User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33

Binksternet edit war

The user Binksternet has been doing an edit war on the Chris Kirkpatrick wikipedia page and has removed almost all the content, even though it has had reputable sources added for all sections. Please revert that users changes to what it was before, as that wikipedia page is now very sparse and not professional at all. Please protect that page from future disruptive editing by that user. Katerpillarfly (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This relates to Chris Kirkpatrick. In my response at requests for page protection, I had a major typo. I meant to write You should be asking questions at WP:Teahouse. They would tell you that the text in your version of the article has too much non-encyclopedic detail. The general advice about dispute resolution is at WP:DR. The first step is to post to article talk (Talk:Chris Kirkpatrick) with a justification for the proposed edits. However, as I mentioned, you do not yet have sufficient experience and you should start by asking questions and seeing if anyone agrees that your text is appropriate. Finally, it is you who are edit warring—Binksternet is one of, I think, three editors not counting ClueBot who have reverted your changes. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
It is not an edit war, but my attempt to fix the vandalism to the page. Almost all of the stuff that has been deleted from that page is referenced (it is no longer non-encyclopedic as I have added references for all of it, taken some stuff out, and changed the wording for many paragraphs) but it is all being deleted without even being checked. Please check it and see for yourself. VH1 documentaries, Rolling Stone articles, interviews, and direct quotes from reality shows he has been on have been removed for no reason. Katerpillarfly (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
All I ask is that you revert the most recent changes that Binksternet did, because that was the edited version that had been improved but was changed without checking. Katerpillarfly (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
It's time to start learning how to get on at Wikipedia. Otherwise you will be blocked. The article talk page has not been edited in over two years. You have not asked questions at the Teahouse or anywhere else that I can see. Wikipedia uses a very strict definition of "vandalism" (see WP:VAND) and suggesting that changes by other editors is vandalism is a personal attack. Text like "Despite their struggles, Kirkpatrick's family was a very musical one" is fine on a personal website or perhaps in a opinion piece in some media outlet. It will not stand at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I was talking with Binksternet on their talk page and we have some understanding about it now. They have given me feedback to allow the changes. Katerpillarfly (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Amhara page

By who? 213.137.70.112 (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

See the history of the article. If there is a problem, please spell it out. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes. There is a problem. How come all those sources are getting removed ( including the main image on the page ) like this? It’s not the first time that is happening. 213.137.70.112 (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
You would need to be very precise about what you mean. Talk about "all those sources" and "main image" is not adequate. You posted about this using a different IP (213.137.70.127) three hours ago (permalink) and that IP and the one you are using now have no other edits. See WP:TP for how to reply to comments. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Spam

User:Hneuhauser is adding External links to numerous articles linking to a document collection (I am guessing the user works there). The links do not give any information other than the fact that the collection has some papers related to the subject, and it doesn't even state whether it is the principal repository of the subject's papers (which I know it is not in all of the cases I have checked. Please advise or bulk revert. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Groan, that's what anyone can edit means. See external links noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

House of the Dragon protection

Oops! Sorry. BusterD (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey BusterD, no problem! I was tempted to protect House of the Dragon myself due to the frenetic activity. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


Persistent hunting talk page

Please do archive the talk page or is there some other way to indicate that the talk page comments have no relevance to the current content of the wikipage to which they refer IsaacGouy (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I archived Talk:Persistence hunting. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Renaming a musical

Today someone changed the title of (moved) a Lloyd Webber musical to the new title Bad Cinderella. The musical has only been produced, so far, in the West End under the title Andrew Lloyd Webber's Cinderella, but today it was announced that the upcoming 2023 Broadway production will be titled Bad Cinderella, which is, admittedly, a better title for the musical. However, per WP:CRYSTAL, I can't help thinking that this was premature, even if it happens as scheduled. See also WP:NAMECHANGE. Also, the musical's first major production, in London, was under its original title, so I wonder if it is correct to change the title even after a second production opens under that title. Is there a clear rule for what happens when a work of fiction that was successful under one title changes to a new title in subsequent editions/productions? If you agree that this is, in any case, premature, would you kindly (1) return it to the prev name (but with today's subsequent changes preserved, (2) advise about what you think should be the case after the Broadway production actually begins previews under a new name and/or gets reviewed under the new name; and (3) can you think of a kind way to inform the editor who moved the article, Jasonbres, of what he ought to do in such cases? Plus, maybe we should give the WP:MUSICALS project a heads up.... Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would be best but have left an on-the-fence request for opinions at Talk:Bad Cinderella#Article title and WP:CRYSTAL. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack?

This editor has stricken-through information in an archive, claiming that my Talk page content was a personal attack, when I think clearly it was not. What do you think?

As you can see, this is part of another infobox dispute at Talk:Maddie Ziegler by an editor who has never previously edited the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Good grief, is there nothing better for people to do? Are Twitter and Facebook down at the moment? Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Here he is trying to dissuade another user from reverting infoboxes per consensus. And also here! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi John,
I noticed this online link[1]. This might result in more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS.
Google translate: ""The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Wikipedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."

Another link:[2]
Google translate:[3] "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Wikipedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Wikipedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."
Google translate of one of the comments:[4] "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"
- LouisAragon (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. Links to any affected articles will be needed if it results in anything significant, along with possibly a report at WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Tail wagging the dog

This IP (through several addresses), has been going around changing the description of people to match their categories? (note the edit summaries), and seems to be wrong in most cases. Consider, for example, this Golden Globe and BAFTA award-winning actress/singer. S/he wants to delete the statement that the subject is also an actress. S/he has done this on many articles and has edit warred about it. Would you kindly take a look? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I issued a warning here and here. All the IPs seem to be one person and are listed at Special:Contributions/2601:580:C100:2B60:0:0:0:0/64. Let me know if they continue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I think this edit was after your warning, right? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Done, see User talk:2601:580:C100:2B60:44E5:F2DE:215D:59A8. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hope you are well

I hope you are well.

Not sure if you recall, but you participated in a previous appeal to my topic ban. To my disappointment at the time, you did not support my appeal. I currently am appealing again at the administrators noticeboard. I hope that the concerns you expressed may be lessened or completely alleviated this time around. If not, I would appreciate you share what concerns you have with me so I can address them to you before you reach a verdict if you chose to. I look forward to conducting a dialogue with any inquiries you may have.

Best regards SecretName101 (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Nakedtruth

Regarding this DS notice you gave last week, I 100% agree that this user is solely focused on Hunter Biden and in a disruptive manner. They returned just a few minutes ago to disrupt some more. Since you're an WP:UNINVOLVED (I assume?) admin and I am quite INVOLVED, would you mind considering a topic ban or a p-block? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC?

Can they just keep opening more and more discussions until they win? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMaddie_Ziegler&type=revision&diff=1120104371&oldid=1118791715 -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that is the only recent RfC and I'm afraid it is part of the approved bludgeoning process. If there were a recent (say in last six months) RfC on the same topic, I would be willing to remove another attempt but if not, the RfC will have to run. I can monitor the situation and prevent undue argumentation. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Does everyone who voted just above have to vote again? Can the recent participants on both sides be notified? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
An RfC is judged on the comments given in response, not what someone might have commented a few days earlier. It's ok to ping people who recently commented (or post on their talk), but the same very neutral alert has to be given to all people who commented since a chosen cut-off date. Anyone who has already responded at the RfC obviously does not need to be notified. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Dev0745

You had warned him to stop misrepresenting sources and stop using unreliable sources on September,[5][6] but he has continued it.

His misrepresentation of sources happened throughout was already called out on October - November 2022 at Talk:People_of_Assam#Tea_Labourers. Instead of agreeing with the problem he was edit warring by terming another editor's edit as "please don't speard propaganda".[7]

His edit here just yesterday[8] is not supported by the given source. The source mentions "Mahli" only once in a table at p.65 but it has nothing to do with what he cited ("Historically they were treated as untouchable caste due to their occupation") by using a misleading page number "53".

On Kol people just yesterday, he described "some grievances has been come out from the adivasi leaders that the Biharis used to call them 'Kol' which means pig, that in turn aroused bitterness and hatred against the Biharis" (from source), a lame slur as: "According to another theory, Kol means Pig."[9] There is no "theory".

Used completely unreliable source here on 7 November.

I believe he seriously needs a broader topic ban. He is already under a topic ban related to WP:ARBIPA,[10]  and he is not stopping his cherrypicking, misrepresentation of sources and use of stereotypes for history. Srijanx22 (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Srijanx22: I'm trying to understand your third paragraph above starting "His edit here". I see "Mahli" mentioned in the table on p.63 where "63" is the printed page number at the bottom of the text. That is page 65 of the pdf. However, p.53 (printed page number) contains "Maheli" which is presumably an alternative spelling. Page 53 contains "the government of Jharkhand categorises the Mahelis ... as a Scheduled Tribe. In Tapu, however, in many contexts, the Mahelis were treated as the untouchable caste of the village". Bear in mind that I'm uninformed and short of time due to off-wiki issues. However, the edit in the given diff seems supportable by the text I have quoted. The English is poor but it does not (given my limited understanding) seem to be a misrepresentation. Please clarify. I don't need a long explanation, I just want to know if you are withdrawing your above third paragraph and, if not, what is the problem. I'll look at the rest of your comment when this is sorted out. However, I probably won't return for 24 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Struck it and improved that particular edit here to highlight the PDF more accurately.
I had a look into another article where he has used this pdf source and I found Lohra (tribe) which he created on 30 October. Here, he has made a clearer misrepresentation of another source by claiming "those who were following tribal religion or not following Brahminism were included in Backward tribes", contrary to the source that makes no mention of "Brahminism" or even its broader form "Hinduism".[11] It mentions "Buddhism" (a different religion) but it couldn't be a typo because it talks about "person who professes Buddhism or a tribal religion" while "following tribal religion or not following Brahminism" gives a completely different picture. The text version of this PDF can be accessed here. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Storm598 and Mureungdowon

Hi. Back in January 2022, you closed this AN/I report about Storm598 with no sanctions, as the editor claimied they were going to stop editing for an extended period of time. Storm598 was a Korean-based editor with knowledge of South Korean and Japanese politics, who applied standards and definitions of those politics to articles about American and European politics, with frequent inaccuracy, misleading the readers of those articles. Their account has not edited since then. Storm598 was the subject of multiple previous AN/I reports, many of them (if not all) initiated by me.

Now, however, beginning in August, another editor has appeared with knowledge of South Korean and Japanese politics, who is applying those standards and definitions to American and European politics, and edit warring in the process. This editor -- user Mureungdowon -- appears to me may be Storm598 editing with another account in order to avoid scrutiny.

You can find a comparison of the two editors contributions here. Bear in mind that the new editor has only 463 edits, so this amount of overlap is very significant.

I would appreciate your looking into this, and doing whatever you think is appropriate, or passing along any advice on how to proceed (I did not file at SPI because Storm598 is not blocked or banned). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I see many examples of the two editors enthusiastically editing ideologies but I haven't found two edits adding the same claim. If you know of any such diffs, you might add them, but don't go to much trouble because I think this will have to be approached as a new case. I have no recollection of the 27 January 2022 ANI report, but it looks like I closed it 20 hours after your post due to my concern about the editor entering TMI territory with "anxiety symptoms" and the like, coupled with the undertaking to take an extended break. It could be argued that that is exactly what happened so a block now is not appropriate. I have issued a clear warning although I imagine you will need to return here and let me know about the next occurrence. Please try to patiently engage them on one or two article talk pages while focusing on the issue and without mentioning the history. No more than two articles please. I will then be able to assess how appropriately they are responding to the content/sourcing issues. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks, much appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Convert and new SI prefixes

Just to let you know, I've added 4 new SI prefixes in Module:Convert/text/sandbox which can be deployed the next time you do an update of the Convert module. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Ouch, I saw those prefixes and thought convert would have to be fixed. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Augustus Harris

Hi, I'm confused about your revdels on that page. Did you mean to revdel while at the same time keeping the messages on the page, or am I missing something? LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 02:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean to leave the message. The revision-deleted text had already been deleted with an edit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

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, MasterMatt12 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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

MasterMatt12 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and Seasons Greetings! Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays from me too. I hope your holiday season is a wonderful one! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Hi Johnuniq, Thanks very much for your comments at AN, which were much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Five Pillars

Hello, you did revert an edit on the five pillars, explaining the (legal) status. The action is being based on a personal opinion, not a reliable source. The talk page writes in the section FAQ: " Is this page a policy or guideline, or the source for all policies and guidelines? It is none of those. It is a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles, begun by User:Neutrality in 2005 as a simple introduction for new users.". This can be checked in the history of the page. Count your Garden by the Flowers (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not use a user talk page to discuss edits. Instead, use Wikipedia talk:Five pillars where other editors will see it and will more easily be able to find it in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2023 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks! Seasons Greetings! Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy New Year!

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Johnuniq!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You are at the right place. I'm another no-thanks to Facebook. Thanks and cheers! Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

opinion on Telephone call recording laws

Hey Johnuniq! Given your revert on the latest edit to Telephone call recording laws, and the level of consecutive vandalistic edits from non-(auto)confirmed users in the history of that page, would you think semi-protection would be justified (and beneficial) to encourage content creation instead of problematic modifications? Thanks! Silikonz💬 02:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Silikonz: I saw your plea at requests for protection a week or two ago. I'm watching for a while and will take action if I notice suitable disturbance. Please let me know if 24 hours passes and I seem to have missed it. Thanks for your efforts at that article and don't worry about it because I will protect if disruption occurs. I have to wait for that to happen and occasional problems don't count. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the response. Happy holidays! Silikonz💬 03:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hey Johnuniq, though not as recent as you specified, would just like to inform you that this just happened yesterday. Also would like to inform you about the spam on the talk page, here and here. Thanks, and have a happy New Year. Silikonz (alt)💬 23:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
That's pretty weird. I semi-protected the article for six months and talk for one month. Thanks for monitoring the problems. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and Happy Holidays! Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Sparkle1

I left a long, custom warning regarding Sparkle1's behavior at their talk page here. Sparkle1 removed part of it, believing it was a template [12] (it wasn't) and responded saying my comments were "ridiculous" and was fairly hostile in their response [13]. This is exactly the kind of behavior people have been referring to. Sparkle1, in the same diff, also attempted to assert they have broken no rules. I made it clear to them they most emphatically have broken rules. They then banned me from their talk page (edit summary).

To be clear; I am not asking you to block. I don't think it good form to block an editor who is upset about getting a warning and venting about the warning. I am asking you to keep eyes on their behavior, as will I. Hopefully this warning sinks in and they amend their behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Sparkle1 rescinded their banning of me from their talk page. Discussion has begun at User talk:Sparkle1#Fresh start. Hopefully it proves fruitful. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    • I previously pinged the editor at 05:43, 29 December 2022 on your talk with a blunt message. If they are unable or unwilling to take the hint therein I will act although I will be dealing with the off-wiki problems I mentioned for some time. I won't rush into it but will follow your lead and try to point out the futility of abusing opponents. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new era

Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy new Jurassic era! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 16:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC).
Thanks B, that helps quite a lot. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Johnuniq!

Happy New Year!

Johnuniq,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Feeding National Library Board Singapore ID into Wikipedia

Hi, a happy new year to you! I am writing from the National Library Board Singapore. This is in reference to my question in an earlier post in Template talk:Authority control (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Authority_control/Archive_6#Feeding_Wikidata_identifier_into_Wikipedia).

We have created the the identifier National Library Board Singapore ID (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P3988) in Wikidata and would like to expose it in English Wikipedia under authority control. E.g. The National Library Board Singapore ID l26-DGZwOIE only exists in Wikidata (http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q6974124), but not found in the authority control of the English Wikipedia article National Library Board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Library_Board).

I've tried adding the National Library Board Singapore ID l26-DGZwOIE to the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Library_Board based on the solution you provided. However, the identifier does not display in the Wikipedia article. Am I missing something here? Nlbkos (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Would you please investigate the above. I have some off-wiki problems and have not followed {{Authority control}} for quite a long time.
@Nlbkos: MSGJ is taking a few days off at the moment but with luck will return soon and may be able to assist. It might be better if this request was moved to Template talk:Authority control but here will do for now. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Will do when I can. Happy new year! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJHi, would you be able to advise on the above issue? Thank you. Nlbkos (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot all about this! Will reply today. In the meantime, would you mind reposting your comment at Template talk:Authority control? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Thanks for working on this.
@Nlbkos: To spell out what MSGJ is asking, please post a new section at the template talk page with what you wrote in your original post above (copy the wikitext from here). Leave out the happy new year and don't explain that you had asked here first. What is wanted is a brief comment with the information needed to update the template. That will serve as a record for the future if anyone tries to work out who asked for this. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Please see Template_talk:Authority_control#Feeding_National_Library_Board_Singapore_ID_into_Wikipedia — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing official Instagram post

Hi, Johnuniq. Can you please check whether I cited this Instagram post acceptably? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruthie_Ann_Miles&diff=1133322937&oldid=1133315242 If not, please modify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not my scene but the general rule is that children are not named nor are their ages given without good reason. I don't see why more than the NYT reference is needed nor why there would be a need for the article to precisely identify the deceased child's name or age. The point is that the actress and her young child were hit by a car and the actress was injured and the child killed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. And I'm so sorry for posting this to your user page. My brain was not working last night! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote

Is this hatnote appropriate? If not, would you kindly let the user know? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fantasticks&diff=1135208706&oldid=1133509875 Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The connection is a bit vague but probably ok. I'm not sure how many "For..." hatnotes are appropriate. There aren't enough for a disambiguation page. Anyway, I edited the link so the anchor works and I would leave it at that. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Haddon Hall (opera)

Can you please look in on the recent edits at Haddon Hall (opera)? The remaining dispute ("Mannerses") is very minor, but I think the editor's edit warring for their preferred content is wrong; if they can articulate some reason why their change is preferable, they should bring it to the Talk page. What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll watch it for a while. If something happens, leave it with me but remind me if I miss it for 24 hours. It is always worth putting a message on article talk. In this case you would just say that the text is too awkward and unfamiliar. If anyone is interested they can comment but the fact that you put something on talk helps avoid edit warring accusations. That is, it's better to get in before approaching 3RR. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please remember not to make personal attacks against other editors. Describing a new editor as a "nutcase" based on their off-wiki behavior is not civil.      — Freoh 05:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Huh? My "nutcase" was a description of the author of the attack website. I have no interest in describing another editor that way. I suppose that someone quickly reading my comment might misinterpret it—are you really sure it needed to be redacted? This refers to comments at Talk:Steven Pinker#Pinker's long time support for race pseudoscience where an editor has an evidence-free claim that a BLP subject is racist.
I've just read a preview of this comment. Are you saying that the person who posted the attack at Pinker's talk is the author of the website? That possibility hadn't occurred to me. That thought raises all sorts of questions (is it the editor's user name which makes you think that? if so, they would need to either change their user name or verify their identity; would it be desirable to import an off-wiki campaign to Wikipedia?). Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I assumed that Nancygerette was Nancy Gerette McClernan, the creator of pinkerite.com. I don't think that we should reinstate your personal attack just because the possibility hadn't occurred to you that you were making a personal attack. You don't own the Steven Pinker article, and we should be encouraging newcomers to contribute.      — Freoh 14:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
@Freoh Please drop the personal attack accusations and the Wikipedia:Ownership of content nonsense. It clearly was not meant as a personal attack unless you think Johnuniq isn't telling the truth, and I see no evidence backing "own". Doug Weller talk 14:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it probably wasn't meant as a personal attack, but I don't think that means that the personal attack should be reinstated. I was pointing to WP:OWNBEHAVIOR to inform Johnuniq that Wikipedia policy advises against the kinds of comments they made about Nancygerette, which seem written with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions.      — Freoh 17:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Repeated policy violator Zachbarbo needs a longer block

Hi. Zachbarbo has ignored years of repeated warning by myself and other editors for adding uncited material and edit warring, which fills their talk page, as well as a past block by you in June of last year. I myself began warning him regarding the American Dream Meadowlands in August 2020, and this continued into 2022, and now today. That account needs to have a longer block imposed upon them. Can you help? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nightscream: I would have issued an indefinite block but I checked a couple of edits and they seemed reasonable (in addition to the problems you mentioned). I am taking a slower approach and have posted User talk:Zachbarbo#Final warning. Thanks for your patient explanations at the user's talk. We will see what response occurs. I am watching their talk but please alert me if I miss a significant problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

FGM

I've only barely been following the discussions there but have been noticing the daily reverts. I'm not sure the "Analogy" section is warranted, but noticed that you put it back so I put it back. Without SV that article will deteriorate quickly, which is probably why I've only been watching with less than half an eyeball. Anyway, thought I'd touch bases. I wish she'd shared some sources with me, but if she did they're now long gone. Sigh. Victoria (tk) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Victoria. I have a problem off-wiki and am now confused about what I did at FGM. I haven't got the energy to investigate at the moment but I think I thought that the material I restored was long standing and/or good, but now I'm unsure about both those points. I hope to get back to it but the current excitement is due to advocates from circumcision and I'll probably wait until it's all over before trying to evaluate the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Sorry to bother you. I'm confused too and think I've made the same mistake. Looking more closely it seems there was an edit on Dec. 24, diff that changed the long standing content. Then subsequent edits. Then edit warring. Waiting is fine. The edit warring seems to have cooled for now. I get not having the energy for it! Victoria (tk) 20:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not a bother! Sorry to not get involved at the moment but I intend to investigate later. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

VPT reversion

Why did you revert my edit at VPT? It's up to me to specify the syntax I want for the text I paste, and in particular I wanted the internal links to be clickable, and the unjustified (it alleged to be correcting indentation) drive-by edit of my own wikitext removed their clickability. On what basis do you remove my editorial choice by suggesting "you could try asking"? It seems both extremely arrogant (you know better than I do what I intended), wrong (I could try, but I'm pretty sure the other editor thought they knew what I wanted and was wrong). What's going on here? Is this how we behave? Did you think my es was insufficient to justify a reversion?! jhawkinson (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I've already tried to discuss Johnuniq's problems with ownership. Now they're edit warring other people's comments? I would expect better behavior from an administrator.      — Freoh 11:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@Jhawkinson: If your edit summary had been more positive (for example, asserting that you wanted the wikitext to also be a link), I would have left it alone. But you actually posed a question and since the answer was obvious (and the editor you were reverting known to be good and extremely helpful with that kind of tricky formatting stuff) I restored their edit with a jokey kind of edit summary that was unhelpful. I'm sorry about my silly edit summary but no one owns formatting and it would be better to ask, particularly when at WP:VPT, rather than revert on the basis that no adjustment should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I think you've misunderstood. The positivity of an edit summary shouldn't affect whether you revert the underlying edit. I think it's (somewhat) more polite to offer a self-deprecating, "for what purpose I know not." than to say "because they clearly misunderstood what was going on here and chose to inappropriately substitute their editorial judgement for my own." And furthermore, your position would encourage people to give briefer and more succinct edit summaries that don't explain their reasoning or thinking to avoid having people like you swoop in and fiddle with things.
The literal answer to the question was not, in fact, "obvious." Or at least, not in the way you suggest. To me the obvious reason I reverted the edit was, "Because the editor thought that the automatic linkification of the links in the pasted text was undesirable, which is a judgment call that the author of the text disagreed with." If you thought the obvious answer was, "Because the original editor did it wrong, saw it was reverted and blindly reverted the edit without any care," then your "obvious" denigrates me and my editorial judgement, and really you should just butt out of other people's conversations.
I don't know where you get "no one owns formatting," but certainly I own my own words on a talk page. To the extent that the formatting is a part of those words (and that depends! And I don't offer a rule for how you can tell!), then I do indeed own my own formatting. This is a talk page with people's thoughts and words, not an encyclopedic article. I don't see "particularly when at WP:VPT" is a relevant position: it seems an especially bad place to devolve into a silly side-discussion about a minor formatting issue, hundreds of editors pay attention to and watch the page, and they don't need to have their time wasted with such clutter. At some out of the way page that is monitored by few, having an extended talk discussion would be less burdensome to the community. Perhaps you mean I should have asked on the Redrose64's talk page? I'd much rather be bold in fixing my own words and not wasting everyone's time. Enough said. Please give more respect to people's formatting choices and assume that if an original editor reverts a formatting change that seems like it was trying to be helpful, but wasn't, and said so explicitly (Here "rv … as it specified syntaxhighlighting that is undesirable" [emphasis mine]), assume they know what they were talking about. Or, as you perhaps suggested, ask! But really, just be more respectful of others, and keep your petty reversions to mainspace. I don't have a beef with Redrose64, who I think clearly thought they were fixing a minor formatting error.
Lastly, your summation that I did "revert on the basis that no adjustment should occur" is nonsense. The basis was quite clear and was clearly stated. "syntaxhighlighting…is undesirable." Maybe pay a little more attention? jhawkinson (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


@Freoh: Your opinions at Talk:Steven Pinker#Pinker's long time support for race pseudoscience should not lead you to pointless reversion of my edits on unrelated pages. By the way, even the link I have just given is a WP:BLP violation which should be obvious to everyone. It's ridiculous. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

180.251.144.0/20

Hi Johnuniq. I noticed you range blocked 180.251.144.0/20[14]. Thanks for that.

When I saw this edit[15], I reverted it believing that it was likely the same as this LTA. Same range (here's the range contributions from the LTA page[16]), same target[17] and similar bahavior ("innocent or test-like"). Note that in my revert, I used the same edit summary I had used back in May 2021, linking the LTA page.

That said, I am less than certain now though. Glancing through their body of "work", I go back and forth on whether it actually is the same person. Thought I'd share this as a possible connection just in case it helps somehow. --DB1729talk 03:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. I'm afraid there are a growing number of peculiar people with a harmful habit so it may or may not be related to the user behind Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IPs adding broken interwiki links. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

See also items

Does this violate MOS:ALSO (Links in this section should be ... limited to a reasonable number)? I reverted once, but they have added it again. The other factories are all listed here: List of Tesla factories, which is the first item under See Also, so listing all of them individually is redundant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If they were external links it would be worth worrying about them but I wouldn't bother about wikilinks. The added links make a list of gigafactories as opposed to plain Tesla factories and an argument could be made that the list is helpful. At any rate, the enthusiasts have done that elsewhere, for example Gigafactory Shanghai#See also. Another approach would be for a navbox to be created for Tesla factories with giga, normal and former being separate rows. Only a real enthusiast would do that.
If you got in the habit of clicking the + thingy at the top of a talk page when creating a new section, you would not accidentally post on my user page! The + approach has the benefit of being immune to edit conflicts on a busy talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Gah! So sorry for posting in the wrong place (again). My brain has turned to mush.-- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Anne Ammundsen, bludgeoning, COI, and general competence issues

I am sorry if I made a muck-up of my edit here on ANI. I don't know what happened. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC).

No problem, lots of strange things happen at ANI due to edit conflicts. I only named you because I wasn't very confident that my edit would work and I wanted others to see what I was trying to do. For posterity, I'll add that this relates to a section at ANI with the same heading as that above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in Roald Dahl dispute resolution

Since you have been active in modifying the title of the section Roald Dahl#Anti-Israeli comments, I'm inviting you to participate in the dispute resolution at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Roald Dahl. Yossisynett (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

An WP:RFC will be needed, not dispute resolution. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey dude

Why did your ass ban all of Comcast Communications in Pennsylvania for one month because of one edit? You didn't even give them a warning and banned the whole range because of ONE person. Do you know how stupid that is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:301D:977:0:0:0:0:0/64 217.165.128.82 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is stupid that such blunt tools have to be used from time to time. Since you know your way around, you would know that creating an account is easy and has no downsides other than you would lose the warm glow from being a rebel who never logs in. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Return of the interwiki IPs

Hello Johnuniq, last time you blocked an IP for adding multiple broken interwiki links after I made a report on ANI. Looks like it's still going on on Special:Contributions/180.251.148.18/19. Do you think you could do something about that? Thanks. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 02:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Fehufanga: I blocked 180.251.144.0/20 for a month last time and six months this time. I mentioned Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120#IPs adding broken interwiki links in the block summary as a reminder of what this is about. Please check the IP edits and see if any need reverting. You mentioned /19 which is twice as many IPs. I actually didn't notice that before I blocked the same range as last time. If there are more active IPs in that range, please give an example. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Looks like I was misremembering, it was indeed the /20. I don't see anything outside of that, thanks!. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 02:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

New account from MinnesotaMethods

Hey, I just came across an account from User:MinnesotaMethods that we missed from last week. User:PontoonParty made an edit to Saint Paul, Minnesota on April 8 that is an obvious WP:DUCK. Same info about Carlos Correa being a year-round resident of the city. Thanks! NJZombie (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@NJZombie: Thanks, I indeffed PontoonParty. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Yet another sock account… Crockett Peters. Obvious WP:DUCK. NJZombie (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Done. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Let’s add User:Aeontux. NJZombie (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Today, 31 Apples and CCod12. NJZombie (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Done. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Yet another User:Juni001Axel. NJZombie (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the kind of persistent sockpuppeteer for whom blocking accounts achieves very little, as they just come up with more accounts every time. Unfortunately there is no really effective method of dealing with them, but my experience over the years is that blocking accounts and semiprotecting articles is much more effective than just blocking. Of course, as always when considering page protection, it's necessary to weigh likely gain against the risk of collateral damage, but in the case of articles such as Frogtown, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for example, where the last non-vandalism non-autoconfirmed edits were one edit in 20 July 2021 and one in 7 October 2020, I think it's reasonable to regard the risk of collateral damage from a block for a few months as negligible. I have protected a few articles, but there may be more. (Also pinging NJZombie.) JBW (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
You're right, thanks for that action. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Continued vandalism

Hi, John. Would you please look at the ongoing vandalism by this user?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:199.255.8.98 Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Fortunately someone else has attended to them, for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Why you don’t decreased Main Page protection level?

Why template editors can’t edit Main Page, and only administrators can do that?! 203.116.120.50 (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This relates to my decline of a request to reduce the protection on the main page at permalink. I'm not sure what non-admins can see by simply trying to edit Main Page but if an admin does that they see Template:Editnotices/Page/Main Page and "WARNING: This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it because it is transcluded in the following pages (which are protected with the "cascading" option enabled). ... Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Main Page". That last link goes to a subpage of Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items where you can read some mumbo jumbo which boils down to what I said, namely that an admin cannot reduce protection on the main page because special stuff applies to it. If you want to waste some time, you could propose a change at WP:IDEA but it won't happen. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Misspelled category

Can you fix the typo in the name of this category? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:New_York_University_Graduate_School_of_Arts_and_Science_wlumni Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I found Help:Moving a page#How to move a category and added the request (diff) to a long list that will be handled by a bot. I could have moved the category but as the help page says, it's better to let the bot handle the tedious editing of the 57 articles that use the category. It also gives an opportunity for those who are familiar with this stuff to object if they can see that something else should be done. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Per your recent contributions @ WP:ANI

Hi. I've taken my suggestion to wikipedia:village pump (idea lab)#Improving the semi-protected page windows 10 version history. Is that the right spot or shall I request it @ somewhere else?197.240.255.227 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

This relates to my comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block evasion at Talk:Windows 10 version history (permalink). WP:IDEA is a place to suggest ideas for improving general Wikipedia issues—it is not a place to discuss a particular article or a particular ANI section. Whatever it is that you want at Talk:Windows 10 version history, it sounds as if the issue concerns certain spaces in the article. You might discuss the idea of removing spaces in all large articles because [put reasons here], with Windows 10 version history as an example. Please bear in mind that moving disruption from the article talk page to a noticeboard would lead to your IPs being blocked. You are welcome to briefly discuss the idea, but if consensus is against it, you will have to find something else constructive to do. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Not only spaces but extra punctuation marks as well. Despite editors ®️ with previous consensus reached years ago, suddenly they became against me, just because I'm an IP user? How preposterous! If I had to find something else to ensure my request is marked done, then that could be wikipedia:requests for page protection/Decrease. However, I don't think it would be helpful (for the moment) because the page has been protected during the same month @ the time of request. Last but not least, I am not here to cause [WP:DE]]s as falsely accused by other editors. Any other thoughts or advices please?197.240.255.227 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
You have been here long enough to know that there are plenty of editors with strong opinions and there is plenty of disruption. Battles over matters of substance can proceed for a long period however battling over minor stuff is not tolerated. Perhaps you are right and everyone else is wrong, but you will have to accept that your proposal about Windows 10 version history does not have consensus. You have worked out how to shift IPs but you have not worked out that blocking IPs is easy. I don't mind spending half an hour blocking a hundred IPs, or IP ranges, for six months or longer if necessary. Any further blather about spaces or punctuation or whatever will show that you are not a suitable contributor with consequent revert-block-ignore. For your information, several extremely valuable editors (much more valuable than you or I) have got themselves indefinitely blocked after repeatedly changing the style of how wikitext is written. It only involves spaces/punctuation but it is incredibly irritating for other editors to see someone lighting up watchlists while fiddling to promote their personal preferences. It is always stopped and you will not be an exception. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

"I will block you if there is any further poking"

For what, exactly? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Please ask for independent advice at WP:Teahouse. Show them your comments and ask if people think there is a problem, or if they think there is a problem with what I've done. For a more formal review, ask at WP:AN. I will be away from keyboard for 36 hours but will engage after that. Johnuniq (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I will ask at the Teahouse if an admin should threaten to block users for vague reasons that they won't specify; I'll let you know what they say. Thank you for your consideration. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Follow up from User talk:Bestchest160713#Warning

Ten days after you left them a final warning following an ANI discussion opened by Jasper Deng, an IP's appeared and made two similar edits to what Bestchest160713 originally made. The numbers they're changing here can't even be attributed to a misunderstanding regarding rounding or whatnot anymore, they're straight up false. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about that. Meanwhile, I semi-protected Typhoon Noru for two weeks. You will have noticed that the IP is included in Special:Contributions/136.158.0.0/16 that is partially blocked. I would have done more there but two recent edits that I checked from that range were good. Special:Contributions/136.158.1.140 has only made two edits, namely the ones you listed so I did not block that IP, yet. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! Hopefully they get the point and stop; I'll let you know if they reappear over the next few days. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Pelium

Thanks for protecting the article, but the problems with SPAs persist [18]. Perhaps it may be necessary to raise the protection level further? Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Please bear in mind that someone like me has no knowledge of the topic or the history of edits so I cannot tell if the diff in your comment shows a good or a bad change, or whether it is a repeat of edits that have been reverted in the past. There is nothing relevant on article talk. Mkdw increased the semi-protection of the article to a month and mentioned sock puppetry. However, I don't see any blocks and the editor concerned is very active at List of wars involving Albania, with several others. @Mkdw: Do you have an opinion on whether it would be reasonable to apply WP:ECP to the article? For me to do that, I would need to see evidence that the recent edits are bad. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: No objection to changing this to ECP. There are two or three SPI cases that were open in this topic area. The one I looked into was limited to the two accounts other accounts. Illyrian5999 did not appear in that check and so I limited the protection to only the level which would have impacted the SPI case I worked on. Mkdw talk 01:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
OK thanks, but I think I'll wait a day or so before acting. Certainly if the SPI is endorsed or I can understand why the edits are bad I will apply ECP. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
It's a bunch of recently created red-linked accounts pushing a very distinct (and bizarre) "pro-Illyrian" POV at what is a fairly obscure article. They take turns reverting to circumvent 3RR. The likelihood that this is innocent is zero. Clearly they are socks or meatpuppets that are coordinating. Anyway, Mkdw has increased the protection, so hopefully that takes care of it. Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Page protection for Japanese curry

Just wanted clarification for your declining of my protection request. You mention that there was nothing on the article talk page discussing the IP vandal. Did you want me to open a new section there for that discussion? And, if so, can I use the RPP process or no? Incidentally, the IP vandal posted the same junk again. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: I took no action regarding Japanese curry. Viewing Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2023/06#Japanese curry shows that another admin blocked Special:Contributions/124.66.135.22. When that happens, other admins skip the report because someone has judged that no further action is needed. However, I have now looked at recent history and can see it is ongoing, so I have semi-protected for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi John, last year you indef blocked an editor for disruptive on Salve Regina University. A new user with a near identical username has just started making the same kinds of edits to the article. Could you please take a look? Thanks, Melcous (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Previously blocked editor Donovanjustin appears to be evading the block as Donovanjustin2

In August 2022, you blocked Donovanjustin. They appear to be evading the block as Donovanjustin2. Can you please block the sockpuppet account? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Done (same as above). Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Apologies for the duplicate report. ElKevbo (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Need help reverting an undiscussed move

This move: [19]. Somehow I was able to revert the talkpage but not the article itself. Can you help? (BTW, that newbie editor's new article on the TV special has exactly two sentences about the TV special and the entire rest of the article is about the album and the artist. Facepalm Facepalm) Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You might check that it's all working. I think it is and have no idea why you had a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The revert-move of the article didn't work when I had tried it because I accidentally revert-moved the Talkpage instead of the article (I saw red and just reverted what was at the top of my watchlist, which was the talkpage). Now I know that you always have to revert/move the article, not the TP. Once the TP alone is moved, the system apparently gets confused and thinks the article has been revert-moved too when it actually hasn't. If that makes sense. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Failure to act

Per your user talk page, you ask editors to raise issues on your talk. You have repeatedly admonished me for a simple grammatical error (including after I linked a diff that demonstrated I understood the grammatical error). You have elected to not act on the IPs disruptive behavior despite edit-warring, repeatedly accusing other editors of vandalism (as you say further up this talk page, suggesting that changes by other editors is vandalism is a personal attack), and harassing me with pings. Please reconsider your inaction, as you have demonstrably emboldened a disruptive IP with this kind of mindset. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I can say any more than my last comment at ANI (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Then your failure to admit wrong and take accountability is a concern. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
The background is that you posted a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious IP (permalink) at 05:10, 10 June 2023. I was the first to respond (8 minutes later) and said that I will watch the article and "will protect the article or otherwise prevent the SPAs from overwhelming it if needed". I said I can't take action now because when I checked the IP's last edit (diff) I saw that it was good and it had a good edit summary explaining why the edit had been made. Another admin might count the IP's edits and rate the tenacity of their comments on talk and issue a sanction (although no one has done that in the four days the report has been open at ANI). However, that circumstance makes me unwilling to sanction the IP when at least the last edit was a model of good editing behavior. It would have been better if they had corrected the broken English (as has now been done) rather than remove the sentence, but removing a problem from the lead with an explanation, while leaving the supporting text in the article, is good behavior that I am not going to sanction. I will still monitor the article and its talk and will take any action required to limit disruption. If I miss anything, please let me know. Thank you for correcting me at ANI by pointing out that another admin has responded there, but I don't see anyone else positively stating that they will watch the article and take action if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to monitor the article (I regret not acknowledging that, regardless of everything else, this is a good and generous offer). Let me know if you need my assistance with anything or require me for information. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
No problem, happy editing. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking?

Hi, John. Do you think YouTube should be wikilinked? It seems to me that everyone knows what it is. See this example. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That's arguable. In isolation, it could be reasonable to link YouTube in the article for someone who earns a living there because, even if redundant in that readers would know what YouTube was, the link should provide relevant information. OTOH, in the paragraph YouTuber is already linked so maybe YouTube is overdoing it. If it were a drive-by single-edit I might be inclined to revert but it looks like there is more to this case and I would leave it. You have probably seen {{YouTube}} which adds a link to a video and says "on YouTube" so overlinking that item is common. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

A much deserved barnstar

Anti-Wikibullying Barnstar
In his strength, a shield against the storm.

A guardian bold, with a heart so warm.

A pillar of power along the chosen path. 

Fayninja (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

incorrect Weta Trimaran information

Yesterday I edited the mast length on the Weta Trimaran. It was incorrectly listed at 5.6 meters (18ft) which is absolutely incorrect. The correct mast length is 6.6 meters which is the figure listed by the manufacturer and also the length of my own Weta Trimaran mast (258 inches.) I measured two more Weta masts today and they are both 258 inches in length. Can someone explain why my edit, which is correct, has reverted back to the incorrect information? Thank you. TCK3rd (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about your edit at Wētā Trimaran. Sorry that I reverted you but I correct a lot of changes like that where the result was a broken template (it displayed "([convert: unknown unit])"). I have no idea about the correct height and a change from 5.6 m to 6.5 m is significant, so I just reverted rather than fixing the template. Don't worry about all the complex options available for the {{convert}} template but if wanted, pick one of the following and use it to replace what is in the article.
  • {{convert|6.6|m|ft|abbr=on}} → 6.6 m (22 ft)
  • {{convert|6.6|m|ft|1|abbr=on}} → 6.6 m (21.7 ft)
  • {{convert|21.5|ft|m|1|abbr=on|order=flip}} → 6.6 m (21.5 ft)
In principle, there should be a reference with a reliable source to support the mast height.
Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Bestchest160713

They're evading WP:SCRUTINY after your warning with a new account, Ilovetyphoons160713 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See my SPI. Since they probably would've been blocked had they not created another account, I'd consider it blockable. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree it's DUCK territory. However I'll just watch for now and see what the SPI turns up. If the new account becomes more of a problem, post at their talk (which I'm watching) and I'll join in. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI that you closed

Is this type of edit summary acceptable under NPA and CIVIL? [20] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You know what is reasonable and don't need my thoughts on that. Please try to work towards resolving the issue rather than taking advantage of your opponent's meltdown. The underlying issue concerns what should happen at Colleen Ballinger‎. I would have looked at the situation differently if you had participated at Talk:Colleen Ballinger‎. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I first saw the dispute at BLPN, and I could not see this specific dispute or edit being discussed on the article talk page. A complete overreaction here from that person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I saw it at BLPN and saw what happened. The issue should be examined with regard to what should happen at the article: is proposed text properly sourced and DUE, etc. There are a bunch of inexperienced editors at article talk who need counseling regarding what is appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq/Archive_32&oldid=1163726281"