User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

IPv6 security tools

Hi,

I was wondering why you removed the section on open source ipv6 security tools.

Thanks, Fernando FGont (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@FGont: Is this referring to the article IPv6? I don't recall removing anything about ipv6 security tools. Perhaps someone else did? I had a look at IPv6 history and all I can find is this edit which removed a heading but that can't be what you mean. Please copy/paste the article title and tell me roughly when the text was present so I know how far back to look in the history.
By the way, I'm feeling guilty about the last time I spoke with an RFC author because I never got around to fixing the issue we discussed here. It refers to the wording at Transmission Control Protocol#Forcing data delivery. It would be good if you felt like investigating that. At any rate, this note might remind me. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: All You Need is Pag-Ibig

In regards to the vandalism, here's a diff for context. The IP-hopper kept on adding redundant and unneeded cast information on the article, which even someone who has little to no idea on the subject point out, as both the infobox and cast sections already provided what the IP hopper insisted on peppering the article with. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Blakegripling ph: I removed my decline at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#All You Need Is Pag-ibig and added a comment asking for another admin to investigate. If that is ignored, please post again. I understand about IPs and others who add cruft but that is a rather subjective issue which would benefit from a link to a central discussion showing a clear consensus. If such a link exists, it should be used in edit summaries that revert the additions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Routing Internet Protocol

Hi, I see your a regular editor to the Routing Information Protocol page. Another editor removed an external link I shared. I was wondering if you'd review the post and if you agree it makes sense to re-add it. If you disagree it belongs, I understand, but I've found it difficult to find really useful examples on how to configure RIP in networks. The link was an external link and can be viewed at [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Routingpro (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Routingpro: Sorry, no I'm not going to support the addition of that link. Adding links at Wikipedia is problematic because for every case where someone adds a link to benefit readers, there are ten cases where people add links to promote external websites. It is particularly difficult when the editor adding the link has made few other edits that might show their commitment to the encyclopedia. Google is the best way to find specific links for current information relating to a particular topic. By the way, it's best to click "new section" or "new topic" or "+" in the top row of a talk page (next to "edit this page"). That puts the new comment at the bottom which is standard here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Thanks for your feedback. Appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Routingpro (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

kurtoskalacs

Dear Johnuniq,

My name is Cakeseed, I am a kurtoskalacs manufacturer from Transylvania, running my business in several countries in Europe. I would kindly like to ask you to stop the vandalism of MrOllie and Nigos, who deleted multiple times a paragraph on the International Kurtosh Kalach Trade Coroporation, including the only English-language references and the reference of the EU-TSG documentation, being now in the fornt of the European Commission.

If you have a closer look on the wikipedia article, you will observe that 90% of the references and the text comes from the homepage to the Trade Corporation. You will also observe that a central issue nowdays in the community is the preparation of the EU-TSG documentation. Moreover, the Trade Corporation edited the only book about the cultural history of the cake.

Nigos and MrOllie are frustarted and self-proclamed experts who just destroy and cannot contribute.

sincerely yours, Cakeseed --Cakeseed (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cakeseed: Please declare any COI you have with Peter Hantz, as you seem to be working on his behalf. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 09:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This relates to my semi-protection of Kürtőskalács from a request at WP:RFPP. The OP has been indeffed as a sock. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear John,

My name is Cakeseed. I am a kurtosh baking craftman from Transylvania asked by the International Kurtosh Kalach Trade Corporation to review the so-called TSG (EU-Traditional Specialty Guaranteed) document (see http://www.kurtos.eu/dl/HKT181122HU.pdf). In near future, this will be handed to the European Commission and will literally define the kurtoskalacs. In the EU, only the cakes baked along this (quite broad) class of recipes could be called kurtoskalacs. The process is orchestrated by the Trade Corporation, they will summarize the experts' opinions and draft the final version of the TSG document.

I had to learn that, from the part of certain Wikipedia editors, there is a hysteric hate against prof. Peter Hantz, who is the founder and one of the leaders of the trade corporation (not the president any more). This hate probably roots in the fact that prof. Hantz revealed a series of plagiarisms, including some in the field of the kurtoskalacs literature. Actually he researched and wrote about 80% of the present kurtoskalacs article on the Hungarian and English wikipedia, and edited the only English-language reference on the cake (see http://www.kurtos.eu/dl/kurtos_leporello_en.pdf). Most pictures from the article were also made by himself. Note that one of his lectures figures in the reference list of the article.

All of the mentioned documents (includiong the TSG), as well as the only book on the kurtoskalacs, and a sentence on the Trade Corporation and the TSG process were deleted by some editors who I think have no clue about the field (e.g. confused the nonprofit trade corporation of the kurtosh bakers and related experts with a company). Since I'm just a food engineer and not a wikipedia editor, could somebody help me to restore the paragraph with the mentioned three references?

Even my account was blocked, and IP addresses of several public libraries in Transylvania were also blocked from where I tried to edit. This is the reason why I am not logged in.

If you want to see the references (the TSG document, the only English document on the kurtoskalacs and the book on the cultural history on the cake) mentioned above, please visit the German or the Hungarian wiki page of the kurtoskalacs, or the official page of the Trade Corporation (www.kurtos.eu, Documents)

best, Cakeseed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.2.193.201 (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Favonian: The above message claims to be from Cakeseed (talk · contribs). Please take whatever action you feel appropriate (remove this section including my reply if you like). Re Kürtőskalács: The editors at Wikipedia have no interest in the issues mentioned above. All that counts here are reliable sources. Wikipedia should not be used to promote interests or right great wrongs. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The above section was created by a sock of Peter.hantz. Please block 5.2.193.201. Thanks. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 12:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but there's not much point in blocking the IP which has not done anything since the above. The disruption is irritating but it's pretty minor in terms of Wikipedia's problems and I don't think we should worry. Please let me know if further problems occur. Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • de:Peter Hantz and hu:Hantz Péter
  • They appear to be translated from the same source, as a Google Translate translation gives nearly identical English versions. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 12:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Nigos: I hope it's not a problem but I moved your comment to here so I will remember what it is in connection with. Thanks for the background. We can't do anything about the other Wikipedias but there is no way the attempt to create a similar article here would work. Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

SACD page edit war

Thanks for stepping in and locking that page last night. As it turns out, the person who keeps reverting my changes actually belongs to the professional society responsible for the study being disputed. How does Wikipedia handle apparent conflicts of interest like this, and how can this dispute best be handled without another edit war breaking out? I only occasionally edit on wikipedia (I don't have the time to devote to it that others do), so I've not navigated these kinds of waters here before. Thanks. Dharmabumstead (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dharmabumstead: I'll have a look at Super Audio CD later but I only protected the article because protection was requested at WP:RFPP to stop the edit war. You may not be aware of WP:WRONGVERSION which says that an admin should protect the article as it is, regardless of who got in the last edit. You were lucky in that your edit was last so it is the current version. However, that edit changed "Research published in 2007" to "A controversial research study published in 2007" and that edit will be removed in due course. That is because common sense and WP:WEASEL tell us to not insert editorial commentary such as "controversial"—just report the facts. If a reliable source called it controversial, report that. It's not clear to me how the fact that an editor is a member of the Audio Engineering Society (AES) would be a COI regarding a disagreement whether mention of the report in an AES publication should be in the lead, or whether that report is controversial. A COI suggests that someone would materially benefit from a certain edit being made. You might suggest that of course a member of the AES would support an AES report form 2007 so the editor has a bias. But the rejoinder might be that someone who is not a member of the AES would not support the report and so has a bias. Editors have biases and that is why disputes have to be settled with reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
A COI doesn't just have to be about money, does it?
My concern has less to do with the validity of the study than it does with the necessity and motivation of putting a sentence referring to it in the lead of the article. My initial edits to that page simply removed that sentence which, besides seeming to make the article somewhat biased, doesn't fit there particularly well...the placement makes it look like the study was a factor in SACD's failure in the marketplace, when there's no proof of this. Leads are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view; putting that reference there doesn't seem very neutral. None of the other wiki articles on audio formats does this. Why does this one need to? More discussion on the SACD talk page. Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

About locking the Liberalism talk page

I have no interest in the topic. As explained, any appeal should be at WP:RFPP or WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We don't consent to sharing a government with liberals or having a government with liberal influence at all. 98% of the planet feel that way. Literally 98% 49 in 50 most of 8 billion versus maybe a hundred million and the rejection is violent and urgent. Liberals are using physical force everywhere to take service industry labor and other slavery from a planet that's desperate to be separate. The Liberalism article says that consent to governing is a liberal priciple but that's the opposite of the physical facts. The article was already locked and they deleted discussion about the topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.244.101 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that but it's off-topic for Wikipedia. This refers to my protection of Talk:Liberalism due to a request at WP:RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It's why there's information to discuss about the claim that liberalism is based on consent to be governed. They deleted the discussion, the article was already locked and the claim in the article is the opposite of the truth. The article is inaccurate and it can't even be discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.90.223.181 (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Have a look at the history of the talk page to see why it was protected. Nothing in life is perfect, and Wikipedia is no exception. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The locked article and repeatedly deleted discussion preceded the comments you're referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.90.223.181 (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand these comments. However, if they are requesting me to do something such as remove the protection, I decline because the talk page history shows significant disruption. My comment about nothing being perfect is an acknowledgment of the fact that not all problems can be solved, and in particular, not all problems can be solved now. Find something else to do until protection expires. Of course any resumption of disruption would lead to further protection. A request for someone else to reduce the protection can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level, and appeals to decisions can be made at WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparently I hit a nerve. It's accurate information, we're all getting out by any means necessary and it isn't going to be fun. What do you suggest about the discussion being deleted over and over? That happened first and I do hear that you didn't like the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.90.223.181 (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It would not be correct to think that the "you" in "you don't like" refers to me. I have not seen the removed text because there is no need for me to bother looking for it, and I don't think I have ever seen the article or talk page before the protection. No nerves here have been hit and I have no opinion on your worldview or the topic. Please do not use this page to explain your opinion because it is not relevant. I have declined to reverse my protection and I gave the appeal mechanism in my last message above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So you have it locked and you won't address the original policy problems that started a conflict and you're saying that you need to be removed by force from the situation if it's going to be discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.244.101 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal thoughts from an IP

Read her twitter https://twitter.com/eholmes2003 for an hour and you will either fully agree with me or you will lie. She stopped tweeting shortly after the WSJ expose and left her twitter intact. It's a time capsule of the persona she cultivated and the image media portrayed of her. At the same time she was selling a product that in the words of one blood-testing expert, quoted by Carreyrou, was "less believable than her being a time traveler from the future". The laws of physics in the opinion of most experts simply do not allow for running dozens of tests inside a small device from a couple of drops of blood pricked from the finger. Yet the media asked no questions and she was showered with fawning praise and adulation, exemplified by Barack Obama naming Holmes his global ambassador of entrepreneurship, after which she was a regular visitor to the White house. The media failure to ask the needed questions is a crucial part of her story. Without Carreyrou and the WSJ it would have taken much longer for her to be exposed, and Theranos would have expanded to 8000 new Wellness Centers. And eventually people who trusted Theranos's fake test-results would have died, blood tests being a key diagnostic tool. So her fawning (fawning is the word Carreyrou uses) media portrayal was not without consequence. All this is now completely missing from the article. And everyone in a position to edit an encyclopedia article on her should fully know this. So it is a fair question, whether a full chapter of her story has been deliberately left out. Don't be an activist-editor. Not becoming of an encyclopedia. 37.219.222.89 (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

That's great but I read about Theranos and its dubious claims a long time before the extreme hype and the later fall, so I don't need a lecture. What you do not understand is that Wikipedia is not a forum for people to swap thoughts, and it is particularly not available for moaning about the faults of living people. Talk pages are for actionable proposals based on reliable sources. An actionable proposal is a concrete suggestion to add certain specified wording, or to change or remove certain specified wording. Moaning about twitter, time travel and the laws of physics is nothing more than a rant. Please find another website for that. Continuing to push a line of negativity against a BLP subject will lead to any IP you use being blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not lecturing you, I'm describing what's missing from the article, why it's a crucial part of her story and why it should be there. Again, read her twitter and you'll either agree or lie. It's not a moan about the faults of a living person. It is, as described, a crucial part of the story of the public person Elizabeth Holmes. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's not bigotry, it was her public face for two years as one of the most recognizable female faces in the western world. The woman in tech disproving all the gender stereotypes. She played that card herself and had a fawning audience of ideological acolytes in the mainstream media. Who bought her incredible story no hard questions asked, because they yearned a story like hers. Her scam was played out in full daylight to a cheering audience. This you can see for yourself by reading her twitter, she retweets her public appearances, articles on her, her own columns. An hour is enough to form a clear picture that that is how it was. Most of it from what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources. There are two Elizabeth Holmes' the public knew. The celebrated female inventor and tech pioneer, the Barack Obama global ambassador of entrepreneurship, and then the scam artist. The first of these is nearly fully erased from the article now. Yet her public image and portrayal prior to being exposed remains a crucial part of her story. Without Carreyrou and the WSJ she would have ended up killing several people with her 8000 new Wellness Centers, to continued praise from the adoring mainstream media. 176.93.187.179 (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It's strange that you can type a few sentences using good grammar and without typos and yet seem unable to read what I wrote. Wait for the protection at the article talk to expire, then make an actionable proposal based on reliable sources. What text should be in the article but isn't? What text is in the article but shouldn't be? What reliable source verifies the proposed change? Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

R44 (New York Subway car)

Despite your warning to the IP 24.164.151.6, he/she seems to have not heeded your message at all, and continues to revert edits - without any stated reason - to the mentioned article. Further action should be considered. Mtattrain (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mtattrain: I decided to semi-protect R44 (New York City Subway car) for a week as blocking one side in an edit war is dubious. If there is further trouble please post a new section at the article talk page and politely explain why the IP's edits are not useful. Put a link to that explanation in your next revert. However, do not revert more than twice. If 24.164.151.6 still has not joined the discussion and is still reverting, please notify me (a ping at the article talk would do). Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
> Will do, thank you. Mtattrain (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If you were talking to me...

...this was a very unkind thing to say. I did not deserve that from you. Atsme Talk 📧 01:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Posting at ANI should occur after gaining some understanding of the case. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
And that understanding should apply to both sides of the argument as well as understanding a side few stop to think about: how to resolve the conflict without adding more fuel to the fire. "Scholars assume that citizens perform better when they know pertinent facts. Factual beliefs, however, become relevant for political judgments only when people interpret them. Interpretations provide opportunities for partisans to rationalize their existing opinions." The Journal of Politics - Vol 69, #4 (Nov 2007), pp 957-974. Atsme Talk 📧 04:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Module:Dump Wikidata Lexeme Support

Could you weigh in here: Module talk:Dump § Lexeme Support? Thank you, 50.53.21.2 (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I commented there but know nothing about Wikidata lexemes. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
RexxS (talk · contribs) did not reply, however, I have since learned this is a known issues being worked on. See phab:T212843. Thanks for you help. 50.53.21.2 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wristmeetrazor

Hello again and thank you for your help. I have posted some information on the talk page (see Talk:Wristmeetrazor) about the band's genre, and referenced this page when the IP address again removed my edit. They remain unperturbed and continue to remove it. Would you mind protecting this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahorsecanyon (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Seahorsecanyon and Second Skin: This relates to my decline at WP:RFPP and my follow-up at User talk:Seahorsecanyon#Wristmeetrazor. Thanks for creating Talk:Wristmeetrazor#Genre. However, what I meant was that if the IP failed to respond at talk, I would protect the article. Actually, they have responded with a thoughtful comment. I'm sorry that Wikipedia can be troublesome but it is necessary to answer the IP's point which, to someone like myself who knows nothing about it, looks valid. I'm not saying the IP is correct (I have no idea)—I just mean that their comment is reasonable. Further, the two references for "screamo" are flimsy. Ideally there would be an independent source describing the music. If there is no such source, it might not (that's might not—I don't know) be appropriate for the infobox to include the term. At any rate, the issue needs to be examined at the article talk page. Perhaps posting a neutral notice at WT:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force would attract another opinion. If needed, I will semi-protect the article if a WP:CONSENSUS at talk shows that "screamo" should be included. That needs at least two editors to respond to the IP's point. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Hi Johnuniq, I think you may have misread my edit at WP:NOT? I agree with you that Definition of planet is not a NOT#DICT violation, and in fact I made the sentence stating that more prominent than it was before, so your edit summary doesn't seem to fit. I thought that moving the sentence would improve the logical flow of ideas, but that said I don't see it as a big deal either way. Sunrise (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be better to discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not so others can see reasoning and join in. I will make one comment here and would be happy to expand at the policy's talk. The edits I reverted inserted "the definition of a word may itself be an encyclopedic subject" before the key point, namely that if an article on a word cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the right place. That insertion matters a lot to wikilawyers who will take any hint as a reason for why their edits are good. The policy does not need to state the obvious, namely that definition of planet is a notable and encyclopedic topic. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense - since you have reason to believe the previous sentence order is better, I don't particularly have reason to pursue it. That's also why I decided to ask you here instead of on the talk page. :-) Sunrise (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest that you have commented on at the user's talk page. The thread is Karldmartini. Thank you. —-Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

There is an MfD that you may be interested in

There is an MfD that you may be interested in at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to gray goo (2nd nomination). I am notifying everyone who commented at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to article lower-quality statuses --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Source

Hi. On the article, the last source does mention that he was a Muslim. This is what the source says: ‘’Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi was a Persian Shi'a Muslim mathematician, astronomer, astrologer and geographer.’’

77.16.214.175 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Any chance of a link? There were three articles where you wanted to insert the person's presumed religion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Rupert Loup (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is here and concerns a proposed ERA style change at Plimpton 322. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

IP return

Hi Johnuniq, this ip returned with a vengeance after a brief block. Help, please. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: I'm sorry to be bureaucratic but we may as well cover everything. As I understand it, the issue is edits like this at Toyota Starlet which replaced a hidden comment to not add Category:1970s cars with that category. And that has been done repeatedly with no discussion, and the article is already in the subcat Category:Cars introduced in 1973. I don't want an exhaustive list, but are there other problems such as inappropriate category adjustments or edits at other articles? I looked at a couple of their recent edits and they appear good although I don't have the topic background to know if the wording is standard. Please post a section regarding categories at Talk:Toyota Starlet with a brief explanation of what WP:SUBCAT says and why the category is inappropriate. Also, post on the IP's talk saying "Please see [link to section at article talk]".
I know about other stuff exists, but I just clicked a couple of articles in Category:1970s cars and Toyota Carina and Toyota Celica are in both categories. Is there evidence that the relevant wikiproject supports the application of WP:SUBCAT as outlined for Toyota Starlet? I will block an unresponsive IP editing against consensus but I would like an explanation on the article talk first, and some rationalization regarding the other stuff I mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:SUBCAT applies across the board; Toyotas are not exempt just because other articles are incorrectly organized. The editors stylistic changes (body type => bodytype) are also against WP policies (WP:ENGVAR), leaving precious little useful work. Even if half of their edits were good, they still wouldn't be exempt from WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Links to the proper pages have already been pointed out to this editor any number of times in edit comments at Toyota Starlet. They have yet to communicate beyond "Don't change it back".  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand it's irritating but WP:NOTHERE definitely does not apply because, unless I'm missing something, the IP's edits are intended to benefit the encyclopedia and at least some of their edits are good (or at least, they look good to an observer like me). Similarly, WP:CIR does not apply because the IP is capable of editing correctly. The subcat issue is a disagreement over whether applying the WP:SUBCAT guideline is desirable, and that guideline uses should statements, not must. I'm sorry to be difficult but it's hard to justify lengthy blocks unless formalities are covered and there should be an explanation on the article talk with a link to that explanation on the IP's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, posted. At Starlet alone, they have been reverted repeatedly by four different editors who have all tried to communicate in their comments (usually the best way to elicit some sort of response from IPs who generally do not check their talk pages). I don't see how that does not fall foul of WP:NOTHERE, specifically "Little or no interest in working collaboratively".
The other edits that I can see are all either attempts at eradicating the use of "body styles" (again, see WP:ENGVAR) or additions of Category:xxx0s cars, always carefully including ones that go against WP:SUBCAT.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, please let me know when something happens. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I see you noticed before I did.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

East Vernon Light

Hi talk:Johnuniq , Australia has been a metric country since the 1970s. I did not flip measurements in nautical miles because a nautical mile is a metric unit. Please reply her if you wish to reply. RegardsCowdy001 (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cowdy001: Are you sure about nautical mile being a metric unit? If wanted, use the following trick to put km first:
  • {{convert|11|nmi}} → 11 nautical miles (20 km; 13 mi)
  • {{convert|11|nmi|km nmi mi|abbr=on|order=out}} → 20 km (11 nmi; 13 mi)
East Vernon Light currently contains the following converts:
{{convert|36|ft|m}}
{{convert|39|ft}}
{{convert|11|nmi|abbr=on}}
{{convert|9|nmi|abbr=on}}
{{convert|9|nmi|abbr=on}}
{{convert|70|ft}}
{{convert|8|nmi}}
{{convert|11|nmi}}
Please order them as wanted using order=flip or the above order=out. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The nautical mile is an official unit in Australia - please refer https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/marine/jurisdiction/maritime-boundary-definitions. I am old enough to remember the change from the previous metric system (which was taught in high school) to the SI system. I also remember some of the material published by the Australian government re metrication include nautical miles. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I only wanted to remove the convert errors. I doubt that a nautical mile is a metric unit, and the "Maritime Boundary Definitions" link just says that nmi is the unit for Australian Maritime Legislation. That might mean it's suitable for an article on a lighthouse: I don't know. As mentioned, please fix however you like. You might first check a few examples at List of lighthouses in Australia because a couple I looked at showed measurements in feet. That suggests a discussion at a suitable wikiproject might be best. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Wow, I never knew about order=out, that is so cool for those pesky triple unit conversions. Can't wait to try it out!  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

in pubs, and dark corners

I have been to know to rant and tear my hair (I am quite bald) over the origins of important parts of the encyclopedia being in such infantile subject ranges of 'ships', 'trains', etc... and monosyllabic as well. I try to restrain myself, at times it is hard, it creeps out... JarrahTree 09:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I generally lose hair when writing programs. Wikipedia has all kinds of editors! Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

WDCT

Got you ping, just not in time to respond (just got up). Anywho, good memory! That was one of mine from ANI, but I'm fairly certain it's unrelated. That had to do with the WTOP page (along with a few others), this WDCT. While the same market, different stations, owners, and such. Eventually, we had to enable an edit filter and remove all the edits the user posted from the pages. Haven't had a problem since. For the moment, this one hasn't gotten that far...but, I'm hoping it doesn't. I'm still hoping I can reach the user via good ole' regular talking. But that remains to be seen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:12 on November 15, 2019 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Good. I know it's irritating but you might put a brief note at Talk:WDCT outlining the problem, then link to that in in the edit summary of any further reverts. That makes sanctioning much easier if the talk page is ignored. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I can do that. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39 on November 16, 2019 (UTC)
Sorry it took me a couple days. I just got a job, so that took my attention. :) My reply is here and I tagged both users into the post. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:53 on November 20, 2019 (UTC)
Good, and good luck with the job! Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:10 on November 21, 2019 (UTC)

IP re-return

I don't know if I should post this here, or take it somewhere else (I'm sure you too have better things to do), but the IP from Reading UK is back with a new address: Special:Contributions/90.195.49.226

Same location, same exact editing pattern. Appreciate your help, thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the same person.
Before taking it further, I asked for views at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#Category:Cars introduced in X. You are active at that page but I'm hoping others will join in. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I (futilely) posted the link at the ip talk page as well.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Changing it up:
 Mr.choppers | ✎  23:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers: You will see that I posted again at the wikiproject. I did that because some of the comments are a little hard to interpret and I want to check there is clear consensus. By the way, it would be a good idea to find another way to notify the user rather than with comments such as at User talk:90.195.49.226. It's not just assuming good faith—it's clear the IP is working in good faith and doing edits they think are constructive. Perhaps they never see talk page comments so the wording might not matter, but onlookers can certainly see them and they would think that it's understandable that the IP would ignore a comment like that. A notification has three objectives: to formally provide notification, and to try and engage the editor in discussion, and to convince onlookers that a failure to engage justifies sanctions. All that means the comment should be something like "Please join the discussion at [link]." Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Good faith? [2] [3] Clearly they are not interested in discussing, there have been numerous opportunities. They have already been blocked for this behavior and at least six different editors have reverted them. We are way past good faith.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

WYFI

Could you help me find the issue on the WYFI page? For the life of me, I can't find where the problem is that is cause the reflist bracket to go all wonky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:19 on November 19, 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, code went all kinds of wonky. Nut loose behind the keyboard probably didn't help matters either. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:26 on November 19, 2019 (UTC)
Though I could use some slight help with this discussion on the WYFI talk page. Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:34 on November 19, 2019 (UTC)
That's strange. I suppose anyone can have an off day. I'll watch for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought just saying "coords you add yourself is OR" was enough, but I guess not. I've added an extra source to them, which isn't particularly necessary, but I figured I would cover my bases. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:44 on November 20, 2019 (UTC)

Scientific inaccuracies

What’s wrong with allowing people to make up their own minds about Millers experiments, my own devout Atheist Biologist Teacher knew his experiment was flawed, please at least allow the last change. Please do your own research on this subject people need to be able to trust Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7d55:4700:455:3523:8903:f5d6 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I posted an explanation at User talk:AxeKick, namely that reliable sources and encyclopedic text are required. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

hi Johnuniq,

Special thanks for Unblocked me. Have a nice day! - Suvray (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck! This is the fourth time you have been caught in a proxy block that is probably a hazard from other users at your ISP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

CSMA/CD isn't used with wireless, so hidden node problem is moot ;)

The problem is that with wireless the transmitter is too 'loud' so it drowns out its own receiver- the transmission is subject to dispersion, so they're locally much louder. So the transmitter does CSMA/CA- collision avoid- it listens before it transmits and then transmits the whole packet nonstop. With wired systems the transmitting system can continue to monitor the line, and if two transmitters are sending at the same time, they will notice it. That's called CSMA/CD collision detect. GliderMaven (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This relates to diff at Carrier-sense multiple access with collision avoidance. Nice to hear from you GM but the article talk would be better to record info for posterity. I understand that CD can't be used with wireless. Somehow I had the impression that CTS/RTS was part of CA but apparently it's an add-on. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

venture debt

why did you remove ATEL as a source of venture debt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalakane (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This relates to my revert of your edit at Venture debt. For the future, please bear in mind that questions about edits related to article content should be at the talk page of the article (Talk:Venture debt). The external links guideline indicates what kinds of websites should be promoted in articles (none—all content is supposed to provide encyclopedic information for the reader). Another procedure is write the article first which follows the principle that an article is not a list of external links, and internal links should be to articles which exist at Wikipedia. Such articles need to comply with the notability guidelines. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:John Nicolson#2015 General Elections and Page Protection

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:John Nicolson#2015 General Elections and Page Protection. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 13:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Nautical mile

Just a quick note. In aviation the abbreviation for nautical mile is NM. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq

OK, thanks. This relates to a {{convert}} fix I did at Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport. The |abbr=on option wasn't in use at that time so NM and nmi gave the same result and consistency is good. Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
It was an odd one. Most of them have just the one conversion so nmi or NM is OK as there is no abbreviation. In this case there was another conversion for nautical miles. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert of Khirurg's edit

Hi John. It has been such a long time since we last talked, I hope everything is well with you and yours. Sorry for the disturbance, and for the difficult topic, but I noticed you reverted Khirurg's restoration of EdChem's collapsing of mostly unrelated PAs and aspersions by Volunteer Marek who also uses edit-summaries to attack myself and Khirurg. Marek made all kinds of bad-faith accusations against myself and Khirurg, and EdChem justifiably collapsed all that unrelated stuff, including my responses and Khirurg's to Marek's attacks. Marek's accusations have turned the discussion into a circus of insults. Please check the discussion, because this can't go on. Thank you. Dr. K. 06:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Dr.K. but, while I haven't studied the thread, it appears to be an intractable dispute and the simplest would be to stop responding to VM if their views are not wanted. Choosing which parts of a very long dispute should be collapsed is pointless, and doing so would only continue the distraction with a battle over a side issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Nice talking to you too John. Just to clarify, neither I, nor Khirurg collapsed that thread originally. EdChem, an original discussion participant, but uninvolved in any way with Marek, collapsed Marek's off-topic insults and PAs. When Marek reverted EdChem's collapse with an insulting edit-summary, Khirurg restored EdChem's collapse. I think a collapse of Marek's insults is needed for the simple reason that they are serious violations of NPA and several other policies. However, I would understand if you don't want to get involved. Hopefully, someone else will intervene in the near future to stop Marek from casting aspersions and violating every single editor interaction policy ever created. Dr. K. 07:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I saw the history of the collapse. I reverted this edit which collapsed a section of the discussion that happened to contain all of VM's comments, thus hiding his opinions (and others) in a contentious thread. It looks like that part of the discussion has finished so collapsing it just invites further commentary on the advisability of hiding the comments, bearing in mind that each participant is convinced their comments are pertinent and in good faith. The standard procedure would be to open a new section with a complaint about VM if their comments or edit summaries are considered offensive. What are the aspersions you refer to? All I can see is diff with summary feel free to collapse your own comments but leave others' alone - this is NOT off topic since what we have here is two users falsely and dishonestly accusing another user of "advocating violence". Almost looks like you're trying to hide it. Is that an aspersion? Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Marek refers to my comment "It is your privilege to ignore comments advocating violence against people with OCD as a teaching tool, but please don't be so brazen about it." My comment was in response to Fut. Perf.'s "little shot across the bow did the trick" comment about SilentResident, a person with OCD, when he reverted the corrections she had made to her post to stop her from making continuous corrections to her posts. Please see original revert with edit-summary: I will make it a rule from now on to revert everything you add in more than two edits in a row. while also obliquely referring to SR's OCD: I warned you before: stop your obsessive fiddling with your own postings.. The "little shot across the bow" comment was made, while Fut. Perf. was fully cognisant of the fact that SR suffered from OCD, while the original revert of her talkpage edit was AGF'ed that he did not know about SR's OCD. It is clear that the revert was meant to force an OCD victim to change her behaviour, as freely acknowledged in the "little shot across the bow did the trick" comment. Dr. K. 08:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
You are drawing a number of inferences there. Surely you are not seriously claiming that FPaS advocated violence? We all know that "shot across the bow" is a standard English idiom and in no way advocates violence. A statement that it was insensitive could be defended but if a couple of people are going to say it advocates violence, VM is entitled to express a contrary view. As I understand it, FPaS's original sin was to express irritation with the fact that a particular editor made many tweaks to their comments. That was before the ANI report and before FPaS had any indication that the user had an OCD userbox on their large user page. The "shot across the bow" remark was at ANI as part of a comment where FPaS seemed to say his expression of irritation had a useful outcome, and one that he appreciated. That does not add up to the conclusions you appear to have reached. At any rate, an aspersion is a claim without evidence and that does not apply to what VM said since he was commenting directly on statements made immediately prior to his. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
There is also the part where Fut. Perf. undid the corrections SR made to improve her edit. That was not a mere expression of irritation, but an active, forceful reversal of her work. It took SR a considerable amount of time and effort to correct her previous posts and all that was undone by FP's revert. Following the revert, FP was informed of SR's condition and called his revert, not the expression of his irritation, "a little shot across the bow that did the trick". To an OCD victim, this is psychological mistreatment, also known as psychological violence. Dr. K. 09:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable discussing this any further since a good-faith comment (I'm not saying a good comment) can be interpreted as psychological violence. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, John. Sorry for imposing. Dr. K. 09:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well J. MarnetteD|Talk 04:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Beautiful MarnetteD, thanks very much! I have read some Damon Runyon but have never encountered this. It's a great story. I looked up these: Tom and Jerry (drink) and Barnaby and wikt:excelsior. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad you enjoyed it J. I'm also glad you tracked down the barnaby reference. Memories of excelsior from my very early years are that it is what protected the "major award" in the box from Italy :-) The T&J is yummy but, like all warm alcohol drinks, they go down easily and two or three go a looong way :-P MarnetteD|Talk 06:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps fortunately, I'm too lazy to follow the recipe. Cheers. Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Good choice :-D MarnetteD|Talk 06:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

All the best

Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat, so far so good... Merry Christmas to you! Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:203.45.30.254

Hi. User:203.45.30.254 continues Wikipedia:Harassment even blocked. I think it may has connection with blocked User:HandballHero and User:Kpaspery it created an ilussion of support of the HandballHero actions and the IP not only edited the same scope of articles (Australian motorsport and Handball) like User:HandballHero and User:Kpaspery, but also left the same edit summaries, i.e. "update 2019". I assume it may be editing from friend's or work IP address. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

203.45.30.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I removed talk page access while blocked. Let me know if it continues next year. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC

John, could you suggest how I might improve the opening question on the RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I know you do good work but I disagree with the current path taken by a couple of editors in that area. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Understood and respected, but the question and framing is the issue. I thought I phrased it as neutrally and simply as possible. Do you have any suggestions for how I might improve it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I don't want to put energy into helping a process I disagree with. The sorry was an acknowledgment that my approach is a bit selfish. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Understood and accepted, but sorry I can't find a way to make the framing more palatable :( Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

For posterity, this relates to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 00:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! That might explain why peace is hard to find. Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Johnuniq: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!!

Hello Johnuniq, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC

Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruption at Cultural impact of Michael Jackson

Two days ago I redirected this page, per consensus held on these two venues: [4][5]. Another reason behind redirecting the article was that enough people were not agreeing with the existence of the article,[6][7][8][9] and my concerns were never adequately addressed. But guess what? I saw a brand new account (first edit on 7 November 2019) reverting the redirect and had never edited this page or the talk page ever before.[10][11] Other than that, I am also hearing these types of explanations for preserving this article.

What do you think can be done now? Maybe restoration of redirect and the article should be fully protected until new consensus has been arrived to restore the article. Excelse (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Excelse: That's difficult because the discussions you pointed to, including the AfD, do not show a good consensus for a redirect. I see that one voter supporting the article is now indeffed, but another couple I looked at are well past 500/30 so even if WP:ECP could be justified, it would not be effective. Let me think about it, although I'll possibly need a reminder in 48 hours. I suspect that a new RfC will be needed but I would recommend drafting in a sandbox and getting thoughts from others on the wording before going live. @Flyer22 Reborn: You created what I think was the last RfC in February 2019: any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Excelse is a die hard fan of Elvis Presley fan (not that there is anything wrong with that) and has been blocked for using multiple accounts for POV pushing and edit warring (like they are doing on Jackson pages)on different Elvis Presley pages such as Memphis Mafia, Nick Adams (actor), and [Personal relationship of Elvis Presley]]. Its been almost 6 years now since he started editing but has only made 654 edits so far. It’s interesting to note that out of these, only 289 edits on the main space. The edit stats reveal that the user is not here for contributing to wikipedia for constructively. This why User:JG66 once asked him to contribute here for real instead of bludgeoning people with same old pointy arguments. He has been removing content in large scale without using talk pages or using proper edit summary in pages such as List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson, List of artists influenced by Janet Jackson, and Cultural impact of the Beatles. 1, 2, 3, 4 5 here is a link that reveals his POV pushing to put Elvis over Beatles as they are trying to do with Jackson on List of best-selling music artists [12] see here is he trying to put elvis over Michael jackson on Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artists_with_the_most_number-ones_on_the_U.S._Billboard_Hot_100&diff=prev&oldid=791106139 , he then tried to downplay Jackson’s vitiligo, here then he took different michael jackson pages Such as Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, Super Bowl XXVII halftime show nominated for deletion, then removed Michael Jacksons name from Superstar without giving any explanation [13]. This clearly exposes their anti-Jackson (hate) POV pushes. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresenting my edit history is not going to make you look less of a Jackson SPA. It must be a grave sin in your world to remove puffery about Jackson but this is Wikipedia. Excelse (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"look-at-me" signatures

There is a benefit to the "look-at-me" signatures: it is blindingly obvious how often they bludgeon others in conversations! I'm not sure being told how many times I have been blocked has anything to do with the RfC at hand, but plus ca change, I guess. Anyway, I hope you are well, and a very happy new year to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I confess that I have been grateful for such signatures in the past because, at a glance, it is possible to see which comments in a long discussion should be ignored. I feel a bit queasy about being nasty but the parallel between an in-your-face signature and an unwanted infobox made me do it. Happy new year! Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Richard Challoner

Thanks for the message. I may have been hasty and not read the article in enough detail. I now see the text says "Challoner was born in Lewes, Sussex" and the infobox says Newcastle. A quick google confirms it should be Lewes. Apologies for an overhasty click. Please revert my edit or I am happy to do it.— Rod talk 09:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rodw: No problem, I just wanted to alert you. I blocked the perpetrator who has been happily putting nonsense in articles for some time. I believe all their edits are gone. Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq/Archive_26&oldid=1146348135"