In_title#How_to_alter_this_template_and_its_wiki_landscaping.

I'm asserting that

• the 9703 pages that use intitle or lookfrom templates must be changed by AWB or other bot to remove a stray bullet from a print preview.
• is the same one needed for the
• Search links have not been allowed in article space (wp:elno rule 9), and so the missing guideline was only just written for this occasion.
• Search links should be allowed in article space, but only if they follow "the missing guideline".

It's all clearly spelled out there (and at its predecessor talk-posting). Please comment. Thank you. — CpiralCpiral 07:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll watch it and see if there is anything useful I can add, but it's a bit mysterious to me at the moment. Not a good time of the year to get serious attention! Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy holidays Johnuniq! — CpiralCpiral 11:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, i think i should work through the stuff User:Qwertyxp2000 sended me befor i start editing like crazy. im not sure im getting the "spirit" of editing wikipedia coz the things i deleted in the article about fruitism had been against common sense. Dr.xdcCAT (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.xdcCAT: Taking things slowly is a good idea here! Happy editing. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm Elvey. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Talk:Clear_aligners. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. I have twice asked you to answer two numbered (1 & 2), reasonable questions which you seem to be avoiding answering. I then specifically reminded you of a sentence in WP:CIVIL that says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions." this is not responsive. I remind you yet again, formally, that WP:CIVIL is policy and you need to follow it. Including the "be responsive to good-faith questions" part. Elvey^(t•c) 19:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm blunt, but I don't recall violating CIVIL, and there is no problem with my comments at Talk:Clear aligners. Being responsive is good, but it doesn't mean that all questions have to be answered. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Dodgson condensation

Regarding your recent edit at Dodgson condensation

I have restored the page to the edit I made a day or two ago.

Please look more carefully at "Step 3" of the General Method. After the first time computing 2x2 minors (i.e., Step 2), each subsequent step has a slightly different procedure. You take each 2x2 minor and divide it by the appropriate corresponding entry of two matrices ago in the calculation. So, for example, in the "With Zeros" section, consider calculating the third matrix. The first 2x2 minor is -30, but then you need to divide by the 2,2 entry of the first matrix in this section, which is 2. That's why the 1,1 entry of the third matrix is -15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltenfort (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 January 2016

Thanks, I have replied at your talk agreeing I blundered. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Maltenfort (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why oh why...

• File:Ohwomanohwhy italy.jpg

You removed the trolls ANI section about Drmies.....WHILE I WAS EDITING IT, and I had collected almost 10 pictures from commons to use there. It was going to be such hilarious drama, you owe me my morning laughs..... FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Great picture! I was already surprised about this sense of humor. Now I understand. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad someone understands because it's all way over my head. I removed the comments by the now-indeffed user because WP:DENY is best. Sorry to interfere with the fun but I'm not sure that more hilarity at ANI is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Groan That image is an WP:NFCC problem so I replaced it with a link. If I don't do that, someone will step in which can be irritating. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Maximum segment size in "TCP" Article

TCP MSS is an option field in the TCP header which can be reported to the other end of the TCP connection (only) during the connection establishment (TCP three-way handshake). The line that I deleted in the article says: "... and use this to dynamically adjust the MSS to avoid IP fragmentation within the network." which means MSS can be adjusted dynamically which is not true.
The following is some lines from RFC 879, section 3 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc879#section-3):
TCP provides an option that may be used at the time a connection is established (only) to indicate the maximum size TCP segment that can be accepted on that connection. This Maximum Segment Size (MSS) announcement (often mistakenly called a negotiation) is sent from the data receiver to the data sender...

Thank you, Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJackool (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiJackool: This concerns Transmission Control Protocol where my edit restored some text. If you are concerned about the wording, please explain at the article talk page (Talk:Transmission Control Protocol). Using the article talk page means other editors will be able to review the discussion, and it can be easily found in the future if the situation arises again. I don't think we are disagreeing over the fundamentals—the question concerns what wording should be in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI comment

Hi, sorry but I undid this comment of yours. I already closed the section so the archive would be inaccurate if that was in the closed section. If you'd like to raise it again, please add it as post-close comment even though we both know that's not needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: No problem! I can see the edit history shows me adding a comment two minutes after your close, but as a matter of interest it was not like that from my point of view. The section had not been closed when I clicked edit, and everything seemed normal on preview. It was only on save that I saw (with no edit conflict) that my comment was in a closed box. The important thing is that you took action, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

You said it better than I could and simply not being me made your words a bit less likely to cause apoplexy among the peanut gallery. I will leave that debate to run its course now I think. Guy (Help!) 01:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@User:JzG: LOL, my heart sank when I saw "you have new messages" because I feared the worst—a comment from one of the usual suspects complaining about my uncivil remarks at ANI! I don't know how we're going to keep sane until the last chapter is written for many of the people in that discussion (permalink for posterity). Thank you for your magnificent work combating woo. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 Tour de Suisse

Thank you for signaling the problem. I update Module:Cycling race and it is now good. The program evole regularly, and sometimes we discover errors, or sometimes it is a bug. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: Thanks for fixing it. I would normally have asked on your talk page but I didn't have much time and I was a bit puzzled after skimming the module. I might drop in to d:Module:Cycling race later and offer some thoughts on Lua procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, no problem. It is interesting to signal errors because we prefer it arrives when the template is few used, once a problem is detected, Molarus solve it. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ref Desk comment

You said suffice to say that the problem would be resolved soon... can you please give concrete evidence of that? How precisely do we resolve this problem? What do all editors (i.e. those who know the issue and those who are unaware of it) do? It would be very useful for you to give us the solution that you have alluded to. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As you know, there is no good way to handle a situation like this, and there is very little concrete evidence regarding human behavior other than demonstrably correct platitudes such as encouraging bad behavior will lead to more bad behavior. However, and despite the existence of WP:LTA, experience shows that consistent WP:DENY works ... eventually. The problem is that the ref desks have attracted a pool of super-talented people who love to engage with all propositions, and each is convinced that their brilliance applies in all fields. Those contributors are the problem, and any precise remedy would start by limiting their human rights while contributing at Wikipedia—they should accept the judgment of those who are trying to clean up until DENY has been given a reasonable opportunity to work. The normal procedures that work well across all other pages at Wikipedia would also work at the ref desks if the enablers and those who enable the enablers were to keep quiet. Unfortunately that situation would have to be maintained for at least a year due to the excitement that has been generated so far. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Blockcalc

Even as a non-admin this has to be one of the best things I've seen so far this year. It'll make my life reporting vandalism to AIV and ANI so much simpler if I can go this rangeblock will fix it. Well done. Amortias (T)(C) 13:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Amortias: Thanks! Unfortunately {{blockcalc}} cannot get useful results in a lot of cases because the IPs are all over the place, but it tries! It was tricky code but very satisfying for those of us fascinated by that sort of thing. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

WP formatting problem

Hello! I'm asking you, not because it's your job to do, but because I hope you might be able to point me in the direction of help. I don't know where to ask about things like this.

In Names of Germany there is an image of Gaius Cornelius Tacitus at the beginning of the section Names from Germania (where it belongs; at least in the source), but a string of images on the right from the preceding section is pushing this down. I can't see why. Worse, if you adjust the browser width so that the image is just at the top of the Names from Alemanni, instead of the title Names from Alemanni flowing around it, they are superimposed on the image. Where does one ask basic questions about how image layout is supposed to be done? Imaginatorium (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: No problem asking, but I don't understand why that's happening. In case you're not aware, the people at WP:VPT would probably quickly fix this. I'll have to look later and see what was done. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Great - that's just the help I need. My head is so full of obscure, or even non-existent names of units there is no room left for more acronyms. I'll post the above at VPT. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Roman Dam of Belas

Olá. I have revised the data on the Geobox to the proper "convert" template. Thank you for your assistance: it was an oversight on my part.^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zeorymer: Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Budapest

Hello, Johnuniq -- I saw your edits to Budapest just now, and I'm curious to know why you removed the 1's and 0's in the conversion templates. I may have been the one who added those conversion templates. I copy-edit a lot of articles for the Guild of Copy Editors, many in response to requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and I often add conversion templates where there were none. I'm guided by the information at {{convert}} and the list of units at Template:Convert/list of units. Sometimes it seems appropriate to have one figure to the right of the decimal point, other times it seems appropriate to round off and/or have no figures beyond the decimal point.  – Corinne (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: Sorry if I've broken something, and please fix as wanted. The truth is I'm a little grumpy at the moment because I'm fixing some convert errors in articles when I would prefer to be doing something else, so I might have been excessive in my pruning. I noticed an issue which I explained here, and that shows my general view, namely that it is best to use convert's defaults and only change them when they give an undesirable result. The problem with adding a precision in anticipation that it might be needed is that editing often happens by example—other people see converts with a precision and they think the numbers are necessary, and articles end up with false precision because no one has examined the result and considered whether it is sensible (there is an example of that in my earlier link). Convert goes to a lot of trouble to guess what precision should apply to the output, and it generally does an amazingly good job although there are lots of corner cases where it fails. I know it's a fair bit of work, but IMHO it would be best to use convert's defaults then examine the results and change any that need changing. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify that the reason I was editing Budapest was to fix an error that it contained. Also, I can easily check what convert does because I have the development files with a testing system on my computer and I can easily extract all converts from a page and see what results they produce. Of the changes I made, the only visible differences were to the following which shows two converts, before-and-after my edit:

• {{convert|525|km2|sqmi|1}} → 525 square kilometres (202.7 sq mi)
• {{convert|525|km2}} → 525 square kilometres (203 sq mi)
• {{convert|238|acres|hectres|abbr=off}} → 238 acres ()
• {{convert|238|acres|abbr=off|disp=or}} → 238 acres or 96 hectares

Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Origin of "Independent reliable sources required" dispute

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Fringe theories#Origin of "Independent reliable sources required" dispute. I advise you to revert your last change. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessary to post here. Obviously I'm watching Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My apology

I'm terribly sorry for removing that false report about me. I assure you that it's not gonna happen again. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: This relates to my comment at Talk:List of children's films#Unsourced additions (permalink). I noticed an edit war at WP:ANEW and commented at the article talk to suggest that it was best to leave unreasonable reports at noticeboards alone and let others deal with them. That can be seen in this case where the person making the unreasonable report was blocked, first for a week, and then indefinitely when they tried block evasion. I'm not sure how to interpret the above, but I'm sorry if you felt my comment was a problem. However, on a busy noticeboard, it is very possible that an admin without much time or patience would just block anyone involved with reversions, and sort it out later. I hoped that my comment would avoid that. Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. TJH2018 talk 23:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@TJH2018. Please do not encourage banned users. When something happens that you do not understand, rather than templating the regulars, you might consider asking on their talk. However, please do not ask an experienced editor why they removed a rant from ANI with edit summmary "DENY" (WP:DENY) unless you have good reason to believe the removed material does not warrant DENY. You can always check WP:RESTRICT or Category:Banned Wikipedia users for more background. At any rate, if you find yourself in an edit war with three different editors, it might be an idea to stop a little sooner:

• 23:13, 1 April 2016
• 23:25, 1 April 2016
• 23:29, 1 April 2016
• 23:30, 1 April 2016 (self revert)

Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it still April Fools day in your timezone?

In what universe should our Encyclopedia not include true and useful information?[1] I understand the difference between WP:V and WP:TRUTH but this is a bridge too far. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ummm, surely you know that the place for discussion is at WT:What Wikipedia is not#Recent changes, and in fact you posted there. Why post here? My suggestion would be to wait and see what others think.

Re April Fools, bear in mind that the policy you changed had its original wording for a long time, so if I am a fool, I am in good company. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Manager boxes

Hi John, I have looked at the new rules you pointed out regarding formatting of football manager info boxes. My question is this, is there a bot that will automatically correct all the ones that are already on Wikipedia, or are we expected to go back and change them all manually. Thank you for your reply. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

Hi, I replied on your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

about kurmi

Hallo gohn if you interested about kurmi you can come India I tell the actual fact and many more things about bihari kurmi you are most welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.187.173 (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You may be referring to this edit at Kurmi. Thanks but articles at Wikipedia need to be based on reliable sources so text added can be verified by other users. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America

Hi Johnuniq, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 04:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

I noticed that you help to improve this article over the years via X!'s editcount tool. I have worked on the citations over the past few months and I am nearing the end of what else I can see to do to improve it. Please consider nominating this article for Featured Article status or at least for another peer review. Thanks.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Module:Convert on it.wiki

I started using the imported Convert on it.wiki yesterday. As you suggested I used only one error category. There was only ten article or less with errors but it's not a very used template on it.wiki. Thanks, the localization module is very well done and was easy to translate it for it.wiki.--Moroboshi (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Moroboshi: Wow, I only had a quick look, but it appears you have been very thorough. Thanks for letting me know. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Te: Titan Tower (Fisher Towers)

You edit of this article was not helpful. Note that the conversion done by the template using prominence_ft yields and inaccurate result. Its a bug in the template. –droll [chat]

Johnuniq/Archive 20
Highest point
Prominence	800 ft (240 m)

As it happens the bug does not appear with the conversion of 700 but try the template with 800. (800 ft = 243.84 m.) –droll [chat] 18:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Droll: I don't see a problem with "800 ft (240 m)" because it would be unusual for "800" to mean 800±0.5. The infobox {{Infobox mountain}} allows three ways of entering the value. If just "prominence" is used, the infobox uses whatever is entered. If "prominence_m" or "prominence_ft" are used, they end up being passed to {{convert}}. The following do exactly the same thing (they each call convert with the same parameters):

|prominence = {{convert|800|ft}}

|prominence_ft = 800

The following shows the results from using convert with its default rounding, and from specifying that the output be rounded to 0 decimal places:

• {{convert|700|ft}} → 700 feet (210 m)
• {{convert|700|ft|0}} → 700 feet (213 m)
• {{convert|800|ft}} → 800 feet (240 m)
• {{convert|800|ft|0}} → 800 feet (244 m)

Convert examines the input value (say 800) and sees that it only has 1 significant figure. Therefore it rounds the output in a fairly rough manner to avoid showing a false precision. Perhaps you intended to use "|0" in your edit because you have reason to believe the 700 ft value is correct to the nearest foot. However, there was a typo in the convert. My edit was merely to remove the error message that was being displayed in the infobox. If you want to put back the convert with "|0" please go ahead. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm going to restore the use of the convert template. Note that the peakbagger.com shows the clean prominence as 700 ft/213 m and I think we need to reflect the value given by the source. Sorry for the typos. –droll [chat] 03:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

Hi Johnuniq

Your evidence as the above link does not fall within the limited scope of the case as described on the evidence page.

Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas.

As the evidence presented is not within this scope it has been removed.

This has been carried out as a clerk action and should not be reverted with permission from the Arbitration Committee.

Amortias (T)(C) 12:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Coöperation

The spelling is and always will be "Coöperation". That is all. Iamiyouareyou (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

About that

"please use another website to settle 10-year old scores". What is this meaning?--Takahiro4 (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not in the mood to play bullshit games. The above relates to point-scoring at David Eppstein. Looking at Talk:Pi and a couple of other places shows that the actual problem is a difference of opinion with a particular editor. It appears also that consensus agrees with the other editor. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not concerned about this.Just violation.Your judge is not correct.At that time,just anyone can't stop by self-editing.This is not consensus.--Takahiro4 (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Still watching?

Hey, John. I'm stopping by your talk page to ask if you are still watching the Sexual intercourse article. I know you still have some articles I watch on your watchlist, and that Zad68, Grayfell, Cullen328 and Nigelj do too, but I'm not sure if you all are still watching this one. Actually, I'm not sure that Grayfell ever was. I barely have time for Wikipedia these days, and it's often that I won't be there to address edits like this one until several or many hours after the fact. Same goes for edits like this one to the Clitoris article. As you can guess, my issue with the Sexual intercourse edit would have been that it's a WP:Offensive material violation. Luckily, the editor reverted himself; it seems because he didn't know how to successfully add the image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I am still watching the Sexual intercourse article but haven't been checking every edit, under the assumption that you were doing a good job there, Flyer22 Reborn. I will look more closely. Yeah, that image was not a good idea, and looks like something from a 1999 porn magazine. I will watch Clitoris more closely as well. Feel free to check in with me at any time, and I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flyer. No one is indispensable, but some are more indispensable than others—if you haven't got time to fix those articles, we are doomed! Everyone else we can do without. Yes, I'm watching but, you know, groan. I'll try to be more enthusiastic, and thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, John and Cullen328. And you too, Grayfell. As always, I greatly appreciate the help. You are all such great editors, and are certainly more indispensable than others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Haalp

I dunno what happened, but while out for some hours, windows10 imposed itself on my computer in my absence, I had a version of windows7. The result is a complete fucking unworkablke intrusive, totalitarian mess, with loads of crap that make any work arduous. I can't find my way through the system to that thingamijog which allows the computer to return to the previous system operative a day or two ago, and get rid of this monstrous imposition. Any hints? (sorry for the bovver)Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh Nish, I'm terribly sorry to hear that calamitous news—there but for the grace of God... I'm afraid I am useless in that area and I worry about a Windows 7 computer here. In principle it can be undone, I think, but I advise extreme caution because fiddling around with complex systems can leave a computer "bricked", that is, as responsive as a brick, with all your data lost. You might try asking at WP:RD/C (reference desk/computing) where someone who has at least seen Windows 10 may help. If you have personal files that are not backed up you might consider powering off the damn computer and taking it to a repair shop. The instruction would be to backup your files, then consider whether reversing the Windows 10 install is possible/advisable. Sorry! If you want my opinion on anything you find in Google, let me know, but I decided years ago to stop listening to Microsoft and know nothing about the new stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Yep. I'll take it to an expert, and get every trace of windows uprooted. I've backed everything else up. Unbelievable, what those mongrels do. Bing overrides google, and is useless as a donkey's donk on a termite; it won't let you access non-windows emails (had to go through firefox); it has the most obscenely unaesthetic page presentation imaginable; because, when as I often do, I read old books online that have to have their pages enlarged to be perusable, somew spyware I guess, which interpreted this practice as evidence of shortsightedness, is incorporated which has doubled the visual size of each icon, as if I were some purblind geezer with huge specs. May the mongrel who thought this up have his 'acre burgled' till it bleeds and uploads the piles to his cerebral cortex! Sorry for the bovver.Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it. It was of course a non-brainer, but then it was something of a minor miracle for someone with my prodigious lack of hypertext banausic wits to get back to the old system within 7 hours. Their trick was to have a page set up to indicate it could be undone, which didn't work, and another page that actually works, but escaped my scrutiny for that length of time. As Dr Johnson would say, Fuggem!Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Buy the whey, I may need your technical advice on proper procedures for the note I dropped at User talk:Explicit's page, an admin who wiped out a page I wrote on an American translator of genius, on ostensibly sound grounds. I could easily add several sources to fix the charge that it's written from his own pages. His Japanese books went through several editions, so he was notable in Japan: his underrepresentation in Western sources is bizarre, and can only been explained by academic penis envy - he just knows more about some neglected Japanese literary traditions than most tenured scholars in that field. I can think of a thousand wiki bios of people with less presence, or achievement, and with little in secondary sources to recommend them. Of course, my judgement is partisan. I like eccentric intelligence. Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course, don't take my word for anything. But I have several extra items from academics including this:

Adam L Kern, (University of Wisconsin, Madison) 'REVIEW ARTICLE,' Early Modern Japan 2009, writes as follows:

Regrettably for gill, the usual cast of scholarly journals in East Asian Studies and Japanology have (like the New York Times) passed over his work, no doubt because his books telegraph their unconventionality so flamboyantly. gill projects himself less as translator or poet or amateur- scholar, or some combination thereof, than as entertainer or agent provocateur or playful self-promoter Succumbing to such ruminations would be as lamentable as ignoring gill’s corpus. This is because gill has given us two lively, extraordinarily knowledgeable, if decidedly non-academic, works on Edo-period comic poetry: Octopussy, on comic haiku (senryū 川柳), including what he calls “dirty” ones (bareku ばれ句); and Mad in Translation, on “mad” verse (kyōka 狂歌). Bombilating with verve, these works stand out from the huggermugger of scholarly discourse on similar topics, which more often than not disappoints as eminent but dull. To the extent that Edo-period poetry is too often misleadingly reduced to haiku by Bashō and friends, gill’s works on less established modes of haikai poetry and subjects—like the one devoted wholly to sea cucumbers—represent a refreshingly unencumbered contribution to the field. Even if these works cannot be described as punctiliously scholarly, gill’s status as poet-translator and amateur- scholar allows him the freedom to innovate. Some of his innovations set him apart from much scholarly publishing in Japanese studies and may even put him ahead of the curve. Indeed, gill’s unorthodox views on, and practice of, translation inform his treatment of print media itself, as we will see, in new and exciting ways. . . gill excels in the translation of parodic verse in the broad sense he seems not to mean. In the final analysis, this is probably why Octopussy and Mad in Translation are preferable to gill’s more serious works—and, for that matter, why they may also be preferable, even with all their quirks, to the preponderance of academic translations of Edo-period comic poetry.

The only technical answer I have to the natural objections the admin raised is WP:Systemic Bias and WP:IAR. Anyone with 20 books in 2 languages to his credit, full of the most out-of-the-way but fasdcinating erudition, should not be barred from having a bio notice here because of a general silence in the academy.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Double congratulations! I see Robin D. Gill in shiny blue, and your surly computer is back to its old ways. Some suggestions for next time about the former would include being a little more relaxed in tone—deleted articles can be undeleted at any time if a good reason is available, particularly when the page was not deleted at AfD. The IP has a total of one edit but made a perfect PROD (proposed deletion) request: diff. The deleting admin is just the button pusher and the unchallenged PROD looks very plausible. If there were a problem getting an article undeleted, I'm pretty sure I could find an admin to provide a copy for inspection. To defend the Gill article from further attack, it would be useful to include something a tiny bit more substantial in the lead. The problem with the current lead is that it reads like any marketing fluff, and "maverick authority" sounds like a euphemism for "crank". Something from your post above or at UNDELETE would be good. It's not systemic bias—hundreds of promotional pages are deleted every week because they don't clearly show that someone or something important has noted the subject. Anyway, all's well that ends well, except you have made me doubly nervous about my Windows 7 system. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. 'Seattle'. That rings a bell. Sounds like someone trawling through my contribs to find an excuse to get rid of some articles created. . .This windows 7 business is very curious. I'd been noticing that everytime I switched the computer off, it would be halted till 8-10 updates were completed (for about a month). And then all of a sudden the automatic update which couldn't be removed except by assent, which then produced that monstrously inefficient, invasive Windows10. That 'update' does allow reverting to the old Windows7, technically, though it proved hard to find, only that, when I did it, it then declared the Windows7 I had installed was non an authenticated copy, removed the explorer icon from the start menu, and dumped off the page the photo etc. Your suggestions re the rewrite are spot on. I'll fix the Gill page asap.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your no vote on promoting WP:TAGGING to Guideline

The comment in your vote did not make sense to me. WP:TAGGING says that without opening a talk page discussion, their tag can be removed. My experience has been that some taggers will go to war until you guess what their objection is. Without an authoritative location to discuss and implement, I don't foresee any way to limit editors who give themselves "extra privileges" where tagging is concerned without a guideline. Eventually, I like to propose that tagging without a talkpage discussion may be treated the same as vandalism. Seems you feel the same way. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 15:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I should add something more at VPP. By the way I saw your ping to me there because I reviewed the discussion a day after my comment, but the ping did not work. A notification only occurs if a new comment is added with a user-page link and a signature. Editing a comment will not send a ping—that avoids multiple notifications when people adjust their comments.

I quickly read the essay Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems before commenting, but based my reply on the box at the top: "This page in a nutshell: "Tags" should be used to clearly identify problems with Wikipedia pages to indicate to other editors that improvements are needed." That would encourage people to add tags, and would be used as a sledgehammer to stop people removing tags. There are lots of topics where conspiracy theorists or other POV pushers want their favored views given prominence. When they don't get their way, standard procedure is to slap an NPOV tag on the top as a way of promoting their dissatisfaction. There is wording about how such a tag should be justified and may be removed under certain circumstances, but I do not see that it would be helpful to add a new guideline that promotes the idea of adding tags. Editors should focus on fixing problems, not making them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on tagging essay

Just FYI, I made these 2 changes after you !voted. I don't think this will change your vote, but just wanted to inform you. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's just more stuff to argue about: you have a COI so should not add the tag ... no I don't and yes I can. Remember that the more anti-COI work is done, the more COI people will be trained to hide their COI. Any essay or guideline suggesting that adding tags is a good thing if people do not have an obvious COI will become a reason that tags can never be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: My above comment does not mention the point, namely that it really does not matter who adds a tag, and arguing about the author is just a distraction. There should only be two issues: has anyone established that an article has a problem, and if so, has it been established that a tag would be helpful in fixing those problems. There will always be someone with no apparent COI who is willing to add a tag. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. But ? The changes I made were about removing tags, not adding tags. Jytdog (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I'm writing some complex code at the moment and am visiting for recreation, so you are right that I was confused. I'm not arguing with your particular edit, but I think the principle I outlined still applies. Someone removes a tag, but another editor restores it claiming the first editor has a COI. Now the argument is whether that claim is correct (what evidence is there? does the second editor routinely accuse opponents of having a COI? has it been to WP:COIN?). However, the only argument that matters is whether the article has a problem and whether a tag would help. At any rate, this is getting a bit far from the RfC on whether that essay should become a guideline. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

IPBE RfC v2

As you commented on WP:IBE RfC Grant exemptions to users in good standing on request, you may wish to also comment on my alternative proposal, WP:IBE RfC Automatically grant IPBE to users by proof of work alone . Sai ¿?✍ 11:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that thanks. I don't think multiple RfCs regarding one topic are desirable. I may not vote, but if I did it would be oppose. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK protection request

I've went ahead and made the edit you requested so you can update the modules. Thanks --Neutrality^talk 02:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Thanks, I've done that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Vicarious liability for Chelsea Clinton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability .

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability. Even in religion , if you violate, to gain from dirty activities of another or if you gain indirectly, then the crime is yours. Even in symbolism , if you know that you are supporting an enterprise which is symbolic to terrorism and will result in loss of many lives. It is something I thought, Wikipedia should report and control. But if you do not want to keep the edit it is okay. The FBI is on it , is enough for my crime control endeavors.Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about an article should be at the article's talk page so other editors can see the comments, and they are easily findable in the future. Please raise any points regarding a proposed edit, with sources, at Talk:Chelsea Clinton. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit notices

Hi! Thanks for correcting my edit to WP:Template editor! WP:Editnotice states that "All users can create editnotices for their user and talk pages". Should that text be corrected to agree with the text of WP:Template editor? Thanks again! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 01:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. Wikipedia:Template editor is discussing those users who hold a particular right. I don't recall trying it, but I believe people with the TE right can create or edit a talk page notice anywhere, regardless of namespace (although probably not on the interface pages). In addition to that, any logged-in user can create or edit page notices within their own user space. If you want to perform an experiment, I will put "hello world" in the talk page notice for your talk (I have the TE right), and you can remove it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I might not be communicating very well. I'll try restating what I'm asking about:

Extended content

Premise WP:TPE reads: It also allows those editors to edit edit notices, all of which are permanently uneditable without template editor or administrator rights. My understanding of this is as follows: Template editors can edit all edit notices. All edit notices are permanently uneditable without template editor or administrator rights. The first sentence there is not relevant to my comment. The second sentence I parse as meaning: No edit notices are editable by any user who is not either 1) a template editor or 2) an administrator. That I then understand to mean: All edit notices are only editable by template editors and administrators. Premise WP:EDN reads: All users can create editnotices for their user and talk pages, but editnotices for other namespaces can be created and edited only by administrators and template editors. My interpretation of this is: All users can change edit notices within their own User/User_talk space. Only administrators and template editors can change other edit notices. I conclude from the first point: Some users who are neither administrators nor template editors can change edit notices within their own User/User_talk namespace. Which leads me to consider that: Some users who are neither administrators nor template editors can change some edit notices. I then would restate that as: Some edit notices are editable by users who are neither administrators nor template editors. Conclusion Given the two resulting statements: All edit notices are only editable by template editors and administrators. Some edit notices are editable by users who are neither administrators nor template editors. I would conclude that those two sentences of WP:TPE (first point) and WP:EDN (second point) contain a logical contradiction. Umm, did that make sense, or am I being thick? Thanks again :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 02:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with this edit but it possibly addresses the above. Please post at Wikipedia talk:Template editor if you think there is a problem because it is time to get the thoughts of others. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like a plan, will do. :) Usually when I write on talk pages no one writes back though.... Thanks again! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 02:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Lua SOS: treat template markup as just string

Hi. I am attempting to writing a converter module (sandbox) to convert something like this: {{BS-map|{{BS|STR|0|1|2|3}}}} into this: {{Routemap|STR~~0\1\2\3}} or less troublesome: {{Routemap|{{safesubst:BS|STR|0|1|2|3}}}} but immediately I hit the wall that invoke expands the template. If I prevent that with something like nowiki it will give me nonsense: ?'"`uniq--nowiki-00000001-qinu`"'?. Help. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sameboat - 同舟: I would need a bit more info. Meanwhile, you might like to look at the pre_block function in Module:Dump. You need something like that to generate a pre block in a module. An example of its output (showing a pre block) is at Module talk:Dump. I think that might be all you need because you want the module to take some wikitext and transform it to different wikitext, and just display the result? If there is something else, please give an example of input and wanted output. Best of all, show a sandbox which invokes the module with some test input, and say what the output should be. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to add pre_block but it doesn't works for me because, in my example, it's {{BS-map}} gets expanded, not the resultant {{Routemap}}. But yes I do want the raw wikitext output after conversion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK I see what's going on. I tried some edits in your sandbox. The theory follows. If a page has wikitext like {{#invoke:example|function|{{done}}}} the {{done}} is expanded before being passed to the module. If nowiki tags are placed around the input, the nowiki text is replaced with a strip marker which is passed to the module. mw.text.unstrip can reverse that. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. This is what I wanted. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Lua gsub pattern

I implemented convertbs function to Module:Routemap. In the case of substituting from one template name to another, I ran into trouble that there are shortcut redirects of {{BS-map}} for different letter cases. I am the one to be blamed for creating these redirects mindlessly, but I want to know how you would deal with such case if there are terribly large amount of letter case redirects. I roughly searched that gsub cannot ignore letter case hence I used %a%a to replace "BS". I tried to use string.lower() and check for lower case "bs" but the resultant string gets converted completely. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sameboat - 同舟: I need an example of what we're talking about so I don't have to put too much brain power into working out what you have been doing. Not a working example, but a couple of lines of code in a pre block to show the idea, with a description of what you would like it to do. If "BS-map" allowed any case for "B" and "S", but required "map", you could use pattern "[Bb][Ss]%-map". Other tricks might be available if more is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of substantiate example, but the square brackets solve my question. So thank you again. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

AfD: Salmarazd

Thanks for your lightning reply. I was still in the process of adding a link to my "case study" on this one: User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli#Case_study_2:_Salmarazd. I found no genuine occurrences at all, so I'd be interested to see your 2 Google hits. (Sending this to you because you missed the ping... please continue on the article talk page if necessary.) ...sorry, forgot to sign. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: You might like to add your signature above.

The one plausible mention I saw is here. I don't recall the other potential source, but it was very little apart from copies of Wikipedia and may have been bogus.

Pings can be tricky—for a notification to work, it has to be new text (an addition, not a change), and it has to have a good link, and a signature, and must not be too "complex" (adding headings might fail the "complex" rule). Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

95.130.97.158

Hi I've just received a message from you saying I edited the page "Amaan Ali Khan", and that you've reverted my changes. I have never edited this page, and no one has had access to my device apart from me. What's going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.130.97.158 (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You might be using a shared IP address. That is, someone else had your IP when the edits in question were made. It is easy to make an account and not be confused with anyone else, if you want.

You can see the edits made by your IP at Special:Contributions/95.130.97.158.

There were two messages at User talk:95.130.97.158 (they can be seen in this permalink). My message is a month old and refers to this edit at John Bunyan. The second message was left by someone else, and it refers to this edit at Amaan Ali Khan. Both those edits were in May 2016.

I will replace the two old messages on your talk page with a welcome message and leave a link to here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Template issue: Sexuality templates

Since you're good with technical matters, do you mind helping with this? Live link is at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Queried requests. A loss of the edit history clearly happened. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that mess, but I offered my thoughts. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Franck Durix

Thanks for the heads up! GiantSnowman 07:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)