User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Your response at AN/I

John, I asked that editors not put their responses inside my response there. Can you please refactor? And your statement "I have not looked at the core issue in this report recently, but I recognize some of the names above and the mere fact that they are pissed off ..." is much like Softlavender's; essentially just "you must be guilty are people wouldn't be whining at AN/I". This is a not a fair response. Please look at the actual issue and see if you see anything actually deserving of any kind of sanction. Your comparison to those who do thousands of changes using automated tools is also unfair; all my work is by hand, one article at a time, with careful consideration. And very few of my edits have received any notice or complaint, so to assume that a few complaints now taints the whole lot is also grossly unfair. Please do look for yourself if you're going to be piling on. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw your request but I do not see why should you get top billing while responses are hidden. If your work is as wonderful as you suggest, why is there so much opposition? Are they all ratbags who must be swept aside?

Bear in mind that I am currently involved in a similar although much smaller-scale issue where (as I see it) the critical point is that an ultimately trivial disagreement involves imposing distress on good editors. This is a collaborative website with flaws, not a letter-perfect top-down do it my way business. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No claims of wonderfulness are in play here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I support collaboration and am not piling on due to recognizing some names. The issue is ultimately trivial and my point is that since helpful editors are objecting, the details of the case are not relevant because people should not be causing distress in the community over trivia. If something useful were being done, sure go for it. However, that is not the case. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, you don't think styling is useful; that's fine. But what editors are being caused any distress here that is not of their own making? Besides Mjroots who is disappointed that he can't just always capitalize Line, and new editor Railfan23 who thinks hyphens are for Americans, has anyone actually complained about my moves? Why did the others wait until an AN/I complaint to pile on? I keep asking for examples of what I have done that should have been considered controversial, but nobody will answer. This is nutty. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Styling is useful. I write programs and often have to drastically refactor code before I can even read it because the lack of style jars my brain and prevents me from seeing the algorithm. I'm not even claiming you are wrong. However, in a collaborative community, people have to moderate their desires for total uniformity and accept the fact that people are different and good editors are hard to find—don't drive them off unless it involves an issue much more significant than dashes and letter case. Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Has someone suggested that my styling has bothered editors enough that some would consider leaving over it? I don't think so. I work in an environment with pretty strict code style, and a general assumption that accepting the consensus style is a prerequisite to effective collaboration; I do try to keep in mind that it's not that way everywhere. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen a suggestion that the current fuss is causing anyone to retire, but drama drama drama wears people down and early retirement is the inevitable result. A company pays a programmer to perform certain duties, one of which is to conform with house style. Wikipedia is quite different. Contributors are self-motivated and unpaid, and there is no must-follow house style, regardless of what MOS enthusiasts would like. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that on WP nobody should be asked to deal with style issues if they don't want to. And yes, less drama the better. Cheers. Dicklyon (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A silly Lua question

Probably a stupid question, but can we round using Lua? The extension page for Lua says you can import #expr but doesn't really give any examples, so I thought I'd check. One of these days I'll stop pretending that I can just one-to-one convert my Java knowledge into Scrib and actually read through everything... Primefac (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: It's roll-your-own in Lua although using Module:Math would probably be best. In general, trying to call wikitext like #expr is too much overhead for a module, although it can be done. I don't recommend trying to read Module:Convert because I was never sure the thing would fit into Scribunto so there is very little attention to modularity or code reuse. However, it deals with rounding and I found I had to add some kludges to make human-expected rounding work in some corner cases. By contrast, #expr gave a better result, and I included the comment "Investigate how PHP round() works". However, I only noticed the tiny irritations because I looked at thousands of converts—it's very unlikely they would be a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Plus sign in convert outputs

I saw your edit here, and I just don't understand. There's no visual difference in the output (before and after), so why and when should the plus sign be used? — Huntster (t @ c) 07:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Huntster: Sorry, but this is going to be a bit long. From the point of view of the article, there is no difference between the following:

• {{convert|4.2|e9km|e9mi AU|abbr=unit}} → 4.2 billion km (2.6 billion mi; 28 AU)
• {{convert|4.2|e9km|e9mi+AU|abbr=unit}} → 4.2 billion km (2.6 billion mi; 28 AU)

The output in the two cases is identical. However, while maintaining convert, I need to periodically remove unnecessary items from "what links here" for Module:Convert/extra in the article namespace so I can determine which "extra" units are being used, and where.

In the above, when convert tries to interpret e9mi AU, it sees that there is no unit with that code, then it notices the e9 and tries to construct an engineering notation unit based on applying e9 to the remainder, namely mi AU. However, there is no mi AU unit, and it has to check Module:Convert/extra to determine that. That puts the article in "what links here" for the extra module.

After the above, convert tries splitting e9mi AU at the space and eventually makes an engineering notation unit for e9mi and a normal unit for AU.

The effect of using + is that convert proceeds in a different order. No unit codes contain a plus sign, so convert does not check whether e9 applies to mi+AU. Instead, convert immediately splits it into e9mi and AU and finds the wanted units with less overhead and without trying to look in Module:Convert/extra.

I have a note somewhere to investigate whether convert could be more intelligent so the above is not needed, but at the moment I just periodically clean up. That's rarely needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. So for engineering notations, pop a plus sign between units, gotcha. Would it be worth it to make a note of that in the /doc? — Huntster (t @ c) 14:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Faulty information

On the page regardingMadeline McCann, the3-year-old abducted from Portugal, her description states that she has a right green eye with a brown spot on the retina. It is actually on the iris. It is almost impossible to see the retina without a specialized scope, making it a poor identifier. Thank you97.123.200.93 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess you contacted me because I have the most recent edit at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I will post something on the article talk page later as the issue is not simple and I will need to look in the talk archives. Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I posted at Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Brown spot in retina or iris? saying that the text in the infobox is a quote from a reliable source and so would be difficult to change. Please comment at the article talk if wanting to discuss it further. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Hawstom login

Thanks for looking at this for me, and apologies for the delays and sporadic replies from me. Today I hope to be looking at your replies from my laptop. But I wanted to touch bases from my Android browser that's still logged in. I may be following up here from the laptop. You can always contact me using the web form at http://hawsedc.com/contact.php I think I have identified that as my business web site on my user page for over a decade. More later. Tom Haws (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

References by User:Hawstom to personal and business web sites

User:Johnuniq said, "Can you find a diff showing User:Hawstom adding those links?" [1].

• 13 Nov 2005 change from home.sprintmail.com to hawsedc.com (showing sprintmail.com is defunct; I think my Wikipedia account email may still be hawstom@sprintmail.com) [2]
• 6 Jan 2004 addition of "my business site" hawsedc.com [3]
• 26 Apr 2004 addition of "my business site" constructionnotesmanager.com [4]

-Tom Haws (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Issue summary

I cannot access my account except on my Android phone. I have been only sporadically and minimally active for over 10 years, but I am logged in on my Android phone that I bought in December 2015. I am guessing that possibly my account was compromised, since I very probably should be able to recall the correct password. I would like to get access to my account and set up two-step authentication. I am proposing that you contact me via the web contact forms at the sites I identified as mine on 13 Nov 2005 [5], 6 Jan 2004 [6], and 26 Apr 2004 [7]. The forms are at http://hawsedc.com/contact.php and http://constructionnotesmanager.com/contact.htm Thanks again for your time. Obviously no rush. Tom Haws (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hawstom: This is taking a long time and if I ever understood the issue I have totally forgotten about it now. I'll repeat that as an editor I cannot do anything. My intention was to help gather information and present it in a digestible form so that WMF insiders might take action. I will examine the links you just posted later but meantime have you tried emailing anyone while logged on as Hawstom? You might use "Email this user" in the sidebar to send an email to me and we can see if it works, and what your email address appears to be. I won't reveal any personal information on wiki, but you might like to include what you think the email address is. I suggest doing that soon because the cached information on your phone that is keeping you logged on may expire.

Re contacts, I believe your suggestion is that someone would use the contact forms you mentioned to send a secret message and you could repeat that message on wiki to show you control the contact websites. It would not be very useful for me to do that because my opinion does not count. However, that offer can be included in a summary of the situation to be presented to someone who can fix your logon problems—if they do contacting they would be much more convinced than if I were to say I had done it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, actually I don't know how easy it is easy to see "email this user" on a mobile. The link to email me from a logged-on account is Special:EmailUser/Johnuniq. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hawstom 1 March 2017

@Hawstom:

• Convenience user links: Hawstom (talk · contribs)
• I received your email that you sent just now.
• I do not want to reply because I think you indicated earlier that you no longer have access to some of your old email accounts. Further, the whole point of you emailing me was because (I think) you are not sure what email address you entered in Special:Preferences, so you possibly would not see a reply.
• Do you want me to post the sender's email address here (I would obfuscate it as an anti-spam measure)? The address is not gmail or sprintmail. It may be a work or former work address.
• Bear in mind that if you contact someone to assist regain control of your account, they will not want long delays before responses occur.

Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I beg your pardon and I appreciate your patience and dedication. Working with this via my phone has not been pleasant. I am willing to stick with this in a focused way if there is a path to a solution. You are welcome to post the thaws@kwhpe.com or tomh@hubbardengineering.com addresses, as they are long defunct, but I do not think that it would be helpful. Do you have a clear idea for a solution? It's clear to me that my addition of hawsedc.com provides a path to restoration via the hawsedc.com Contact page. But I am at the mercy of the community. Please just point me in the right direction as you have done so well to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.218.19 (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Tom Haws (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to continue this on my talk page unless you have a better suggestion. Tom Haws (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

See User talk:Doug Weller#User:Hawstom. I suggest waiting for a response, although that might take quite some time because the people at Arbcom are very busy. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This was finally resolved as confirmed by diff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

Can you explain this revision of yours?

Is there any valid reason to undo that minor change?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

lurker comment: I would have undone it if I had seen it first. It changes the tone of the sentence away from how it was intended. Why did you think it was a good thing to do? Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Using an em dash rather than a semicolon when a semicolon can be used is unnecessary. It is easier to read a sentence which uses a semicolon than a sentence which uses an em dash.

No, it does not change the tone of the sentence. Semicolons are a punctuation mark for a reson, you know.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Wikipedia:Manual of Style is not a good look and your edits were correctly reverted. There were a total of five reverts and no discussion on talk. I see you are complaining at User talk:EEng and User talk:Ss112. And more edit warring at Wikipedia:Red link. And now I have to justify my revert at Wikipedia:User pages? The way Wikipedia works is that someone with a proposal to change long-standing text needs to explain on the appropriate talk page (not my talk!) why their proposal is desirable. Editing is great fun but learning is even better. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Creating a talk page section for a minor, simple thing like changing a punctuation marks? Insanity.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I did revert it, after you put it back. If you continue to make random changes to WP-space pages, I will be asking admins to block you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing, mister.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'll look at it although I have found the frequent postings in that area more than I want to handle. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Atheophobia

The discussion at RFD resulted in deletion of Atheophobia. However, reading Talk:Discrimination against atheists, the target article was inadvertently renamed to "Atheophobia" but then reverted back to the previous title per RM. Does the WP:CSD#G4 apply to this? If not, I thought about taking it to RFD. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that but the history of Atheophobia shows I reverted a move in December 2011.

For reference, the log shows these deletes:

• 24 January 2009 JLaTondre (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
• 31 December 2008 JLaTondre (Deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 23)
• 25 March 2006 Doc glasgow (recreation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheophobia)
• 10 March 2006 Mailer diablo (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheophobia)
• 4 March 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (dicdef/neologism)

However, before considering whether the Atheophobia redirect might be deleted again, it would be necessary to remove "atheophobia" from the article. I don't know what the situation was like a few years ago, but a search now suggests that the term has become sufficiently widely used for any attempt to delete to redirect to fail. I wouldn't bother trying. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

wikt:Atheophobia now exists as part of external links. I'll find sources soon. George Ho (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Found one source possibly connecting discrimination and "atheophobia". However, sources connecting both may be limited. Alternatively, I thought about adding either "citation needed" or using the source. George Ho (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Surprised you didn't have the autopatrolled user right, so I've granted it. This means any pages you create will be automatically marked as patrolled. You've been around long enough that I think you can be trusted. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Thanks, and very interesting because I received an email to notify me of the user rights change, per the defaults at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback: SpikeToronto

Hello, Johnuniq. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
Message added 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

In a recent edit to the page Narendra Modi, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

When I edited the article to fix some broken wording, it had 11 instances of "program", including one in the section I edited, so changing a single "programme" for consistency was not a great wikicrime. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Aslan - NIAC

Kindly explain why a reference to Reza Aslan being on the advisory board of NIAC is deemed as an attack Azarbarzin (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Spreading a dispute over multiple pages is not a good idea. Please stick to the ANI report. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

In the like manner accusing others of using WP:SPA is equally not a good idea. cheers Azarbarzin (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Huma Abedein

People like you why people like myself hardly contribute anymore, you don't hardly look at substance you claim my talk comment was "generic" which I highly and utterly disagree, again thank you for running off contributors such as myself because I refuse to edit war. I am going to dissect every edit you have ever done and if I detect even a inkling of neutrality lacking it is getting tagged with a lengthy dissertation as too why. Huma abedein has been locked because of vandalism gee but my POV check tag has no merit according to you COMPLETELY DISAGREE, thank you for ruining wikipedia and running off contributors a massive problem by the way and even Jimbo has public talked of such. --0pen$0urce (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Your previous comment on my talk is archived here, and your explanation for adding a POV tag is at the talk archive. The explanation does not identify a problem in the article apart a claim that a section "seems rather large". Your tag was removed by me on 3 June 2016 and another editor on 29 July 2016. If people could just add a tag that stayed until the person adding it was satisfied, the vast majority of articles related to politics or anything controversial would be covered in tags—some claiming the article was too biased against the subject, and some saying the article is too kind. Editing at Wikipedia is easy to do—it's getting along with other editors and engaging with their comments that is the hard part. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Grace VanderWaal

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever problems you have with my comment that are so critical that you feel the only choice is to delete them all together needs some discussion instead. Feel free to contact me, or we can discuss it here. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We assume good faith and so realize that Ronz has no idea how destructive it is to mount months-long battles over unimportant issues. It's not a problem to post belligerent do-it-my-way templates on my talk because I have a reasonable understanding of human nature, but it is a concern that one quarter of the comments at Talk:Grace VanderWaal have been from Ronz, with virtually all of them sniping about one or two external links in an article under active development. Such hyper-activity shows an inability to judge what is important for the encyclopedia. Is it worth fighting that hard over the potential sin of an excess external link, regardless of how much it pisses off the editors who are developing the article? They are known-good editors who develop core encyclopedic content. Ronz and I could disappear tomorrow and no one would care. By contrast, the people who develop content should be supported, not harangued.

After the single external link in question was merged into the article, Ronz posted (diff) yet again on article talk—a post that did nothing other than to pick open the scabs. Two weeks after that, Ronz posted again (diff) with a misleading section heading claiming "No consensus to include VEVO link" (it was actually no consensus to include or remove—that is, the months-long arguments had been a complete waste of time). Then Ronz battled to keep their precious personal and irrelevant opinion prominently displayed on article talk. Having finally driven off the opposition and won all the battles, Ronz thought it would be useful to drop fake warnings here.

The underlying issue concerns Ronz's opinions about one or two external links. As well as the 90 posts at article talk since 29 October 2016, with more at WP:ELN, Ronz has previously pursued the matter on this page: 9 November 2016 and 4 January 2017. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Having finally driven off the opposition and won all the battles is the one sentiment above with which I vehemently disagree. The "opposition" stood and fought the tyranny, and the encyclopedia won. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record

... at least two editors believe the inclusion of a "summary"—as opposed to a direct, unadorned Wikilink—is soapboxing and/or grandstanding, and in violation of WP:POINT and WP:TALK, two long-standing, universally accepted behavioral guidelines. In view of these guidelines, removal of said "summary" is not edit-warring; each replacement, however, is a fresh violation of POINT and TALK. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

An attempt at summarizing your concerns

Johnuniq: Is it unfair to summarize your basic concerns as:

• I'm working too hard on something that you think is unimportant?
• There is a class of Wikipedia editors that need protection from other Wikipedians? --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha! Do I look so silly that I might think it would be productive to continue a debate with someone willing to devote the time and energy outlined above over an external link? You have made 90 edits to Talk:Grace VanderWaal since 29 October 2016—125 days spent arguing essentially over an external link! Then there are 900 words of notes, with more at WP:ELN. You noted yourself that WP:ELN closed as no consensus to add or remove—was that empty result really worthwhile? If I thought there were some hope of a productive discussion I wouldn't mind, but I know that some things are beyond my reach. However, I will post a response to the mistaken summary above, and you are welcome to have the last word, and another last word if I respond, although I have no intention of entering into a contest to determine who has the greater perseverance because the answer to that is known.

The above summary is based on a faulty model that assumes there is one correct outcome for every dispute, with no consideration for the overall benefit to the encyclopedia. Further, the model incorrectly assumes that the best outcome must occur now rather than after allowing time for emotions to cool.

It is worth battling an editor who adds incorrect or POV text to an article, but in a new article being actively developed it is absurd to argue for 125 days about a couple of external links. Understanding that requires awareness of human nature. The issue has similarities to old arguments over whether schools should use corporal punishment to correct undesirable behavior—beating someone would be great if it did anything useful, but it almost never does. For the case of Grace VanderWaal, a helpful approach would be to make a few suggestions, then put it on a to-do list for consideration a few months later.

My essential concern is that you are damaging the encyclopedia with no commensurate benefit. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, another discussion on this page (#Your response at AN/I) concerns a similar situation where a normally productive editor is irritating many others with months-long bickering over trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope we can agree to disagree. Otherwise, I think we need a moderated discussion of some sort to make any progress. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

New range contributions tool

I know you've expressed interest in this. We're currently discussing where it should live, given the advanced features it will offer. Please feel free to chime in at phab:T159568. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work—that will be very valuable when deployed. I examined the discussion and cannot currently think of anything missing. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI

You're doing everything perfectly and the people objecting to your style are totally wrong. We get it, in fact we've seen it before. However, please add me to the list of those who believe your policy of flouting talk-page norms by copy-pasting comments between pages is confusing and pointy. Many years ago, some editors replied on the poster's talk, but pasting junk was not fashionable even then. In recent years, the silliness of those old habits has been understood by pretty well everyone. By the way, posting walls-of-text laden with links has also gone out of fashion—most people know to press PageDown whenever they see stuff like that because experience shows that trying to find whatever point is being made in such a blancmange is a waste of time. If you have a response to a comment, just make the response and leave the blue links for beginners. When someone suggests that a particular IP is a disruptive editor, probably a sock, who is being fed by attention, they are making a substantive claim. The only reasonable response would be to investigate the claim and back off if it seems plausible (say nothing), or refute the claim with evidence. Arguing is apparently important for some people, but my suggestion would be to have the last word and then drop this particular debate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I read your first sentence a couple of times, as I kept getting interrupted by children. I was surprised anyone was going to say that, and when I got back to the comment, I realised that wasn't what you were saying.

I got my habit many years ago, as that's what others were doing then. But I thought it was more helpful to post the previous part of the discussion, so the context was there. It was always my hope that people would then copy the response and answer back to my page. But as I commented to Bishonen, I think it's getting stale. I'll probably change it soon to how everyone else seems to be working these days. Thanks for the tip about links - I got in that habit a decade or so ago, and haven't really thought about it since. Nfitz (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#IP_user_blanking_talk_page I felt I was there as involved, given my comments on his talk page and our unfortunate interaction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend (2nd nomination). I erred in that discussion. I shouldn't have reverted the unblanking of his talk page without discussing. Though I still feel that the user had every right to blank his talk page, and to some extent, unblanking it was taunting him. I think that people over-reacted about the alleged obscene joke. It was a pretty mild joke/jab about pudding in my mind. Sadly the user repeated it later, and is now subjected to a 3-month ban with no talk page privileges - which seems a bit harsh in my mind. The IP seemed to be doing some good editing until he got dragged, unnecessarily, in my mind to ANI. Instead of taking his concerns seriously, I'm concerned there was some prejudice because he was an IP, and because of his past editing block for warring. But I agree, went about it the wrong way.

Personally I hate arguing - although a lot of what some see as aruing, I see as discussion. Though the ANI case had turned into arguing. Thanks for the comment - it helps to understand how others are thinking. Nfitz (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

My comment above is copied from User talk:Bishonen#"The section above" (permalink). I believe you are correct to withdraw from that page and, with luck, from other associated threads. In the end, who was right and who was wrong does not matter. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Except perhaps for the person who was blocked, perhaps unjustly, for 3 months for an edgy joke about pudding. Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Nazism sidebar

Because of a multiplicity of new options, I've withdrawn the RfC you participated in and replaced it with this one Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank I'll be there. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No offense intended

With my change of <br> to <br/>. I thought it was deprecated because it causes anomalous display on syntax highlighter, but I see it is still good in html5. No response required. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Peter (Southwood): No problem at all—I am not offended. I was very pleased to see Tim's definitive post at WP:VPT (diff) regarding <br> and welcome any opportunity to mention it. I regularly adjust markup in comments when I'm posting so that's not an issue to me. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Live and learn! That post answered questions I couldn't even have asked. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Generally new editors know they are new and ask for assistance rather than tell others how things should be"

Ha! Haha! Maybe I'm getting jaded, but it looks to me like newbies who want to edit controversial subjects generally come here to orate about how the place should be run. "Newbies" always do, of course, but many genuinely new editors also. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC).

Perhaps my sentence is missing a "should". We know the internet is full of opininiated blowhards but it is still suprising to me that many newbies imagine Wikipedia needs their special insight—an insight which, they assume, has never been previously discussed. Glad you're relaxing by reading ANI! This is from ANI permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Module for converting currency

Could you tell me how to make a module for coverting money currencies for id.wikipedia? --RusdianaDablang (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Just curious, how did you pick this page to ask? I'm happy to think about modules but if you need wider input, please try WT:Lua.

Are you aware of {{currency}} which can format a currency amount (using Module:Currency)?

I don't know how converting currencies would be possible because they fluctuate every day, and there is no practical way to tell a module how to convert one currency to another.

Please spell out an example of what you mean and briefly give an example of where it would be used. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You know how this works.

Don't play games, because this is all on the logs. Again, asking for arbitration. DONE TONIGHT. meatclerk (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jessemonroy650: Please have a look at WP:TP to find out how to add a comment. In brief, click "new section" at the top of the page. I reverted your previous comment here because there is a misunderstanding—presumably you think my comment about a sock here was related to you, but my comment was about a completely different user and a completely different case. Now that I have been thoroughly alerted, I am watching Mark Dice and may contribute.

Regarding your message, Wikipedia does not work by "arbitration"—there is an Arbitration Committee, but they will not get involved in a minor disagreement like the current issue. People often arrive at Wikipedia and imagine they are righting a great wrong—the community is very familiar with situations like that. If there is a problem with the article, it is necessary to calmly explain the issue without mentioning other editors or irrelevant stuff like "sockpuppet" (actually, meat puppet as I see has been explained). No one cares about that—the only thing that matters is discussion about article content. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you I know this. I thank you for your measured tone and words. We will work towards the article content. I fear those editors in this will find the truth hard to accept. Currently gathering other editors on board to work on the content. All the best. meatclerk (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jessemonroy650: See WP:CANVASS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help with Module:Convert at Polish Wikipedia

Hi there! I'm trying to localise Module:Convert (and the associated template) for Polish Wikipedia. I have however a couple of technical puzzles I can't solve myself. Could you please help me?

1. The automatic English plural. I tried to get rid of it by using the method you mentioned for Slovenian, but in my sandbox the English "s" still appears (see "12 kilometr na godzinęs" there, should be "12 kilometrów na godzinę"). What am I doing wrong?
2. Since the Polish grammar is pretty similar to Slovenian, I simply copied the translation_table from sl.wiki (the main difference is that we don't use a dual grammatical number, which means 2 Ohm and 3-4 Ohm would have the same suffix in Polish but different in Slovenian, but the table I copied from Slovenian wiki - w:pl:Moduł:Convert/tabela_jednostek/opis#Variable_names - would work as well I believe. Or would it be easier to start from scratch and provide all the details for Polish language in one place and work from there?
3. I understand that for the module to use Polish localised parametres (say, "język" instead of "lang") I would have to translate local en_option_name = { at w:pl:Moduł:Convert/text). Do any other places need updating as well?
4. For testing purposes I placed the template itself at w:pl:Szablon:Przelicz, since we already have w:pl:Szablon:Konwerter that is tied to Template:Convert via wikidata. It's a very crude and simplified version, possibly based on English WP's template from way back when (2008?). Do you think it would be possible to replace what we already have with new version? It doesn't have too many parametres and none of them are named (1 for the number, 2 for "from unit", 3 for "to unit", 4 for number of digits after the comma, 5 for whether only converted units are shown - yes/no - an equivalent of disp=out in your Module I believe). So the problem is with parametre 5, all others apparently match and a typical use (say, {{Konwerter|15.5|km|mi}} would be consistent if we replaced the template altogether: <code>{{Convert|15.5|km|mi}}</code> should work just as well). However, can you think of a way to cope with the 5th parametre that is already there in many articles on Polish Wikipedia? Bot the hell out of it?

BTW, if you respond here, please be so kind as to {{ping}} me. //Halibutt 13:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Halibu: I copied your message to pl:User:Johnuniq/translate and will respond there in a few hours, or a couple of days. Please watch that page which I like to use so that there is an easy-to-find record of what needed to happen. I will probably see any messages you put there (you might like to put standard welcome on my talk), but if I do not respond within two days please alert me here.

Please do whatever is necessary so I can edit the modules at plwiki. I don't want to muck around with "Your changes will be displayed to readers once an authorized user accepts them". Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit reversion: commented-out references

My apologies for being late you notice, but I just saw that you reverted my citation tag on the Alternative medicine lead back on March 18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&oldid=prev&diff=770879168). Please explain to me the reasoning behind such commented-out (invisible) references being acceptable. They do nothing to substantiate the validity of the claim to the casual reader, only to those savvy enough to wade through the source code, such as experienced editors. Indeed even the manual page on the topic of invisible text suggests that they be used for notes to other editors, with no mention of them being used for embedding references. Foolishgrunt (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please start a discussion at the article talk page (Talk:Alternative medicine). That is desirable because the opinions of others are important, and a discussion at the article talk can easily be found in the future for anyone interested in the topic which concerns the applicability of WP:CITELEAD. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User categories

Full disclosure: I reverted your removal of my comment on user categories. So the crux of my comment was focused on another user's repeated accusations within the page, and I actually completely sympathize with the sentiment that such a comment wouldn't belong on the discussion (although that sentiment is really nothing more than a sentiment ... if you're talking about the comments in the discussion, it's certainly pertinent) ... yet it's certainly inappropriate to arbitrarily act on that sentiment. After all, I commented on the user commenting on other people's status. (I guess mine would be a comment thrice removed?)

If the sentiment you want to act on is "keep topic on user categories and don't comment on others' behavior," then obviously the various civility accusations would be reverted ... as would a "Don't engage the troll" response. I understand anon users are easy pickings, in a sense, and I don't mean to start a revert war, but there has been a pattern on the page. (I would point out that my other comments, which were on the erroneous notion that "fun" categories had the imprimatur of "Decades of social science" were content-focused, and of course that string ended in a user-attack.) --216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Attacking another editor (yes, it is an attack, although mild) in a long and civil discussion at Wikipedia talk:User categories is disruptive because it derails the thread and deflects attention away from the on-topic and detailed posts. I particularly object to your derailment just above the vital point I had made. Move your complaint to a new section if you think your views on another editor are helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose my point is that if you are going to classify it as an attack and therefore say it should be removed ... then we'll have to do some wholesale wiping of the page, since clearly it is not the only one of its kind - after all, my message was in response to MjolnirPants accusing BHG of violating WP:Civil (that said, I would dispute the attack label, but that's neither here nor there.) Was it not clear that I was responding to MjolnirPants's specific comment? I apologize if so, and I'm concerned that it must not have been, since I assume that would explain the placement (MjolnirPants and you had both responded to BHG's comment ... I was responding just to MjolnirPants's response ... so of course, as indents tend to work:

• BHG Comment

• • MjolnirPants response to BHG
    • My reponse to MjolnirPants's response
  • Your response to BHG

I hope that clears up my intent a little - I obviously wasn't randomly placing my comment above yours because of some misbegotten sense of importance; merely because my response was specific to MjolnirPants's.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Enthusiasm is great (six edits on my talk alone) but your views on another editor are off-topic at that page and they de-rail the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Not such much enthusiasm as I need to be better on using the preview button! But if you're feeling good in light of perceiving my enthusiasm, then by all means! Still disagree on off-topic or de-railng. Again - my comment was on the other editor's comments; just as his comments were on other editors' comments. You've so far not been able to make a distinction except to repeat that you think mine are different.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the IP's comment has again been removed, this time by a different editor (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Convert and Wikidata

Hi John. I think you added the Wikidata input functionality to {{convert}}, which I use in {{Infobox telescope}} amongst others. I was wondering if it would be possible to extend that functionality a bit, so that property values with given qualifiers can be used? As an example, with telescopes we want to specify the diameters of multiple surfaces (the primary mirror, secondary mirror, etc.). At South Pole Telescope (Q1513315) I can add this data to the 'diameter' property, using the 'applies to part' qualifier connect the diameters to the appropriate part. It would be useful to be able to do something like {{convert|input=P2386|qual=Q1395645|ft|abbr=on}} to be able to fetch the value of 1m for the secondary mirror, would this be easy to implement? Also @RexxS: in case this is easier done though one of the other modules. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I put some notes in my sandbox (permalink). I'll examine that in the next day or two and think about what would be needed. It's pretty baffling at the moment. If there were a template that could extract the information, one easy solution (easy = nothing for me to do!) would be to devise a new template that could be used as the input to convert.

• {{something magic}} → 1 metre

If that worked, then this would give:

• {{convert|input={{something magic}}|ft|abbr=on}} → 1 m (3.3 ft)

Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. :-) I've been looking into other options, and the best I can find for this situation at the moment is {{#invoke:wd|properties|qualifier|Q1513315|P2386|P518}}, which returns 10.0 metre (primary mirror), 1 metre (secondary mirror) - not quite what we're after, as it can't be fed into convert, but at least it shows the different values and what they correspond to... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Just letting you know that I have started (very slowly!) to look at the issue. I will probably have to do something because convert's logic knows nothing about qualifiers and could easily pick the wrong value for the diameter (that is, choose 1 metre rather than 10 metres) if Wikidata presented the information in a different order. This may take quite a bit of time due to distractions here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you so much for the new Module:Key. It restored the broken page Table of keyboard shortcuts elegantly. -- ElLutzo (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I hesitated before trying Module:Key because it looked difficult, but it was reasonably straightforward once I started. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Why be rude?

Many Youtubers like Thinknoodles, Guava Juice, Logan Paul, and more Were hacked today.Should we talk about this?208.114.36.245 (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2017 (Central Time)

Don't you have your own website? Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

What was that about!208.114.36.245 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This refers to Talk:OurMine#New Attack (Attack Ended). Sorry that I was curt, but your comment arrived at an awkward time. I'm very happy with IP editors and have worked with, and defended, them on several occasions. However, it is unfortunate that there is no practical way to discern which IPs are genuine contributors when many shifting IPs are being used by members of the article's organization who often try to slant the article. The history of OurMine shows that 70 edits occurred in six hours on 14 April 2017, with IPs and new users adding unsourced promotional text, and with editors removing it. Further, many attempts have been made to turn the article into a promotional blog in the past. The good news is that another editor gave a proper answer to your question on the article talk page. Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! If given the opportunity, I might make a profile.208.114.45.44 (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.54.196 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Hi John, thank you for your prolific work in replacing templates today, a job I don't fully understand, but one that, I suspect, is very important all the same. Cheers. CassiantoTalk 21:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind! Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

My ANI

Would it be possible for you to read this <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=782647507> before my ANI is closed? Otherwise, I am perfectly fine to receive the warning and/or topicban, and learn a good deal more before I participate again in XfD. Newimpartial (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I happened to be writing it while you wrote your much pithier comment, so mine was blocked and I had to redo. Newimpartial (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I moved the above from my user page to here. Using "new section" at the top is the best way to add a new topic. I will look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Newimpartial in due course and see if there is something where my comment might help, but my opinion is that far too much time has been spent on the issue already, and the sooner everyone stops commenting the better. I recommend that we each find something else to work on. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: The ANI discussion has been closed (good) so I am recording a comment here that I was about to add there: A reason for wanting to keep WP:NOTWEBHOST user pages might be seen in Newimpartial's first edits. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Lol, Johnuniq. Too true. It wasn't my YAMB - and it was long before Myspace - but yeah. :) And yes, it's good that the ANI is closed.

By the way, isn't it the case that submitting other people's drafts to AfC in order to get them rejected and to delete drafts more rapidly is not really with WP:CONSENSUS. I am talking about these diffs, for instance: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&diff=782622707&oldid=782622643> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vulcan1812/Bagley,_Alabama&action=history>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&curid=26467366&diff=782648198&oldid=782647878>. I didn't see you respond to that situation.Newimpartial (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Great catch Johnuniq! I figured he had some history to get these weird ideas. Given the warning on the ANi, the continued attempts to cast doubt on my work above is out of line and may be grounds for a block. I'll just say that not only do I understand the policy area well, but my clean up efforts lead to some of it being revised after a couple of editor engaged in the same misguided pro-SPAM crusade this editor is following. It is perfectly fine to submit stale user pages to AfC, it's an option right in several guides for the issue like at the bottom here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stale_userspace_drafts . What happens next depends on various factors. A AfC submission does lead to unapplicable templates on my talkpage (the templates work well for the normal AfC submission by a new editor). The tenplates on my talk page don't bother me, and should not concern anyone else. Remember that while a large part of stale userspace is junk to delete, there are exceptions. Some actions we take are to move content with potential into or toward mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think that's what Johnuniq meant lol.

As far as I can tell, though, the threads cited in WP:STALE still inform the current state of WP:CONSENSUS which Legacypac is defying here. Submitting drafts to AfC in order to get them rejected and deleted has been a blockable offense, has it not? Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, just a comment re: It is perfectly fine to submit stale user pages to AfC - while the guidelines allow us to do this, it has been (for a while now) frowned upon to submit-then-immediately-decline someone else's draft purely for the purposes of letting it get to G13 down the road. It's viewed as slightly gaming the system. I honestly have no idea what Newimpartial's talking about with all the ALLCAPS, but I thought I'd weigh in from an AFCH perspective. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the two consensus discussions cited in WP:STALE, nothing else. 17:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct Primefac, I've submitted a couple drafts to AfC that I feel have potential but are not ready for mainspace, in the hopes that some editor will take the comments and fix the issues. Occasionally AfC is also a fast way to get another set of eyes and an assessment on an article to guide in further actions. This convoluted "submit to AfC to back door delete" idea got started by an editor or two who wanted to invent a new thought crime to rail against. Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, right, misunderstood your statement. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Given all the other avenues like CSD, MfD, blanking, redirecting, etc submitting to AfC in the hopes it will be deleted in 6 months has to be the slowest dumbest option available to remove unsuitable content. Laughable to accuse someone of this. Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It may seem silly, but it's happened in the past. I seem to recall we noticed it once because about 400 drafts popped up as G13-ready in a space of about two days, all last-edited by the same user. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Franzboas master account

Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks BMK, and thanks for returning to the chore of delivering very sensible advice at various noticeboards. I have been following the issue and will have a look, and have my own theory on the identity of the master account based on the tip from NYB's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:REFSPAM

Hi John, just curious, why you think that the info about current domains volume was considered as spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necser (talk • contribs) 11:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see my reply at User talk:Necser#External links. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Coatrack??

You brought up an engaging point on my recent contribution to the article on DeBerry, Texas (about one of my contributions being a 'coatrack' type submission.....I was previously unfamiliar with the term, in terms of encyclopedic articles). Please spend a bit of time looking at the article on Jasper, Texas (I've never contributed to that article). What is the difference? A horrible kidnapping/murder took place there. It got much more national coverage than the abduction/murder which occurred in DeBerry---(Jasper is a slightly larger town, mind you....but only just). I've seen that, in term of towns (and their histories).....almost any contribution here can be deleted as a trifling contribution, depending on the mood of any given editor (God knows, that applies to nearly anything here.) But, honestly.....I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. What is a noteworthy contribution for ANY town, honestly? --Bddmagic (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This issue should be discussed at Talk:DeBerry, Texas so other editors can easily find it.

Re Jasper, Texas, the general rule is WP:OSE (the fact that other stuff exists does not influence what should occur at DeBerry, Texas). However, the difference is easily seen in "catapulted Jasper into national news and led to the creation of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act."—that has national significance.

As a matter of interest, this diff shows the article is essentially unchanged since 6 December 2010, apart from some minor adjustments and text about climate. That is despite numerous attempts for various crimes to be reported. I don't think much more need be said than what I had in my edit summary (diff): "if the incidents are notable (they are not) write an article about them; an article about a location is not the place to record someone's badness". The problem is that articles would be overrun with crime reports if they were not routinely removed. Any serious assault is horrific but unfortunately the world is awash with such events and only notable events are recorded at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just looking at that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sir Xenophrenic and the Green Sock

Hey, I noticed your comment on an ANI thread that was closed before I got there. A bunch of the names seemed vaguely familiar, but EditorInteract is down so I can't easily confirm.

... and then I looked at their contribs and saw that ATL was interested in Irish politics, and immediately remembered where I had encountered him before.[8] But it seemed weird to see a sock proposing a TBAN, you opposing it, and some other editors casually supporting it based apparently on their dislike of the editor in question. I'm pretty sure ArbCom subtly condemned that kind of behaviour as "hounding" at one time.

The whole affair seemed rather ugly, anyway.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

And then I clicked "Save changes" and saw the thread immediately above and that you had apparently commented on that other case as well. It's funny how often essentially the same problem can show up on ANI with multiple unrelated groups of users at roughly the same time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Figured it out. Xeno and I were both targetted by this guy before he got himself blocked for socking. It is a small world after all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have seen ATL making fairly misguided edits in a number of places, but I suspect his motivation is different from others who supported a topic ban at ANI permalink. My guess (without investigation) is that ATL believes (per "Logician") his logical conclusion that the atheists category is justified, while at least some others reach the same conclusion based on a dislike of atheism, perhaps due to religious conviction or dislike of some atheists who speak aggressively about religion. That is almost certainly correct in the case of your "this guy" mention. I haven't looked at the reasoning behind the ATL indef—I might have a look if the case gets reviewed. If you notice such a review, please let me know. I am lost regarding the "Sir" and the "Green Sock" in the heading (green = Ireland??), but that doesn't matter. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I didn't really put much thought into the metaphor (I'm not actually that familiar with the story), but it wouldn't surprise me if I accidentally hit on some deep meaning I wasn't aware of.

Anyway, I was being coy. The comment that I thought was really ugly was this one. Drive-by comment by an obvious wiki-stalker who had never posted to ANI before, without even explaining where he had encountered his stalkee before.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and that article looks interesting and more of my ignorance is exposed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Apparently the "sock" was unblocked. Not planning on reading through the massive discussions on their user talk page and the SPI, so not sure if it was just a "reasonable doubt" affair or if it was the kind of thing where our having referred to them as a sock could be considered an NPA-violation. But better play it safe: consider my statements above to that effect retracted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the return. Unfortunately it has only enhanced the sense of entitlement. Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, people who get blocked as socks and are subsequently unblocked have that tendency. I remember CU caught some random nobody in the Kauffner net, said user spent some undisclosed amount of time and effort trying to get unblocked by ArbCom, and then after being unblocked devoted almost all of their activity to trying to eliminate indefinite blocks and possibly CU for the entire project until Drmies and I reminded him that he was unblocked to allow him to contribute to the encyclopedia. And don't get me started on this mess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo helmet

Hi there. Did you intend to delete the Godfrid Storms article when you edited the Sutton Hoo helmet page? Just not sure what the reason for doing so would be otherwise. Thanks! --Usernameunique (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Sorry, that was a total blunder. Thanks for catching it. I've been doing dozens of these (background) and I'm afraid I missed the fact that you added that text soon before my edit. Hard to see how I missed it because I always check "Show changes" as a guard against recent edits, but it happens. I did notice it was an interesting article, thanks for writing it! Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries! Was just confused by it. In turn, thanks for picking up on and correcting the conversion error. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Answering your edit summary for WP:BLOCKING POLICY

It takes 3 of them. Have a good day. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 07:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Some chartreuse for you

	Green chartreuse
	For your comment here regarding the work that our hardworking new page patrollers do. It is refreshing to see that acknowledged at a larger forum by members of the community. For that, you deserve the greatest of the monastic liqueurs. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Commenting was easy to do. A breathtaking naivety is shown by many when discussions about new page patrol occur. No worries, they say, someone else will clean up the mess! Just let it pile up. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Template issues

I'm having an issue with a template and was wondering if you could help me fix it. When it was first created, the text followed on the same line, but now it's doing strange things...for example Just curious... should allow this text to be inline with the template not unlike  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough. Can you help? Atsme 17:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I fixed {{Justcurious}} with this edit, so now the above text appears as was intended. I added your user name as you must have accidentally used five tildes to sign. Happy editing. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop fiddling with my templates! I broke it on purpose! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)