User talk:Johnuniq: Difference between revisions

My warning is at permalink. That was in April 2023 after seeing User talk:Drmies/Archive 144#Moro Rebellion. My warning included "where your opponent has been active". That wording was referring to a particular editor (Beyond My Ken) where I had investigated the background and concluded that there was no good reason for NmWTfs85lXusaybq to be following BMK to other articles. That is, I checked that BMK was not systematically introducing problems that needed NmWTfs85lXusaybq's attention so WP:HOUNDING applied.

The report above needs a new investigation to decide whether there was some underlying problem with the edits that made it desirable for NmWTfs85lXusaybq to follow your editing. That is not easy so I'll start by asking if there has been a discussion somewhere. If so, do you know where the first discussion was?

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Feel free to respond here but please do not give detailed explanations for the diffs above (although I might ask about some cases later). Instead, I would like to know what underlying problem you believe justified following Yaujj13's edits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I warned on User talk:Yaujj13 before, Yaujj13 has conducted systematically POV editing (see Special:Diff/1153777435 for example), which is also clarified at Special:PermanentLink/1149954015 and Talk:Jambi Sultanate. The problems of his material are also stated by Onel5969 as the reason to draftify their articles. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to give further evidence on my harassment by user NmWTfs85lXusaybq.

Most of my edits are different in nature with some either adding large content (one of which is creating an article) or adding minor fixes but the user in question follow all my edits and specifically target revert my edits.

Here is some elaborate explanation:

He didn't fix anything on Chiragh Kush and only just added &nbsp all over the article and removed it. I am unsure his motives but it is not clearly to fix any problems
The Jambi Sultanate edit I work was never off topic and I was forced to create another article which is unnecessary.
This is just a hypothesis but some of his edits are pro Japanese as he edit one of the article like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_China_(Second_Sino-Japanese_War)&diff=prev&oldid=1148783390. And the Japanese war crimes I added like Muslim persecution or Japanese migration to Indonesia is downplayed or minimize.
And on the Alawite article, he only removed my edits only but didn't remove other info that has no citation. If he is so concern about citation, why did he remove my edit which always added citation. This goes the same for the Free China and China Marines articles. The only explanation is that he just follow my edits and harass me.

While this is unrelated, there are info about him that are undermining Wikipedia and hypocritical. He has an account in the Chinese Wikipedia called EqJjgOa8rVvsRmZL which most of his edits are his POV on the protest movements against China government like Hong Kong protest and any political dispute between China and other countries. Yaujj13 (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Spaces are accidentally replaced by &nbsp by gadgets I enabled for better editing when I tried to fix mistakes on Chiragh Kush. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially attracted to Yaujj13's edits by multiple CS1 errors introduced by them. After that, I found serious POV in material added by Yaujj13. For example, Free China (Second Sino-Japanese War) had reached a stable version for a long time until Yaujj13 added undue material to introduce the winning of Chinese army in the last year of WW2. That's a clear Chinese POV. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free China had no inline citation when I edited it. The user in question didn't delete the uncited paragraph and no issue with the pro Japanese POV until i started editing on the article.

Also he have been harassing another user that I have no relation, Beyond My Ken when NmWTfs85lXusaybq follow me to Moro Rebellion article. This shows that he wanted to minimize the war crimes in Moro rebellion and WW2 and his edits on Chinese Wikipedia are anti-China as he edit in favour of western countries.

Evidence for Beyond My Ken: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moro_Rebellion&action=history

The CS1 errors is not what attracted the user as the first edit against me was the reverting Japanese war crimes instead of the errors. This can be seen in this history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_migration_to_Indonesia&diff=prev&oldid=1148782064
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_war_crimes&diff=prev&oldid=1148782665
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_China_(Second_Sino-Japanese_War)&diff=prev&oldid=1148783390 (He also gave a bogus constructive reason to justify his revert).

Yaujj13 (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was attracted to his edits on Peranakans by multiple CS1 errors at first and tried to solve them here before I found his systematically POV editing and the contravention of his claim on user page: I will not edit any Wikipedia pages unless there are minor error. You can check our Interaction Timeline here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Stockton Rush

Could you please have a look at this AN3 thread? The disruption is ongoing and it hasn't received attention from an uninvolved admin despite being open for over three hours. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's been taken care of. Thanks, — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I protected the article (and was going to give a stiff warning) while another admin blocked, so all done. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovetyphoons160713

It's been 9 days since the SPI was last edited and SPI is pretty badly backlogged. Given that Dreamy Jazz and I found evidence supporting that this is a case of socking, I think you have the evidence to make a block. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I indeffed Bestchest160713 (talk · contribs) and Ilovetyphoons160713 (talk · contribs) although they have not been very active as such number changing is very destructive. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Arbitration in WP:AE

Hello i noticed that you took part in my WP:AE report regarding the use of folkloric sources. I just had a question, is it allowed to elaborate some more about the WP:AE in other admin talk pages? because only 500 words are allowed in the report itself and i understand that it could be difficult for most to jump into that topic and read through all talk pages. The mixing of folktales to change an entire ethnicity of a historical figure was done by the user i reported after i provided evidence of the historical figure existing in history as you can see here:

Here i direct him to the source where this historical figure is not only a folklore figure, the source is Aitberov who brings up two historical documents from 1649 and 1651

Here after he looks through the source the user acknowledges that this historical figure is not only folkloric

Here he includes "Ingush people" to the categories which directly contradicts historical documents and research which i provided to him earlier and which he acknowledged

Here despite every evidence shown to him he insists that the ethnicity of this historical Chechen figure should be "Ingush" solely because "He's prominent in Ingush folklore"

Does this not directly go against Wikipedia's policy? i demonstrated in the WP:AE that he has a history of doing it as well which you noticed. Could you please check the diffs whenever you have time. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to my comment at WP:AE permalink where I expressed support for your enforcement request. The problem is that topics like this are completely opaque as far as average administrators are concerned—it is very hard to understand evidence and conclude that someone needs a sanction. I don't want to consider anything from the past, other than the material I have already looked at. However, if wanted, post here again with a brief explanation regarding any new issue that arises and I will look at it. In answer to your question about providing more than 500 words at WP:AE, I'm afraid people need to live with that. Not every problem needs to be addressed in an initial report. All that is needed is a clear statement of one or two issues with a brief explanation of what the links show. You could add that more is available if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, i recognize that niche topics like this could be hard to understand for the average administrator, i just think the WP:AE was closed down too early personally. While both Seraphimblade and Rosguill understood the issue and even gave a warning to the editor i figured some sort of topic ban should've been enforced. Especially since this is the 3rd time this user uses outdated folklore for Wikipedia articles, given his history i doubt this is the last time and i can't keep an eye out on every article in this topic. Oh well, thank you anyway for answering. Goddard2000 (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work and if you notice something new, please let me know. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	I only recently discovered {{IP range calculator}} and it's quickly become something I use all the time. It's so helpful to be able to see different combinations of ranges. Thank you, eight-and-a-half years later! DanCherek (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indy 5 budget dispute

Me and another editor have recently been arguing over the budget for Indiana Jones 5. Sources place the budget between $250 million and $400 million. It’s not unusual for such a big film to have a large budget discrepancy. This editor however has taken it into his own hands to continuously revert the budget to $300 million, as one source states. Instead of keeping the page as it was before the dispute and waiting for a consensus at the talk page, he keeps reverting the budget back to what he feels is the correct amount. I simply think we should wait until a consensus at the talk page and keep the budget the way it was before the dispute until a decision is reached. I would appreciate you stepping in to help clean up the situation, whether your help benefits me or the other user. Thanks Zvig47 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq Please review the talkpage and editing history of the editor @Zvig47 complaining here. You will find he has a long history of edit-warring and has ignored warnings over the years to cease and desist in his LTA. Forcing some of us to revert his LTA on a recent film page because he refuses to respect etiquette per WP:synthesis, WP:Undue and WP:OR.

The plurality of sources and the prevailing consensus in the press, is as follows: https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a44488606/indiana-jones-5-box-office-explained/

(Excerpt)“That insane bloated 300 mil price tag for Indy 5 doesn’t even include marketing costs, which is likely around $150+ million at least (i.e.bombing for the same reason as “The Flash” which has earned back more than its $220 mil production budget yet is still a HUGE flop when taking in account its roughly $150+ marketing budget which isn’t included in that initial $220 number).”(End quote)

If the other editor doesn’t think that’s cogent-enough or specific enough, then per WP:BURDEN, he needs to back up his POV with one of more reliable recent sources that properly reflect the consensus in the press. MOS:FILM, says "do not synthesize…Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." and per MOS:FILMLEAD “Any summary of the film's reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more recent reliable sources” (i.e.in the form of a press consensus).

Sorry to dump all of this on your page. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the most recent few edits at Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. They replaced the infobox budget of $300 with $295–400 million. That, along with what is written on article talk looks satisfactory although I am not familiar with standard procedure in this area. The next few hours will show if there is still a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa Slotkin

Greetings,

It looks like you had semi-protected Elissa Slotkin the other day in response to the large volume of controversial edits by IPs about her political positions. Well, it would appear that those IPs have set up accounts and have been aggressively attempting to push through those very same edits, despite opposition and reverts by a host of editors. I was wondering if you'd be open to increasing the protection level again. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpotisch: Semi protection would be easy but the new users are auto confirmed so semi won't help. Please spell out the issue. I know nothing about it and all I can see is that someone wants to mention certain points. Is there a BLP issue? Why? If there were a reason I would be glad to protect at the next level (WP:ECP) but that would require something blatantly bad. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for replying. The issue at play here is essentially that these two new users, Thespeedoflightneverchanges and Methanerocketancestor (both of whom were originally editing as IPs before the page was protected) are trying to force in their own original research to call into question Slotkin's stance on abortion, against the preponderance of RS. They want to make the strong implication that she misrepresented her district's stance on abortion rights (and therefore, by extension, her own), by stating in the “abortion” section that A) she said her district is “pro-life”, and B) the district voted on the pro-choice side of the recent state ballot referendum (see discussion here). Point A references a pair of ultra-short quotes plucked from a 5-minute and a 40-minute interview, respectively. Neither have ever been mentioned by any RS, and neither editor refuses to provide any evidence of notability. Furthermore, point B about the referendum is just completely unfounded; they can’t find any source whatsoever that states that the district voted that way, and even it did, it wouldn’t matter, because this is an article about Slotkin, and not MI-7. They’ve waffled a bit on inclusion of the latter point, but either way, it’s a no go. If the point about the referendum is included, we are clearing violating BLP with a totally-OR point about her political positions; and if it’s not included, there’s simply no point being made anyway. Either way, it’s pointless.

However, both users are plowing ahead anyway and refusing to leave the article as it was – despite the requests of several editors – and hash things out on the talk page. Furthermore, Thespeedoflightneverchanges clearly has some difficulty writing and understanding English, as they have repeatedly introduced poor grammar and formatting into the article, and have repeatedly misunderstood and failed to address the objections of the other editors on the talk page or in edit summaries. They also don’t understand Wikipedia policy, having just reverted my edits with the justification that I violated 3RR, which is blatantly untrue (I made exactly 3 reverts but no more), and, for example, just argued that, because Bill Maher’s show and CBS News both have Wikipedia pages, the quotes somehow must be be excluded. I normally would just pursue a block for them given the number of warnings they've received, but the issue seems isolated to this article so that doesn’t seem worth it. ECP would do the job. Let me know your thoughts; I recommend checking out the talk page and revision history of the article plus, plus the talk pages of both users. Thanks again. Cpotisch (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Cpotisch (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re.: Coitus,re:video...

...Reason l asked about that, is that can something like that be used without it being pornographic. I've seen videos on other articles that could be considered controversial - to put it politely. I see your reasoning on this matter. Now that business is out of the way, where is the WP:sandbox at, so I can play on it? Thanks. 😺😺😺😺😘🥰 Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. My emojies want to play. 😺❤️🍀🍕 Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 2001:44c8:4000::/37

Shouldn't this one have been anon-only? Plenty of non-blocked registered users from there. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I adjusted the block to be anon-only. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basket world cup

I didn't want to do that, it was a mistake, you can take off protection. I won't change anything 95.232.207.193 (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking about FIBA Basketball World Cup. The protection expires on 6 August 2023 so I don't think anything needs to be done at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Edit Warring, Quashing Debate at Talk: Hunter Biden

Please stop blocking discussion of an obvious unresolved issue at Talk:Hunter Biden. There should be evenly used and unbiased editorial standards and a discussion clearly reveals there isn’t. You just stopped debate by closing a discussion and threatening anyone who attempts to further discuss with a block. 12.16.115.131 (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to my close of the section at Talk:Hunter Biden#Names of children (II). I know Wikipedia is a confusing place and I'm happy to explain the issue if you want to understand it. Alternatively, you can get independent opinions at WP:Teahouse. The question of whether young children with no Wikipedia article should be named in an article about their parent has been debated many times before issues regarding Hunter Biden arose. It is standard procedure that such gratuitous naming should not occur, although exceptions may exist for particular cases. What I was trying to say in my close is that repeatedly raising the question (particularly with stuff like "highly biased editor or group of editors") is not permitted here. Think about it—people will argue forever if given the chance and that would be very disruptive for the community trying to maintain the encyclopedia. As mentioned, anyone is free to examine WP:DR and start an WP:RFC but merely arguing is a WP:NOTFORUM violation. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::Thanks for the cordial reply. But here’s my issue: Why is it that if you go onto the webpages of politicians who aren’t so favorable with the left, that we do the exact opposite and we do name their minor children? It would seem to me that if it was truly unbiased and people just cared about protecting innocent children, that if made aware of such a thing, the people who were so involved in debating it on the Hunter Biden page would hastily go over there and remove the content, but they don’t. And I’m pretty sure that if I myself went over there and remove the content, that someone (perhaps even someone who watched my edit at the Hunter Biden page), would revert it. So it really seems like there’s bias here and perhaps certain things are being redacted or allowed to stay for political reasons.

It would seem that there should be a way to allow debates like this to continue. Because circumstances change, things become more evident over time, and things become more appropriate over time. And if we just shut down debate then things can never be revisited.

There was a time where it was a heresy for doctors to suggest that washing hands before performing a medical procedure reduces the risk of infection in the patient. It’s a good thing that we weren’t disallowing those people from saying what they thought because otherwise we would’ve never had the debate and come to the knowledge of the truth. So when we are supposedly a encyclopedia, wouldn’t we encourage debate on talk pages? 12.16.115.131 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please give the exact name of an article where "we do name their minor children" and give the exact name to search for to see what you are saying. Is there more than one example? Bear in mind that Wikipedia is a big place and there are always articles where a couple of enthusiasts have added inappropriate details. The discussion has not been shut down. Anyone is free to start an RfC (see the links provided here and at the article talk). I don't know when the last RfC occurred. If there was one and it was recent, a new RfC would probably be shut down because arguments cannot be allowed to go on forever. An RfC has to follow standard procedures whereby a short proposal is made using neutral language. After that, each participant can give arguments for or against the proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I've struck through the edits of a sockpuppet of Bagofscrews, hope you don't mind. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

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

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gone4life

~~Please revoke User:Gone4life's talk page access. Regards,~~ Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bishonen and I were trying to do that at about the same time. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Bishonen was faster! \o/ Never happened before! Bishonen | tålk 08:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the backup but I'm definitely in the lead at the block log! Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Training School of Music

Hi, John. We need to change the name of the article to National Training School for Music (consensus on Talk page), but there is a redirect blocking the way. Can you help us move it, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wise words on the Leo Frank talk page

While I like to think of myself as even-keeled, that subject is one that sort of immediately raises my hackles. A rational voice from outside is always a good thing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working at the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

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

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Bradv

Oversighter changes

Bradv

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Numberof

Hi Johnuniq, hope all is well. Recall this conversation about 2 years ago: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:NUMBEROF .. after that I setup a watch to notify whenever the module changed. It looks like the same user has returned and made optimizations again. What do you think? -- GreenC 21:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look suggests the edits are more pointless twaddle. Question: Do we care about meta:Module:NUMBEROF? I know it's irritating but leaving meta for fiddlers to fiddle is an option IMHO. If you want, I'll examine the changes more carefully and adjust (probably revert) as seems necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I care about Meta only because it's a central/global place where people copy and install it to other wikis. Once this version is copied to other wikis, it makes upgrading with new features in the future difficult since it's a fork. I realize it's herding cats, but in this case enwiki and meta are the two main places where people copy from, and there is only 1 user who keeps changing meta, so it might be possible to keep it consistent. -- GreenC 04:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll examine it and decide what to do in the next couple of days. I'm slow because my energy is taken up elsewhere at the moment. Remind me if I haven't done anything in a week. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a silly amount of time to examine the changes and concluded that they were as I suspected, namely pointless rearrangements. I have restored the original and put a note at meta:Module talk:NUMBEROF. Please let me know if anything further is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John! I decided to go through all 82+ instances and make sure everything is consistent. Turns out I forgot to push the updates after you created the meta sub-module and code for aliases, so I am doing that now, plus all the documentation. It's remarkably laborious/time consuming copying so many files by hand. For the most part though still good after 3 years. -- GreenC 03:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Someone recently announced that they had a script to update templates/modules on projects from a master copy. I think the master would be at meta and you would push a button and it would be copied to a pre-defined list of locations. Sorry, I can't find it. I did not pay attention because I think such a scheme would be impractical for most applications since there is not usually a good way to know if local customizations have been required (and checking would require painful investigation). Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a script that automates where possible and has guardrails that logs when it can't update safely. It's definitely messy. The documentation pages often contain a few words in the local language; some sites use {{lua}} others do not, same with {{tlx}}. The script would end up being custom for this program looking for known trouble points. If you ever come across that script let me know I'll take a look maybe it could help some. This is a common problem for every template and module, version control for 100s of projects. Wouldn't it be nice to have cross-wiki transclusions (maybe it exists?). -- GreenC 13:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in the Wikitech mailing list which points to mw:Synchronizer. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. It helped me update a few things quickly. Try it with Q93437308 (the main module) you can see the forks. It shows a diff before saving so pressing a button is safe. It's dependent on the file being in Wikidata and that is not the case for Module:NUMBEROF/meta and the doc files and I have no idea how to create Wikidata entries. It's made for Modules but I tried it with Template:NUMBEROF and it worked. -- GreenC 15:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out certain sub-page names are reserved: /doc, /XML, /meta, /sandbox, /testcases and /TemplateData. These reserved names are disallowed on WikiData from having items created since they are not considered notable pages. Without an item, the Syncronicity program won't work [for that page]. We accidentally created Module:NUMBEROF/meta not realizing it is a reserved name on Wikidata - if it was /feta it would be OK. I'm pleading with an admin on Wikidata to create the item anyway since this is not a normal /meta sub-page but a Lua module part of the template, the sort of thing we normally have items for. But so far no luck. That leaves renaming in the lua modules. I am not ready to update everything, since all it gains is the ability to run Syncronicity on /meta and that page is stable cross wiki. Maybe next time we need to do a major change cross wiki this can be included, if I remember. I'm copying this to the template talk page. -- GreenC 01:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fitting In (2023 film)

Someone just moved a film title to Fitting In (2023 film), but it should be just "Fitting In", right? A redirect is in the way. Would you kindly fix the conflict? The previous title was Bloody Hell (2023 film). If you search for just "Fitting In", it brings you to another redirect. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Sbirdelevation keeps edit warring (using both the user name and an IP), making it impossible for me to fix the text per the MOS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did the move and am waiting for the bot to fix the double redirects. It seems a bit slower than normal. I'll watch for a while to see if a warning is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He is a paid editor working for the film company, and I think his "success" by Edit warring regarding the article title will embolden him to do similar regarding other films related to his job. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, a diff showing the COI is 28 August 2023. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to "Metric prefix"

The mass of an electron is 9.109 383 7015×10⁻³¹ kg. Converting to grams gives 9.109 383 7015×10⁻²⁸ g. Rounding to the nearest power of ten gives 1×10⁻²⁷ g which is 1 rg. Just like The Guardian says. That problem fixed along with an editor who just doesn't get the idea of round numbers. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns recent edits at Metric prefix. Comments for something like this should be at Talk:Metric prefix where others can see it, now and in the future. It's not always possible to take a few minutes to review changes like this particularly when made with no edit summary. I don't have a rounding problem; I must have got confused by the g vs. kg differences in the article text compared with the footnote. Thanks for fixing it. You might consider adding your second sentence above to the footnote. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection of "Denis Lian"

I am asking for your assistance to resolve the situation here before it has a chance to escalate. Thanks in advance. MSportWiki (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MSportWiki: I see that the protection request was declined in accord with standard procedure. I will watch Denis Lian for a while. Let me know if I miss something. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MSportWiki (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this?

This IP's edit summaries have to be seen to be believed: [1]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An IP with attitude is generally accepted provided their edits are not crazy and are as infrequent as in this case. I agree the edit summaries are very undesirable but removing {{cn}} is not vandalism (per definition at WP:VAND). I would do something if they returned. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to drop any wisdom that you may have on them. I never know what to do about smart, arrogant, rude, uncollaborative people. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Theatre (New York City)

What is the right thing to do here? As you can see, there have been at least 2 proposals here today (both opposed) to either delete the page or make it a disambiguation page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. It appears the plan was to use Princess Theatre (disambiguation) as a disambig page. However, that is an old redirect to the disambig page Princess Theatre which I think is correct although I am not familiar with disambig details. At any rate, the next stage in the plan was to list all "Princess Theatre" articles on that disambig page, including those in New York. That would make Princess Theatre (New York City) redundant. Having all articles with those words in the title on one page looks sensible. The hatnote at Princess Theatre (New York City, 1913–1955) (which currently points to Princess Theatre (disambiguation)) also looks appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! So sorry for misplacing my message *again*!!. I only do this to you, so your page is special. Thanks for the response. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

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

Administrator changes

Hey man im josh

CheckUser changes

DatGuy

Oversighter changes

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Range of IPs

Hello! Thank you for blocking the IPs I reported. Just out of curiosity, how do you see what range of IPs does a certain IP belong to? Is there any article I could read to get informed on how the system works? In this particular case there were two IPs: 2600:4040:9306:9f00:e115:5e1e:435:8eff and 2600:4040:9306:9F00:145C:DF43:8714:9967. How did you come up with 2600:4040:9306:9F00:0:0:0:0/64? It would definitely help me to report vandalism more precisely. Thank you in advance Aspilemetala (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspilemetala: You could use {{blockcalc}} but with some experience of IPv6 it is easy to recognize that /64 is what is commonly available to a single user (/64 is when the first four hex numbers between the colons are the same for all IPs; 4×16 = 64). Appending /64 to the contributions of a single IP shows what other edits have been made by others in that block and if they are similar it is a reasonable conclusion that it is the same person. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ties in site rankings

Hi, you might be interested in this discussion. I'm not sure how to proceed next or replicate the problem. If it's not an easy fix, can change the data back to the way it was before. -- GreenC 15:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: I commented at meta:User talk:Pppery#Ties in site rankings. The best way to handle it would be for NUMBEROF to have a new function to generate the whole table and for NUMBEROF to do something clever to handle multiple projects with the same rank. A problem with that is that people would want to fiddle with exactly what the table displays and that would require adjusting the module. Some projects might want not want the module to do what it does elsewhere. Bit of a mess. A workaround would be for you to restore the bot so rankings are unique, although that could be misleading. I don't know how it could be done, but possibly if project A has rank 11 and project B has rank 12, then later project B has the same number of articles as A, B could still be ranked as 12. That is, what ever would get an equal rank is ranked in the order it was last. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the past 3 or 4 years no one has brought this up, until the one user. Apparently they didn't like to see some sites misranked particularly with low count columns like number of admins which can have more than 2 ties for days or weeks. And they are right in a way.

Notably this user was consuming the JSON as a reader not understanding it was meant for use by templates. But this data was meant for templates, not human reading. When it's displayed in tables via the for nowiki loop, the ties become invisible since the precise ranking number is not shown. It doesn't matter (I think?) if Finland comes before Morocco or other way around. Even if we did it "correctly" with Finland and Morocco having the same rank, they still have to follow one another in table, it would look the same, or reversed, but who cares since they have the same rank.

I think an easy solution for now is restore the strictly ordered version, and if someone still has a problem with it, create a parallel JSON page under a new name with ties shown differently. They can use whichever table they prefer. One for humans, one for machines. I could also look into the bot ranking tied sites alphabetically in both versions, it may be difficult will see. Thanks. -- GreenC 02:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New .tab files on Commons. -- GreenC 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for African eelephant

Matr1x-101 has asked for a deletion review of African eelephant. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 17:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highbeam archive url swap

I've just now swapped a FREELIBRARY url for a HighBeam archive-url in this article. The Free Library provides complete rendition of the particular article and the HighBeam was partial. (Because the HighBeam-archive url is not used, the "subscription" portion of the citation does not apply.) I trust this bit of fiddling is acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: As far as I can see, that's an improvement to the article so good. If someone objects to that kind of edit for some reason (copyright?) I hope a discussion will occur somewhere that others can see it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genie

Can you revdel that? I handed in the bit for a while or I would have myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just did that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what this means?

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Shakespeare authorship question (October 2023). Tom Reedy (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. I don't much see the point of it either but there is a history of cleaning up this kind of thing. The theory (more of a political philosophy or strategy) is that Wikipedia should be open because freedom is good by definition. As the years pass, the number of restricted topics increases until large sections of Wikipedia are under a bureaucratic cloud which can be confusing for editors and admins. Therefore, the Arbitration Committee believes, it is better to periodically review the contentious topics (which is the new name for discretionary sanctions) and remove those for topics where there is no evidence of problems in the last couple of years. The good news is that the community has got more restrictive regarding fringe theories in general and there would be very little chance of significant disruption if the usual suspects were to return. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions permalink shows the background discussion where eight contentious topics, including SAQ, were removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Should this account be indeffed? It looks like all the edits are vandalism. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Six months is all I can manage. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Knight's TBan

Hi Johnuniq, you recently closed Infinity Knight's appeal.

I've read through the ArbCom remedies, and frankly, the ban is way out of line. There is just no authority for it. Sysops can only invoke the sanctions if certain conditions are met. They were obviously not met here.

There are other issues (some of which I've already raised). In your response to the appeal, you linked to a thread in which you accused IN of sealioning. I don't think it was appropriate for you to then be the one to make the close.

I've got no connection with this bloke, but I really have an issue with how this has been handled. I've come across the user multiple times on Israel-Palestine articles, and it strikes me that he is not dissimulating or stonewalling when he appeals to policy. He is genuinely trying, and I hate to see him cut off at the knees.

I'm appealing to your better angels to self-revert the close, even if you cannot overturn the ban. Riposte97 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ones' complement

What is your business reverting my spelling corrections, with comments like "where is that supported?", "is there a discussion somewhere supporting this?", and "that's terrible"? Why did you not do your own research to find out why "one's complement" is actually nonsense, or start a discussion before reverting these corrections, all motivated by an argument from incredulity? Did you even consult Wikipedia itself? It has a redirection from "One's complement" to "Ones' complement", so even if you misspelled it you would find the article with the correct spelling, and it immediately explains that spelling, in the first paragraph. Or, if you don't trust Wikipedia, you can read all about it in Donald E. Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming. Please undo these reversions yourself! — RFST (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 428: / Line 428: @@
 I'm appealing to your better angels to self-revert the close, even if you cannot overturn the ban. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
+== Ones' complement ==
+What is your business reverting my spelling corrections, with comments like "where is that supported?", "is there a discussion somewhere supporting this?", and "that's terrible"? Why did you not do your own research to find out why "one's complement" is actually nonsense, or start a discussion ''before'' reverting these corrections, all motivated by an [[argument from incredulity]]? Did you even consult Wikipedia itself? It has a redirection from "One's complement" to "Ones' complement", so even if you misspelled it you would find the article with the correct spelling, and it immediately explains that spelling, in the first paragraph. Or, if you don't trust Wikipedia, you can read all about it in [[Donald E. Knuth]]'s [[The Art of Computer Programming]]. Please undo these reversions yourself! — [[User:RFST|RFST]] ([[User talk:RFST|talk]]) 10:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)