User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 21

Bishzilla, like apparently also Richard Dawson, is a great fan of Xkcd. Rather pathetically, she has attempted to put a honorary banner on her talkpage — see it? Looks awful, naturally, especially the way it squashes up against the "User Wikipedian For year" box, that she doesn't want to lose. Could you possibly make it look decent? A proper centered box would be nice. And, while purple is good (she copied the whole thing from the talkpage of the slightly more proficient Darwinbish, and it was purple there), she'd rather have bright green. Damn that RGB code, prehistoric critters can't handle it. They generally prefer the divbox, where you simply type "green", but the divbox is too wide for this. (Do you know a way to limit the width of it, by any chance?) Bishonen | talk 16:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

Little 'shonen too stupid or lazy to supply convenient links: User talk:Bishzilla and [1]. bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

@Bishzilla: I could probably hack something, but callling RexxS would give a better result. I consult Web colors#X11 color names (or is it another page?) when wanting to pick an RGB color.

Yummy, I don't recall seeing the edit notice at User talk:Bishzilla—wow! And I might post that xkcd cartoon at Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 4#Age of Earth Opinion vs Fact. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

[Zilla effortfully check out little talkpage section.] Good place for it! Speak volumes! 'Zilla attempt placement herself, but unfortunately Bishonen yank leash. "No editing article talkpages, monster!" Bah. Roarr. :-( bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC).

Please see Module:Sandbox/Sameboat/m3 and User:Sameboat/sandbox. When I attempt to split a string separated by backslash ('1\2\3\4\5'), it returns this: 1����. Welp~ -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sameboat: The problem is that '1\2\3\4\5' should be '1\\2\\3\\4\\5' because you want real backslashes in the string. The black diamond with a question mark (what I see in my browser) is a symbol indicating that the UTF-8 code is not valid because, for example, '\2' is the byte hex 02 which is not UTF-8. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Problem is the source which would be analyzed and split comes from something like this. Ultimately I want to trim strings like this '\\\STR\STR\\' into this '\STR\STR' by splitting the string by backslash and analyze the first value and last value if both are empty '', then remove them from the table and finally concat all split values again.
The markup is primarily analyzed by module:Routemap at line 228 and to form the diagram, but I have no idea how it avoids the black diamond. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sameboat: Clicking edit at Draft:West Coast Main Line diagram shows lines including the first of the following, which for our purposes is the same as the second.

\\\\\\exKHSTa\\STR\\\exSTR~~{{rws|Preston West Lancs}} (latterly goods only)\\\\\\abd\\def\\\ghi

Considering the second line, what do want to do? The second line has 6 consecutive backslashes, then 2, then 3. That is exactly what a module would receive. Please use single backslashes only in our discussion unless showing a line of Lua because I can't work out how many backslashes you intended in the strings in your last reply. For example, if you write 'a\\b' I will assume it is 'a' then two backslashes then 'b'. For development you might use a comma instead of a backslash, then get the code working for commas. Then it would be simple to fix it to work with backslashes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for troubling you all this time. I accidentally discovered that mw.text.trim helps ignore escape sequence which is like wrapping the string with double square brackets. The best part is that the Scribunto/Lua reference manual on MediaWiki doesn't explain this function at all! Should I amend it? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.)

@Sameboat: Don't worry about posting here—I won't respond if I'm unavailable. I like stories with an ending, so please let me know when it all works. I don't think mw.text.trim does anything unexpected. I wouldn't update its documentation unless very confident! If editing a module, you can paste =[[1\23]] into the debug console, and it will show 1\23, whereas ='1\23' shows the black diamond, as you said. Can you post an example with mw.text.trim that shows what you mean? Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You can see in Module:Sandbox/Sameboat/m3 and User:Sameboat/sandbox. I just apply mw.text.trim to the source and then the worry of escape sequence is gone. Routemap itself is quite complicated to explain, anyway the trimmer function is for reducing the visible row width of the icons without ruining the intended position in the whole map table. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to understand Routemap, but if you were to show test input and output, plus what was wanted for the output (assuming the wanted result is not happening), I could work out you wanted the module to do. At any rate, I'm sure mw.text.trim is not influencing the black diamonds, so I edited Module:Sandbox/Sameboat/m3 to remove the trim. Put it back when you have looked at the result. The result in the sandbox is different with something strange happening for trimmer2, but no diamonds. Have you checked trimmer2? It seems to set a couple of tables to {} each time around the loop, and that looks like a bug, although I haven't studied it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey I was testing out the range block tool you posted at ANI on the thread where I provided the range block information. The contributions function doesn't seem to work it spits out an error saying "User account "2600:8805:2100:A200:*" is not registered." Any ideas if this is a problem just on my end or does the contributions function not work yet?

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

never mind turns out the gadget got disabled on me :/ --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you fixed it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

"drive bye tag" my ASSSSSSSSS!!!! Apparently failed to see the talk page!!!! BS!!! Thanks for your opinion but we all have them, I asked for neutrality check you just PROCLAIMED "DRIVE BYE CHECK" that woudl be true if I did not make an entry on the talk page otherwise SUBJECTIVE BULLLL!!!!PS tag is going back you failed to provide eitehr discussion on it's removal or a discussion now let me throughly analyse all your contributions and see how unbiased and not subject you are be back shortly, good day!!--0pen$0urce (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I saw Talk:Huma Abedin#Undue weight and lack of NPOV on congressional Inquiries Sections and observed that it contained no statement to justify a tag other than a generic complaint. Is the concern that there must be plenty of dirt on anyone associated with Clinton? Having added the tag twice, you now have a total of two edits to the article. You don't seriously imagine that a tag is an unmovable object that has to remain until the tagger is satisfied? Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sea Lions. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Groan, that's the mind control fringe stuff from NPOVN. Thanks for trying to explain the facts of life to them. I commented. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No it is people attempting to make the article Electronic Harassment consistent with Wikipedia policy, which is not to state opinions as facts. That is in this case the psychiatric opinion should not be stated as a fact: "These experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis." is one instance of that. It should be "It is the opinion of psychiatrists that...etc" What is 'mind control fringe' about that, thanks,?Jed Stuart (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever thought of becoming an admin? I find your comments at ANI and other noticeboards genuinely intelligent, thoughtful, fair, and helpful. And you have a technical background, and a thorough and varied tenure here. Would you be interested in becoming an admin? I know some folks are happy remaining at the civilian level, however I think the admin corps could use you if you were interested. Softlavender (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thanks, that's very kind. I have a vague feeling that one day I might run for admin because I would like to help with some of the cases at ANI where the matter is pretty clear, but the issue is ignored for whatever reason. However, running now is not going to happen because I still haven't done any significant article development, and I agree with those who say an admin should have created a few articles and demonstrated competence in that area, and have an appreciation for why an admin should avoid molesting content builders. I got sidetracked by my programming interests nearly four years ago and that has taken most of my energy since (index). One day I'll return to some of my old notes and do some article work, and then I'll remind you about this discussion!

Sorry about the peculiar edit conflict at ANI that occurred a couple of hours back. I prepared my comment in an editor, then clicked "edit" in the browser and pressed Ctrl-End followed by Ctrl-V to go to the end of the section and paste my comment. However, on preview, I noticed a typo which I fixed, then previewed again and saved. On saving, I saw my comment was before your new comment which had not appeared in my edit window, and the history shows your comment as a couple of minutes ahead of mine. I did not put my comment in front of yours! Very weird. Johnuniq (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I didn't know you hadn't done much content (I didn't bother to check), and it's nice that you are taking the advice of content creators to heart. No worries about the ANI thread: I've noticed more and more that ANI has weird technical fuck-ups like that. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello J. I've seen a few threads recently where there is a general feeling that content creation is not the must that it used to be - at least in part to the fact that WikiP has been around for over a decade now. You should still do what you feel most comfortable with. I do think you would make a good admin. On the other topic ANI and AN edit conflicts have been wonky for some time now. I remember a thread at VPT but no one seemed to know how to fix it. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 17:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but I won't try running until I've done more—I've got quite a lot of to-do notes that I've accummulated... Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a reply to the message you sent me. I want everything on my sandbox to be there. I want to know what is wrong with my sandbox as you didn't elaborate on that. Did I use too much space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uconnfan93 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Uconnfan93. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked over the edits in the script, many were fine. Sorry for any inconvenience.Don't see the problem in this...

"*The script must be fixed to avoid hard-to-see stuff like changing the first of the following to the second:

• url=https://books.google.com/books?id=meS-dCN7wU4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=new+england's+crises+and+cultural+memory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOoJW8v_XLAhVBOT4KHZorA-sQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=new%20england's%20crises%20and%20cultural%20memory&f=false

  url=https://books.google.com/books?id=meS-dCN7wU4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=new+england's+crises+and+cultural+memory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOoJW8v_XLAhVBOT4 kHzorA-sQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=new%20england's%20crises%20and%20cultural%20memory&f=false

  It changed "4KHZ" to "4 kHz". An article using the doubly wrong "4KHZ" should probably be carefully examined rather than changed automatically."

JerrySa1 (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, but I replied at your talk to keep the discussion in one place. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You have undone my re-opening of the discussion: NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment" at: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=1 You mention that the issue has gone to ANI and is settled. The issue of whether the discussion should continue has not gone to ANI at all. It will if you don't restore my re-opening. What went to ANI was the view of one side of the dispute, that the other side was sea lioning. There was little discussion and the topic was closed before I, the main person being accused, was able to make a statement. I re-opened that discussion so as to have a say and it was also closed before I could say anything. This is not fair play. This is consistent with other actions in this dispute. I attempted to set up a mediation process and someone turned up to mediate and quickly closed the discussion before I could have a say. Jed Stuart (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Links:

• Talk:Electronic harassment article talk
• WP:NPOVN (permalink) opened 8 June 2016; closed 24 July 2016
• ANI archive July 2016

Would you agree there has been a tremendous amount of discussion about the topic? How many established editors have indicated they thought the discussion was warranted? Following is a quote from the NPOVN discussion:

Review Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 3, Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 4, and Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 5 for all the many ways you've asked this same question and all the many ways it has been answered for you.

Many editors would have seen the discussion at NPOVN and ANI—if there were a problem, someone other than yourself would have noticed. It is time to let the issue go because repeatedly pursuing anything at Wikipedia is disruptive and can lead to topic bans. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree there has been a lot of discussion. I have withdrawn from the EH article and Talk page because editors there expressed annoyance at my continuing to attempt get them to address the NPOV issue rather than just giving links to policies and attacking my behaviour. It was suggested that I take my concerns elsewhere and so I started the topic at NPOVN. There has been a lot of gaming the system/abuse of process in this dispute so far. I attempted to set up informal mediation and a person offers to mediate, there is a rather silly discussion and it is then closed before I get a chance to comment. I get accused at ANI of sea lioning and that topic is closed before I have a chance to comment. And the NPOVN topic I started is at the same time closed by Begoon because it's 'boring'. I re-start the ANI topic, making it clear that my response time is slow, and get back to it to find it closed before I can comment again. I re-open the NPOVN topic and you then close it. I would not continue with this if there were not people agreeing with my view. But there are and they have recently said so at NPOVN. Your closing it at this stage and your remark to Guy Macon above at ANI notice 'that's the mind control fringe stuff from NPOVN' reveal that you are on the other side of this issue. I have replied to that above. I don't think it is acceptable for you to gag discussion at NPOVN. I am going to undo your interference and hope to nail the real issue, which is a simple NPOV issue. If it is gagged again I will take it to ANI.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Checking the article Electronic harassment, I see it is in the category Pseudoscience. In my opinion, User:Jed Stuart might be banned from the topic of electronic harassment under the discretionary sanctions provided by WP:ARBPS. He has already been alerted to those sanctions in January by User:JzG. The pattern of Jed's edits indicates he is unable to edit neutrally in that area. In March 2016 a similar sanction was issued on a different editor. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jed Stuart: You re-opened the discussion at WP:NPOVN but it was closed three minutes later with a comment that included "There is consensus that there are no neutrality issues here" (diff). My advice would be to accept that as the last word on the matter because, as I said above, there has been ample opportunity for other editors to have reviewed the situation and I do not see any support for your position.

@EdJohnston: Thank you, I'm sure you are correct and the next step would be for an uninvolved administrator to apply a topic ban. I guess that can wait until we see what response occurs now. For the record, this permalink (5 January 2016) shows the discretionary sanctions notification at User talk:Jed Stuart. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I support a topic ban. This has gone on long enough. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Given User_talk:BU_Rob13#Gagging_of_debate_at_NPOVN, I am inclined to agree. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart (talk · contribs) This may have to go to WP:AE if no one feels like acting alone, but it's unusual in that it is slow and steady rather than the usual flood. I archived Talk:Electronic harassment earlier to encourage the IPs to find another website, but one of them is back. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I deleted most of the weather boxes except for 7 of them. I understand that Wikipedia is not free to run but look at the traffic you get daily. And the reason I created those weather boxes is because I am interested in weather and I like to keep track of 4 weather stations monthly data. And I know what a sandbox is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uconnfan93 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Uconnfan93/sandbox is greatly improved. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to the dispute/discussion you mentioned in your revert? Also, I didn't know that, for lack of a better term, a disgruntled employee's criticism was not valid. Thanks. KamelTebaast 08:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel Tebaast: It's a long and complex story involving gamergate controversy and WP:ARBGG. Dozens of accounts have been created or reactivated by gamergate supporters in order to express displeasure with what the article says, and to poke the administrators who attempted to keep the peace following the arbitration case. They scored a hit with this case, and the target retired after harassment in real life as well as at Wikipedia. The edit in question involves one of the off-wiki campaigners who has also participated on-wiki. The opinion was added by an indeffed editor who is obviously a returned user seeking to inflame the issues I outlined. Not every criticism needs to be listed, and particularly not when it is from a participant expressing their dissatisfaction with the outcome of a dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been reading up a bit on this (I am aware of the dispute that blew up over this and I've read the discussion here), and I was wondering what Wikipedia needs to say about this (if anything)? At the moment, it is a redirect to paleolithic lifestyle, but that article says nothing at all about 'ancestral health'. Won't that confuse people who might come to Wikipedia looking for information on this? At the moment, the phrase 'ancestral health' appears in the following articles: George Dvorsky ("ancestral health advocate"), Tucker Max ("In 2011, he was a guest speaker at the Ancestral Health Symposium, giving a presentation entitled From cave to cage: Mixed martial arts in ancestral health."), Erwan Le Corre ("49-minute video lecture by Erwan Le Corre at the Ancestral Health Symposium, August, 2011") and paleolithic diet (a see also link). What I'm wondering is whether the redirect taking people from those articles is currently misleading? Two of the links are to do directly with the Ancestral Health Society. What is the correct approach here? To remove the links as misleading, or to add something to the paleolithic lifestyle article about the Ancestral Health Society, its journal, and the wider ancestral health 'movement'? Carcharoth (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: You may have found my comment at the ANI discussion with "it was explained to me (here) that Ancestral health is a scam (that's my quick summary)". That's a very unfortunate case—I wanted to add evidence but for my personal sanity level I haven't done so yet.

Re the misleading ancestral health links: I have seen that sort of thing several times, and there is often no good way to handle the problem. I can't recall any examples, but typically an article on a fringe topic would go to AfD where people would agree it wasn't suitable per WP:N, but would disagree about deletion with some saying redirect and others merge and redirect. However, no one ever does the merging, and when someone looks at adding a mention of the topic in the target article, it turns out to be quite hard because such a mention would have WP:UNDUE or WP:RS problems. A compounding factor is that often it's only fringe advocates who have sufficient interest to write up such hard-to-define ideas, and they tend to over-egg the case, so their text gets deleted. I'll watch Paleolithic lifestyle but I haven't had much energy for that sort of thing lately. I would leave the links as they do the best that is possible at the moment, despite the problems you outlined. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In the cases where there is a redirect but there is no mention of the term in the target article, the reader assumes the terms are synonymous, which is the case here (according to the definition of the organization that uses the term [2]). We have thousands of such redirects on Wikipedia. Few of them are fringe topics -- they merely happen to be alternate, little-known, less-used names for something else (the target article). It's not misleading and nothing really needs to be done, although there's nothing preventing someone from adding a well-cited mention somewhere in the article. If further sources are desired for that, there are several independent sources mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ancestral_health. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I gave a lecture on that topic a year ago, by coincidence.(Un)fortunately, it is in Italian, so unreadable. It was more concerned with the collateral long term consequences of grain choice on the development of civilization, the concept of time and leisure, but did cite an interesting statement to the effect that:’paleopathological evidence and a comparison of the environments in which prehistoric hunter-gatherers chose to live with those in which their modern counterparts are confined by the pressures of competition suggests that the populations of prehistory were at least as well nourished as those of today.' (Susan Scott,Christopher J. Duncan, Demography and Nutrition: Evidence from Historical and Contemporary Populations 2008 John Wiley & Sons, 2008 pp.3-4), and the fact that since grain cultivation is historically correlated with the emergence of radical class hierarchies, the average palaeolithic person ate far better than the majoritarian underclass throughout history. Jared Diamond's The World Until Yesterday of course argues there was more violence. I'm not persuaded. I live in Italy, where an excellent fare generally imbricates over a fairly peaceful society.:) Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You have so many coincidences, and they're all interesting! At least you won't ever need to argue in real life because the gift that is Wikipedia keeps on giving (yes, I peeked at your talk). I'll have a question about Giulio Cesare in due course, and I know where to post it. Re living as our ancestors may have, it's certain that we evolved under very difference circumstances than those that apply in 21C, and it's also known that a lot of money can be earned from selling health advice—rather than giving lectures with footnotes, you should have teamed up with someone from marketing and joined the wealthy and happily fat class! Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately my mother, a pharmacist, raised us as 'red indians', encouraging every sign of wildness. Medicines, she told us, were for the customers: we had to sit out our aches and pains, and if we complained, a dose of castor oil was all we got. Get a cut in a knife fight or brawl? 'Whistle any dog nearby and get him to lick it, or pee on it', etc. She was very good on poltices for burns, esp. when one of our cousins got 2nd degree burns from an improvised flamethrower we used. I only took an aspirin at 42, and then never again. As to wealth, the premise should be, 'wealth of free time' in our available lifespans. Palaeolithic man, like most hunter-gatherers, only needed several hours a week to secure food, so though the average life span, due to high infant mortality, was around 36, that still means that they had more time to do what they liked than we three-score-and-tenners in the Isaiah scheme. On the other hand, it was statistically a tough place if you like some crumpet as part of the daily regimen: 4 women to every 5 men. Guess that's why freckle-punching took on.:) Just as well, the variation was to have a positive disproportionate effect on the creativity of high civilizations.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How irritating—surely you aren't an authority on sex as well? I don't see any useful mention at Human sex ratio of historical sex ratios. The article talks about male/female ratios close to 1, but you're saying it was once 1.25. Due to death in childbirth? That throws some cold water on the paleo lifestyle! Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't read many wiki articles because they tend to get me agitated, in the sense I think:'Aw fuck, more hard yakka' needed and ruin my palaeolithic lifestyle privileging an otiose existence (I use 'otiose' because 'negotiation' comes from Latin, where it meant both 'entrepreneurial activity,business' and 'distress' (neque+otium 'no idleness'), which is what civilization is about.) It's odd that that article fails to mention this, since it is a fairly frequently mentioned result from the analysis of skeletal remains from that period (James Neill,The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies, McFarland, 2008 p.74). He too speculates about this and the origins of homosexuality (there's another possibility of course one could infer from that ratio, i.e. that it was the reason why 'feeding the chooks' as I believe antipodean idiom describes wanking, became popular (at least, my memory prompts me, hearsay informs me, and reading about Vladimir Nabokov's preferences after the birth of his son, suggests). Ah, which makes me brighten this Sunday with a new theory. The palaeolithic sex ratio favoured the domestication of chickens for egg production !:)) I'm an authority on nothing, but it can't be a coincidence that I once eked out life, or supplemented a parlous shortfall in funds for books, by taking on translations of oriental pornography, which went into great detail over the historical arcana of words used in brothels to describe human anatomies engaged in sinking the Strassburg sausage or, to respect sexual parity, having the bishop interred in one's grave(y)yard (reminds me that 'yard' is an old English idiom for you know what!) Ah, time for breakfast and a slow deli(n)quescence into the Trimalchian indulgences of an Italian Sunday! Enjoy yours. Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting! I need another hundred years to do all the things I'd like to, but I'll never get around to reading that book (although I have now read two of its pages). Thanks also for explaining how you sustained your early career—you would be handy company in an oriental brothel! Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in here. I just feel the need to mention that I do use the helpful {{blockcalc}} — I wouldn't want you to think you wasted your time explaining it to me. But sometimes, like that time, the dead simple asterisk trick is enough, so I tend to try it first. Bishonen | talk 10:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC).

I wasn't really trying to push my product, I just find it easier to use a sandbox to see the link for what the required gadget is called. You are correct that for the usage case in question, and for someone who has done it before, it's far easier to do it manually than to fiddle with a template. Happy blocking! Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocking always make little 'shonen happy. Very trigger-happy admin! Not gentle like 'zilla. bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC).

Hello,Since you have undone my revision of this article I have opened a new section in its talk page in order to avoid an edit war. In my opinion and, according to Wikipedia policies, it is better to resolve this kind of disputes in a civilised manner instead of editing back-and-forth. Since I acknowledge that your reversion devolves the page to the status quo, I compromise myself not to edit again in the direction I did unless a consensus were reached. I invite you to contribute to the talk page with your cons and eventual pros supporting any of the versions of the fourth paragraph of the article.If you wished to leave me a reply, please do it in my User talk. You'd be the first one in this Wiki.Best regards, Sam10rc (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't post redundant stuff on an editor talk page. I'm quite civilised and do not need to be reminded. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I expect no sorrow in a blunt message. At the end of the day it has resulted to be pointless. Please, let me analyse your last reply and decide yourself if it was appropriate for a talk page in enWiki. You have bothered enough to check my contributions and you seem to be discrediting me on the basis that I have contributed too few to this Wiki. You point my lack of familiarity with standard procedures. I have been bold and edited for what I though was the best for the article, seen my contrubition reverted and wrote on the talk page to raise my concerns for the sake of NPOV. You are right writing that this is an article talk page and you may simply ignore the last sentence in my previous reply. Or you can make a honest attempt to read what I mean when I put that I left my personal beliefs behind, specially when I point that the edition I proposed goes AGAINST my personal beliefs because there are too few evidence for what went according to those beliefs. I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not supporting conjectures about tomorrow in BLP but an unbiased person should admit that my question was pertinent, accepting that parental involvement is not an outlandish theory. Finally, I do not know how to interpret your last sentence without feeling bitten. I have checked the huge amount of badges that you have and you do not need to remind me your large list of contributions or how tiny is mine. Now it is your turn to decide if you have respected WP:DNB. For any other comment concerning my behaviour or my recenseris persona, please reply as you wish.Sam10rc (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

New users get a free pass to do lots of things. However, as mentioned, your conjecture is a blatant violation of WP:BLP and that is one of the very few things at enwiki that is not tolerated. There is no need for us to discuss anything on my talk page—Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is the place to propose actionable improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Ergo Sum 02:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No: diff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JohnUniq. I wanted to let you know I linked a diff of yours (this one; not suggesting any wrongdoing on your part) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Infoboxes. FourViolas (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I'll look later. Johnuniq (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your previous comments on my Talk page concerning the Austen RfC last week. There have been a large number of repetitive edits coming from a single editor apparently using multiple IP accounts for single purpose opposition and personal attacks/accusations against my account. The large number of IP accounts being used is starting to raise the issue of why an obviously experienced editor is almost going out of their way to avoid signing in in the normal way. I have already posted their Talk page and cannot tell if its time to consider spi given this long term issue. I have listed the multiple accounts being used for these personal attacks/accusation here [3]. The matter is further being complicated by the IP now admitting to have a regular account though they don't seem to want to let us know what it is or what the nature of the problem is that keeps them from editing from their regular account for over a six month period. Could you glance at this? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fountains-of-Paris: There is a large amount of noise at Talk:Jane Austen but I do not see a problem with the IP. If you are hinting that the IP might be one of the regular editors, I think you are mistaken and that line should not be pursued. It should particularly not be pursued on the talk page of an article. The IP is like many others that I have seen—due to some personal view they like using a shifting IP, and that is endorsed by policy and the community. They are not behaving any differently from the logged-in editors as far as I can see—the IP's comments appear less abrasive than some of the others on that page. Your hatting of the IP's comments has correctly been reverted. The correct procedure is to comment on content and not on contributors, and the sooner people start doing that, the sooner the talk page will serve its intended purpose. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what your phrase means? "uses perfectly formed procedures"

Thank you. KamelTebaast 17:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This apparently relates to a discussion at User talk:Lord Roem#Getting clarity. A discourse on my three-week old comment would be unlikely to help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

	notes
	thanks im so pleased i need more note on the thevenin ,norton and superposition theory please help me out with this Jobuuu (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks johnuniq how are you , can you help more notes on thevenins , nortons and superposition you see the one i passed through were really good but can you make them more clarified and thanks for the massage time:6:24 pm .®Jobuuu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want to improve Thévenin's theorem you might make a suggestion on its talk page. I don't think this edit was helpful. If you want to ask a question about these topics, you could try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.

Anyone noticing this might like to review #Reverting of my re-opening of: NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment" above. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

See the topic-ban proposal at ANI (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe there is an errant sentence in the second paragraph:

"It was invented in Carrick road mullinahone by Jack and Johnny Shelly."

Should be removed. (Cecarow (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecarow (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The junk text was added by 178.167.254.237 on 19:03, 28 August 2016. Another editor has now removed it, and I checked the IP's other edits. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

	The Surreal Barnstar
	You sir are a beautiful soul! I've lost count how many times you've said something exactly in the way I'd have said it or thought of it and seem to have your head screwed on the right way unlike many here. Keep up the words of wisdom and positive input you have in discussions! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks very much! I appreciate your kind thoughts. I groaned the other day when realizing I have made 1065 edits at ANI, and 242 at Jimbo's talk. Perfect example of WP:NOTHERE! Unfortunately mere words are unable to influence dedicated POV pushers, and nothing stopped the recent destruction. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Johnuniq. I sent you an email about a technical matter. I let Ivanvector know that I would be emailing you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flyer. I'll have a look and send an email within a couple of hours. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking of doing at least all of the missing articles on Aboriginal tribes in WA, and a few things would be easier if I could get templates for drawing kinship (p.43 of book below, or even simple things like a 4 square thing I could write details in as here, for putting in moieties etc. I'd appreciate if you could spare a sec to strain the bean and drop me some advice as to where to go to learn the ABCs of such stuff.Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I wonder if you could use a cladogram. There is a good example at Cheetah#Taxonomy. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, {{cladogram}} looks useful, although all the above is beyond my scope. It should be possible to use a tricked-up table to emulate the p. 45 box diagram in the book. The difficulty would be getting the icons which would have to be free as in liberty. The circles/triangles diagram on p. 43 looks more tricky to do in a general way, although I could make diagrams to match them quite easily. Can you (Nishidani) give an idea of how many of each kind of diagram are wanted? Are you talking about creating new articles? Do we have an existing article on the topic you want to create? By "drawing kinship", do you mean to reproduce the p. 43 diagram with different labels, or do you mean to generalize it so some diagrams would have different shapes as well as different text?

There is an example of a complex ancestry at Darwin–Wedgwood family. I think I've seen a simpler ancestry diagram, but I can't find it at the moment. There are some tree diagrams at Red–black tree where each diagram has been individually created and uploaded. Is that feasible for your plan (I could do it), or do you need something generated from a template? Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DrChrissy, I'll experiment with that. A. P. Elkin once divided Australian kinship systems into 5 types that were valid over 500 odd tribes, so the number would be limited. Australian kinship systems have been an obsession in anthropology since A. R. Radcliffe-Brown started writing about them in a classic paper in 1914. They are really fascinating because in their typological marriage/descent variations you can produce a things we find incomprehensible, like a child being called father to his father, the father being child etc. But two or so are quite complex, and that is what I must avoid because this is an encyclopedia, not a recipe for readerly headaches, so I'm thinking of simplified clan/totemic/moiety schemata basically. As to the diagram on p.45, I didn't mean to imply shoehorning in images of kangaroos , etc., but simply within each section the native name and its meaning, so that you have a 4 conjoined rectangles, basically one square with 4 diagonals, and two words written within each. I'll look round at the varieties of solution in both of your suggestions and try to figure out some arrangement for a while. No hurry on this. Ands I don't want people wasting time on it: just casting about to find a mechanical solution. Cheers and thanksNishidani (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: You want a table something like this (p. 45)?

The details can be adjusted later, but that's basically all that is wanted? And you would like some way to enter the table with a template to simplify the wikitext and to make the tables consistent? That can be done. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeezus, this after a stroll and a coffee. I dawdle in the streets, and the serious chaps do my work for me. I'll have to make penance, forego eating lunch or sumfen. That's really wonderful. Thanks for the effort. Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

One approach I have used in the past is to create what I want in a Powerpoint slide and then send it to commons as my own work. It might be best if it is close to another table/diagram to attribute it e.g. "Adapted from XXXX". (-- This unsigned comment is by DrChrissy.) DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with DrChrissy. Both drawing in PowerPoint or in MS Word have worked great for me in the past. Ijon Tichy (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm just plain dumb with these things. Anytime I try to master what you guys take effortlessly to be the kindergarten alphabet of web design, I end up in the Three Stooges's Alphabet soup recited backwards. No wonder I was advised at the end of the first year of primary school to repeat the year. I know I could master these things but it would mean not reading a book or two that interests me. Result, I parasitize the whiz/wise guys, sycophantically smooching on their benevolence. Sigh Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It is probably worth pointing out that the Powerpoint method can be quite cumbersome to make even simple changes to. If you notice a typo after you have uploaded to the article, this must be changed in the file, saved, resubmitted to commons, then uploaded into the article. The method used above by Johnuniq would take 5 seconds to edit whereas the Powerpoint method would take at least 5 minutes. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I'm ready to do something with this if you still want a template to generate the p. 45 table shown above. I'm thinking of syntax like this:

{{table| Top ! left |Top!right| Bottom!left| Bottom!right}}

I added some superfluous spaces in the above to show they could be used but would be ignored. As a convenience, the exclamation mark would be replaced with <br /> to give a line break. The above would generate this table:

Is that what is wanted? The size of the table and therefore the size of each cell can be pondered later, but initially I was thinking each table would be the same size. If something other than two rows by two columns were wanted, some modifications could be made. You would probably want options like left and right to float the table to the left or right; that would allow text to sit beside the table as can be done with images. Stuff like having two tables side-by-side would be tricky. Please think of a suitable name for the template. Using "table" is not a good idea because lots of templates start with that word ([4]). Can you think of a short but suitable name? Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Bronchitis, picked up while picking someone else's olives for them under drizzling rain for 9 hours, hence late reply. I think you've already gone far beyond the call of duty in providing me with the model and its variation above, and I hate to drag other people into areas they are probably more unfamiliar with than even my pretentious self. For the moment the model you provided is fine. Highest regards Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop being difficult! How many of these tables are likely to occur? I gather it's at least a dozen so a template is best because the one thing (the template) can be tweaked if necessary to adjust every table. You might be overlooking the fact that techo people love doing techo stuff, and I have been waiting for a reason to work with something known as mw.html for months, and this is a great excuse to experiment. As soon as you're dry, please answer the questions! Are you planning to use templates like the above? what is a good name for a template? Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

'Life wasn't meant to be easy' as the grazier muttered while shooting the last remnants of the Leitchi-leitchi tribe to clear his pastoral lease for a sheep run. I can tweak the ones (how can 'one' have a plural?') you already provided, as just now at Ngarluma. All I'm familiar with is Elkin's classification of 5 systems, and the one you provided covers many of the North Western Australian cases. To give you an idea of the kariera system, not just as four names, as displayed, and what the interrelations are:

↓Panaka = Burong↓

↑Karimeri =Palyeria↑

where = means an intermarrying section, while ↓↑ (should be one vertical with arrowheads for each tip, indicating mother and child sections. Thus a Panaka totem man can only marry a Burong totem woman, and their offspring will be Palyeria. Ideally (and I think it's too much of a headache) the = would intersect the vertical line dividing each group of two, while the ↑↓ arrow would be outside the rectangles on each side. See! We're aalrteady in more shit than Biggles, and 'don't go there', or if you do, ask me to email you a kilo of panadol!Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, you bamboozled me. I guess I'll have to add myself to your list of stalkers and see what you get up to. As soon as you use several of those templates I will swoop. I'll content myself with adding an up/down arrow ↕ here, but plonking arrows outside the table might be a challenge. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll ask the local monastics if they have some old flagella in their cellars: that may help me ease the agenbite of inwit for getting you involved, and incidentally loosen the bronchia by reverberation. Disinvolvulate yourself any timeNishidani (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for notifying me. I still think it's likely we should leave it as a redirect, but maybe not. Maybe if there is a deleted page, the person will discover why it is not an article or redirect by looking at the reason. I appreciate your look at this and your findings (and sharing them with me). I'm just trying to make WP a better resource, as you can probably see if you check most of my edits which have for the last couple years, especially, been formatting, revising and editing references/sources.--SidP (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I replied at your talk to keep the discussion in one place. For anyone noticing this, please check User talk:SidP#Clutch Plague because there is a joke browser extension which is effectively malware as it changes certain terms when someone edits a page, and that injects hoaxes into articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Check your inbox. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Got it thanks. FYI some WP:Notifications feature means an editor is notified when an email is sent, so YGM is not needed (and not needed for me anyway). Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, thank you for your work repairing broken convert templates. -- Marek.69 talk 03:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, fixing convert gives me something to do, and the beer looks great! Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The above editor is a newcomer and should not be bitten. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Sure, but "newcomer" is not right. Consider:

• old Wikipedia drama
• details of old drama
• srlink on Jimbo's article
• "God-king" (Jimbo)
• undue interest in an admin with an article
• reverted by an editor
• adds text naming the editor to a guideline

I noticed the progression and felt the interest warranted my nasty response (diff)—the "back off" might have been unclear but what I meant was that future editing should not continue pokes of that editor. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: I watch Template:Wikipedia which led to noticing the following comment by Judtojud at Nikkimaria's talk:

• Before you revert me again honey

There is no good way to respond. Who is going to spend half an hour drafting a careful explanation of the many ways that comment is inappropriate, particularly when the user almost certainly knows how inappropriate it is already. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#De-linking Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Judtojud (talk · contribs) is now indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Couple things: First, placing "AGF" anywhere on an article talk page is a poor choice. Placing it in a section header is far worse. Second, identifying "opponents" only encourages BATTLE mentality. If you read my comment, which perhaps you did not do, you'll note that I support the content concerns. While I appreciate your interjection into the disputes, I think it best to tone down the behavioral issues, which I think my edit did. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You do great work battling the people who try to exploit Wikipedia to promote things. However, continuing those battles with good editors (not merely "good faith" editors) is pointless. Ridiculous, in fact. Your edit pokes your opponent by declaring that (a) they are unfit to write a talk page heading, and (b) your judgment is superior to theirs. Wrong on both counts. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

So you assume this was a way for me to battle with editors and express ownership of some sort when I agree with the content concerns and am trying to direct editors away from treating the article as a battleground?! You read a lot into that one edit, and I have to say that you've nothing to hang your interpretation upon except your own assumptions.

I'm happy to address each of your assumptions if you want to stand by them. I'd rather you consider that I am in good faith trying to de-escalate a dispute in a manner that follows our policies and guidelines, and is one way that I've found to be rather effective. If you have suggestions on how to better address such escalating disputes, I'm certainly listening. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The situation is this: You engaged at Grace VanderWaal by making 9 edits to remove certain links in 4 days. You have made numerous edits at Talk:Grace VanderWaal to promote your case. That makes you involved in a dispute with other editors so changing their comments is highly problematic. If you were uninvolved and authorized to police talk-page comments, it might be reasonable to edit war with WP:TPO violations three times, but you are involved. I assume that did not occur to you because you know you are right and the edit warring policy only applies to other people who are wrong. The total absurdity of the situation is that, despite your efforts, the dispute was settled before your mothering of a very innocent talk page heading (1 + 2 + 3)—your edit warring has served only to prolong the battle.

The icing on the cake is that the talk page heading that you think warrants an edit war to change was extremely pertinent and reasonable given that it was in response to this edit. It also had the desired effect and peace has resumed despite your intervention. Why are you so concerned as to post here when you have made no comment at the talk page of the author of that intemperate edit summary? Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm involved in disputes in the article. That does not prevent me from attempting to de-escalate disputes there, nor should it.

I changed no one's comments. Section headings are owned by no one, and are subject to change per WP:TALK.

Whose edits prolonged the battle? Yours, mine, the two editors taking shots at each other?

You edit-warred with me. I came here to address it. I'm doing my best to listen and understand your perspective.

I assume that did not occur to you because you know you are right and the edit warring policy only applies to other people who are wrong. You keep returning to bad faith assumptions, and it's difficult to see if anything else is driving your arguments. I'm trying to.

I'll try to refactor rather than revert section headings in the future. You are correct, it goes across much better when I'm not involved. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

In conclusion, a known-good editor wrote a talk page heading that was very mild and completely pertinent to the issue being addressed, and I support that version of the heading, but your judgment overrides both of us, and you are entitled to have your version of the heading retained because you are willing to edit war more than me. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I believe I've presented something quite different and what I've presented is being ignored in favor of bad faith assumptions.

I continue to be open to better solutions, alternative solutions, exceptions, etc. In the case of finding ways to de-escalate behavioral problems, I actually seek them out.

Maybe you're seeing something that I'm not, but whatever it may be isn't being communicated. I think it best to disagree at this point and move on. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how your edit [5] and comment [6] are anything other than exactly what you argued against above. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned, you are great at the routine work of battling SPAs who try to exploit Wikipedia to promote something. The problem is the lack of judgment—like the carpenter with only a hammer who thinks every problem looks like a nail, you see every editor who adds an external link that can be challenged as an obstacle to be run over. It's ridiculous. Think of the damage the unpleasantness causes. Why are you posting on my talk page? You are the one who does not have consensus, so posting here is just another form of bullying, presumably in an attempt to drive away your opponents one-by-one. And drop the WP:FOC nonsense—do you think I haven't seen that tactic? Posting a link is no substitute for engaging with what good editors are saying. Indeed, ducking issues by posting a link instead of offering a substantive response is disruptive and shows contempt for other editors. Do you have to win every battle? Why not accept that the editor who added the link is a great benefit to the encyclopedia, and leave them alone? Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Any unpleasantness beyond the AGF, BATTLE, and OWN problems are hard to discern. I've tried to engage both of you to bring the focus of the dispute to the content, and try to work out what other concerns you may have. This isn't personal for me. I wish it wasn't for you. I'm sorry. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I know it's not personal for you. It is purely mechanical, and that is the problem. Wikipedia is all about getting an outcome that helps the encyclopedia. Removing a couple of possibly redundant youtube links is simply not worth the disruption and unpleasantness in a situation like this. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing "mechanical" about it either, unless you think following general consensus is problem. Likewise, I fail to see how the content changes help the encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Re your !vote on AWB cite reordering. I wonder how many No !voters have considered my point about the Reforder option, which I have voiced in two different places. I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON by repeating it over and over in that RfC. If you have considered it, can you say why you're opposed to it? The point is: "The idea of the Reforder option is that intentional out-of-sequence ordering will be far more effective if not lost in a forest of unintentional out-of-sequence ordering. In that sense AWB can be the friend of editors who use cite ordering, not their adversary."
The only argument against Reforder I've seen goes something like "I shouldn't have to do anything to prevent AWB reordering", and that seems rigidly unconstructive (and self-defeating) to me. It's an extra 30 seconds work for each rare case. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss: The RfC is too complex and is unfortunately occurring at a time when there is an extremely large and silly proposal on the same page regarding make-work icons ("Access locks: Visual Design RFC"). I haven't really considered extra proposals such as yours because the fundamental question should be settled first. I would prefer that any RfC on a wide-ranging topic be first drafted to get clean wording that offers a comprehensible set of choices for consideration. Adding options afterwards adds too much confusion, and that is the primary reason I only commented on the core topic.

Your proposal concerns whether AWB editors should continue shuffling references, but editors could flag certain sequences of references to not be reordered. Perhaps, but there are a couple of problems. First, it supports the concept that technical editors (such as myself) should feel free to make hundreds of edits per day (some manage hundreds per hour which should violate the bot policy IMHO), where those edits impose a technocrat's view of an ideal encyclopedia. Many such minor fixes are helpful, but they ignore the fact that real people write the actual content, and steam-rollering those real people is a very bad idea. I know of at least two long-term editors who have been indefinitely blocked for mindless fiddling via bots, and one of them, now unblocked, has commented at the RfC to support automatic reordering!

A second problem with the proposal is that it requires content-builders to put yet more ugly wikitext into articles, possibly in multiple places. Writers spend hours staring at the wikitext and they often hate all the mumbo jumbo, so forcing more on them does not seem desirable. I think a single template-per-page might be ok, but that should be examined after the main RfC. I would prefer an opt-in system where bots did not routinely reorder refs, but an editor could add a template to request that a bot clean the page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

re special:diff/751953888 which of the 7 points at WP:NOTDIR is related to your removal of this information?

Also re special:diff/751953641 why is it inappropriate to list a reliably sourced secret service name in the other_names field? What do you think this field should be restricted to? Ranze (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

How many of the recent attempts to add peripheral nicknames to articles have been reverted by a variety of editors? I see:

• George H. W. Bush
• Ronald Reagan
• Jenna Bush Hager
• Twinkle
• Talk:Hillary Clinton#Frigidaire

An encyclopedia does not attempt to record every factoid because it would then be impossible to see useful information. If wanting further feedback, please try WP:TEAHOUSE. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

My apologies Johnuniq, I am a new Wikipedia editor/user, and don't fully understand the nuances of proper posting. I am merely interested in improving the reliability of Wikipedia for other users and encouraging non-biased accounts of contested articles. What would be the proper way for me to progress towards this goal? Αγάπη Λάχεσις (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a perfect message, thanks. I replied at your talk (User talk:Αγάπη Λάχεσις). Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq,Thanks for the welcome message, gave me some good starter info!

+10 internet points

76CelicaGT (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@76CelicaGT: You are welcome! It is possible to become a little jaded after a while at Wikipedia, and it is good to see helpful edits from a new editor! Feel free to ask my opinion about any issues you encounter. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I get that; had some extensive forum experience in relation to my hobby/money pit(see username for explanation xD). Will hit you up if(when?) needed- mostly just have to figure out the correct syntax for all the functions. (like the colons fixing the non-indented first version of this comment) 76CelicaGT (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq! It seems that NFLjunkie22 has reverted another edit about misandry on the Zara Larsson page again. I gave him another warning on his talk page saying that it could be considered his 6th revert. Should I do anything on top of the extra warning or is that enough? Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. As you know from a message on your talk, another editor has raised the issue at the edit warring noticeboard: WP:AN3. You will notice that I put a long explanation regarding the edit at Talk:Zara Larsson#Misandry. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I had the essay userfied a while back. I trimmed down the page in attempt to have it close to "Wikipedia:" essays without contradicting existing rules. Maybe you can help me expand it. --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Competence is required and there should not be an essay suggesting otherwise. People who fiddle around in ways that do not assist the encyclopedia and who require significant community energy and time to manage are highly disruptive. Well-meaning editors who lack technical skills such are formatting references are fine, so long as they can take advice. People who cannot take advice are more disruptive than vandals because reverting vandalism is easy. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't cite the essay WP:NOTPOLICY because the essay says not to. I don't want to fight with you over citing CIR essay. To make you feel any better, I added the section "What 'Competence is not required' does not mean". I see the language as the main issue with the essay. I'm trying to improve it, but I couldn't do it alone. George Ho (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with every word you wrote to me at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #Statement by Johnuniq, John. But I don't have a section, and Soham asked me a direct question, so he ought to expect an answer. I have no intention of extracting and collecting my posts from the threaded discussion for uninvolved editors, although I commend your diligence in doing so for your own comments. I'm replying to you here for the obvious reason that I don't have anywhere else. Have you tried finding a post where you've been pinged in that nightmare of an appeal lately? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of just commenting on your talk because I did not want to post at WP:AE again due to the mess. However, I decided it was worth making my point in an attempt to counter the meme that seems to be developing. I see it was even raised at WP:ANI! It's amazing how much confusion can be created by so few. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I sometimes think that it's worth "lancing the boil" once in a while, and getting all of the hidden agendas out into the open. Eventually the POV-warriors will run out of things to say about each other. Now there's an idea. Perhaps we could designate a special page where one day per month we suspend CIVIL, NPA, etc. and just let them go hammer-and-tongs at each other. At midnight UTC, the whole page could be rev-deleted ready for the next month. Maybe it could be timed to coincide with the full moon? VPP anyone? --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Great idea and we could use the sandbox you mentioned which is getting off to good start! Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi John, I happened to take a look at my watchlist tonight (first time in a few weeks) and want to thank you for responding to edit requests on Jane Austen. I had an injury a few weeks ago and will be out for a few more weeks. I bought Austen books that arrived yesterday and I have every intention of finishing a full rewrite there. I know it's been slow, but stuff happens. Anyway, thanks again for tending during my absence. Victoria (tk) 04:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You are too kind Victoria. Handling a couple of edit requests was relaxing as I didn't have to think at all! I hope you will be fully recovered soon, and if physio is involved, do what you're told, no more and no less. Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Born2cycle and SmokeyJoe are discussing the notability of the person and the introduction to the person. If "POV lead" is not an appropriate tag, how else do I show readers the link to the section? --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a very bad idea to tag an article without a really good reason. Drawing reader's attention to a silly battle is not a good reason. The best thing would be for us all to ignore the fuss and hope the lack of attention causes it to go away. There is no serious dispute about the POV status of the lead. For the argument to be taken seriously someone would have to identify text in the lead which has a problem, or identify text which should be in the lead but is not. In both cases, a good reason for the opinion would be needed. Even then, there is no need to tag the article unless a discussion cannot resolve the issue. It is true that the two editors identified are unlikely to reach agreement, but there is zero chance of further input helping. The fact that no one is joining in (and we know lots of people are watching) shows most editors think there is no POV problem. Editors disagree all the time, and if this article should be tagged, a very large number of other articles would need to be tagged as well. It's pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

How do I proceed to take offline the discussion of restoring my login? Can you direct me somewhere? -Tom Haws 72.201.76.62 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This refers to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 151#Login and password reset from November 2016 regarding Hawstom (talk · contribs).

I'm super busy at the moment and have just dropped in for a short distraction. I can think about the issue in 24–48 hours. You might start working on a brief summary of the situation because the WP:VPT thread was quite hard to follow—I'll remind myself what it said later. Given you have waited quite a while, you might wait for me to get up to speed so I can make a recommendation. However, all I can do is email one or two people who might have advice. I do not know any WMF insiders who would adjust the database to change user account settings. When I posted, I was thinking that you should email a clear statement of the situation to Arbcom (see User:Arbitration Committee), and they would be able to work out what to recommend to the WMF person who responded at WP:VPT. I'll reply here again later, or you might remind me in 48 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I am looking at what evidence is available to link you with Hawstom (talk · contribs). The picture is confused and I have ran out of time at the moment. The user page currently includes:

Learn more about me at my Personal Site or my Business Sites.

However, an IP added that. Can you find a diff showing User:Hawstom adding those links?

I believe the aim is to have the email address of User:Hawstom set to tom hawsedc.com. At WP:VPT you mentioned having had contact with: User:Visorstuff + User:Sam Spade + User:Rednblu + User:Wesley. Can you choose two of those users who have been active at enwiki recently, and privately disclose to them information they can use as evidence to establish your identity? And have them post a statement saying they can confirm that with a brief explanation of what makes them confident? You should use the tom hawsedc.com account to communicate with them, and have them confirm that that account disclosed information confirming your identity. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings, Johnuniq! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 17:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers MarnetteD! Thanks, and best wishes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Johnuniq: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller talk 15:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

@Doug Weller: Many thanks, and best wishes for the new year. Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no way to engage with someone like Ronz[7]. I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. Engaging me is simple, as you know. Please refactor and then I'd like to discuss the rest of the same comment. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that I should archive this page for the new year. However I guess that will have to wait until you have finished complaining, although I would prefer that such activity occur elsewhere. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is about collaboration—winning every war is not helpful to the project. Even if you were correct about whatever trivial issue you see at Grace VanderWaal, the best outcome for Wikipedia would be for you to acknowledge that you are the only one in step, and move on. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That response, I would say, is not engaging in the subject. I assume you meant something else by "engage", but are not interested in clarifying further or providing supporting evidence at this point.

Collaboration means that people work together. You appear to be asking editors to not work together, and to use accusations that you will not clarify or support as the rationale for doing so.

winning every war is not helpful to the project. As we've already discussed, whatever "war" that exists is happening because some editors are making it into one. If editors would simply stop treating it as a war, there would be none. All that they need to do is follow WP:DR and WP:CON instead. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: while never engaging with the content issues that others try to raise concering why links should be retained.[8] No offense, but your approach has been to ignore the content matters and try to get editors to move on: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] To me, those all appear to be examples of not engaging in the content issues, and encouraging others to ignore the specific content issues as well. If you can find anything remotely similar from me, or if you could identify these content issues that you claim I am not engaging in, please identify at least one so I can respond. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the ELN about Grace VanderWaal. Would you please also repeat your "votes" in the Survey section above, so an admin will easily be able to count it? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't panic, I'm watching. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned your comments to the IP. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)