This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

first, thank you for fixing the error from % in the parameter name. it would be amazing if you could make the mangling more robust/less complicated. basically, we want to "nowiki" the result and put it in "_VALUE_" in a way that (1) shows meaningful output, (2) isn't way too long, and (3) works as a category sort key. for positional args, we also show the value in preview mode, since the entire point of the warning is help the editor fix the issue. what I have there right now is using encode to html encode any known problematic characters (e.g., most problematic are probably brackets and newlines and possible pipes, but those would be harder to get in there). I was playing around with mw.text.nowiki instead, but I never really tested it that much to see if that was a better alternative. also, we can somewhat nonsensical output for <ref> in the output since these are "stripped" before we get the parameters. it would be great if we could make these appear as they do in the wikitext. thank you again. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Module:Check for unknown parameters • Module:Check for unknown parameters/sandbox • different (diff)

I'll have a look and will ping you when done. Module:Convert has to do something similar. I'll think about it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I'm working out what to do, and you might see that I did some minor refactoring in the sandbox. However, I'm not sure that anything good can be done with tags like <ref>. I would be inclined to use mw.text.killMarkers(s) to remove all strip markers from the displayed text. Or, possibly put in some klunky code to replace them with "...". I don't think it is possible to get the original ref wikitext (short of reading all wikitext from the page and parsing it). Any thoughts about that? I gather there are no testcases? Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

your refactoring looks great! thank you for fixing some of the redundant code, and dummy parameter names. I am always learning something new. I made some testcases in User:Frietjes/c4u, but used regular wikilinks instead of category links to avoid polluting category space. if there is some sacrificial sandbox category, we could use that to make sure that's working, but I am assuming that stuff that is bad for link text is the same stuff that is bad for a category sortkey. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll use that and I added something. Category:Convert tracking is available if wanted although a category is probably not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The subcategories of Category:Xn are made for testing, should you need some. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

BlackcurrantTea, great, thank you, I will use that category in the tests. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Frietjes, glad to help. I think you'll want to use the subcategories - X1, X2, and so on - rather than Xn itself, which is the parent category. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I added an excellent clean function to the sandbox but it's not working! (It's not keeping the refs.) Strange because it seems to work in Module:Sandbox/Johnuniq/temp as seen in the results. I'll have a break from that now but will be back. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I fixed a simple problem and the sandbox module now appears to be working well, see User:Frietjes/c4u#Test 6. In that, parameter 12 is |abc<math>x=12</math> which is displayed as abc.... That is, the invalid parameter is displayed after truncating it at the first strip marker that is not a reference (or sooner, if over 25 characters). You will see that ref tags are retained and are displayed as working references.

Now that I've got that working I'm thinking of another approach. How about not displaying references, and not truncating at non-reference strip markers. Instead, replace each strip marker with wikitext to show the idea, for example:

abc<ref>...</ref>def

abc<math>...</math>def

Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, awesome. anything that makes it easier to both (1) generate a meaningful category sort key and (2) find the offending wikitext to fix it would be amazing. thank you again. Frietjes (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I reworked the clean function in accord with my last comment. It could be misleading in that an invalid parameter might be

abc<ref name="hello">hello.com</ref>"

and that would be displayed as "abc<ref>...</ref>" because there is no way to get the original wikitext. It does similar for all strip markers and will show something reasonable for example with "abc<nowiki>[[Example]]</nowiki>". After you have had a chance to think about that, it might be time to update the main module. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, what you have in there right now looks great. I would update the main module, but it's currently admin-only cascade protected due to transclusion on one of the main pages. whether or not I can edit it fluctuates day-to-day, so I was able to edit five days ago, but not today :) Frietjes (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Cards84664 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll record some relevant links here. I think I was watching some of the pages after giving advice a couple of years ago.

Template:Adjacent stations

Template talk:Adjacent stations

Template:Rail color

Module:Adjacent stations

Module talk:Adjacent stations (redirect to Template talk:Adjacent stations)

Module:Rail (proposed new module)

Module talk:Rail

Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey John, I was wondering if you could help me. I'm in the process of copying date and age calculation templates and modules to the Dutch Wikipedia, and it hasn't been too much of an effort thus far. However, I'm struggling with telling Module:Age to use dmy instead of mdy by default when called on by ((death date and age)), since I feel an additional parameter (df=y) shouldn't be required when a country's default is dmy.

I usually manage to stumble my way through intricate syntax by scavenging or trial and error, but this one I'm having trouble with. It's definitely clear to me that something needs to be changed in both instances of these lines, but what?

local df = stripToNil(args.df)  -- day first (dmy); default is month first (mdy)
local result = df and
	'%-d %B %-Y' or
	'%B %-d, %-Y'
result = '(<span class="bday">%-Y-%m-%d</span>) </span>' .. result
result = '<span style="display:none"> ' ..

Take care. Jay D. Easy (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jay. The code is emulating the over-simplified technique used in many templates where any non-blank value for df is regarded as "yes". At enwiki, mf is ignored while any non-blank value for df gives dmy. You want the opposite:

local mf = stripToNil(args.mf)  -- month first (mdy); default is day first (dmy)
local result = mf and
	'%B %-d, %-Y' or
	'%-d %B %-Y'
result = '(<span class="bday">%-Y-%m-%d</span>) </span>' .. result
result = '<span style="display:none"> ' ..

If there is a problem, link to a module I can edit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Got it! I changed df to mf before already, but I'd neglected to swap the local results. Thanks for your help! Jay D. Easy (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Johnuniq. We would like to use this module for bnwiki (bn:মডিউল:Age). But module does not support Bengali digit as input and gives result in english. Can you help? Could you implement something like you did here? or something like Trappist the monk did here (line 374-381) & here (2730-2733). I know you are busy and i don't need right now. but please do when you can. Thank you. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I wondered about internationalization while writing Module:Date and Module:Age but I gave up because it's just too hard for the intricacies of what they do. The correct way to handle dates for other wikis is with things like mw.language:formatDate but I found it not quite right for what I wanted. I forget the details but I don't think it allowed the control I was after. I could think about it for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: I was hoping that some parser or Lua function would interpret local dates and provide a simple way for the module to translate a bn date to en. Then the module would process the en date as normal, and translate it to bn for output. It appears translating en dates to bn is easy, but I do not see a way to translate bn to en. I tried the following at bnwiki:

*((#time:Y-m-d|2018-2-9|en))
*((#time:Y-m-d|9 February 2018|en))
*((#time:Y-m-d|২০১৮-০২-০৯|en))
*((#time:Y-m-d|৯ ফেব্রুয়ারি ২০১৮|en))

The first two do what I hope, but the second two give "ত্রুটি: অবৈধ সময়" which I assume is an error message saying the input is not a valid date. Is that what the message says? Do you know of any method of accepting a bn date at bnwiki? How are dates normally formatted there? Is there any confusion such as the dmy/mdy usage which occurs here? Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately #time parser does not understand bn date (not only bn, any date other than en), dmy/mdy isn't problem here . Yes, "ত্রুটি: অবৈধ সময়" means "Error: Invalid time". To fix this problem, we use bn:Module:ConvertTime. I added some examples here. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This is being continued at bn:Module talk:বয়স (Age). Johnuniq (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views and/or to add new topics in the discussion. ∯WBG^converse 04:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. It is WP:Flow struggling out of its coffin as the WMF finds more junk to justify an expanding workforce. It's a shame they don't listen to the right people who could tell them what software developments are needed. It's more fun trying to beat Facebook. I know you are just the messenger. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You already did so three years ago. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Starke Hathaway: I know it's annoying, sorry. However, you are incorrect about "No need" because it is necessary for alerts to be renewed every 12 months (search WP:ACDS for "twelve months" to confirm that). The same documentation mentions somewhere that alerts for the same topic must not be issued more frequently than once every twelve months. Therefore it is necessary to search for them in the history of the talk page ([1]) so I saw the old alert. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You reverted my one-word edit 'dubious'. You seem to justify your revision by implying the cited reference supports the claim made in the sentence in question, that ". . . humans are most awake during the early evening hours . . .".

Where in the reference is this claim supported? Where does it state that humans are most awake during early evening?

I trust you will undo your reversion if the assertion is not supported in the reference.Gaussgauss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gaussgauss. This concerns my revert at Control of fire by early humans. Articles should be discussed at their talk page, in this case, Talk:Control of fire by early humans. Did you look at the reference? Its abstract verifies the information in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Are we allowed to use/translate code from these (modules) to use on other Wikipedias? Namely asking for Occitan since I'be been doing towns and noticed it doesn't include any type of way to show weather. I know things here seem to be public domain, I'm just new and nervous about toe-spepping by copying code over. Thanks for reading, and have a good one. BrennodAloisi (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrennodAloisi: Sure, copy any template or module. You are supposed to use an edit summary that includes an attribution. For example, if copying Module:Weather box your edit summary would be (in your local language), with any other note wanted:

copy from [[:en:Module:Weather box]]

The weather box templates/modules are undergoing some major changes at the moment (see recent comments at Template talk:Weather box) and I'm fixing a couple of things which will take a day or two. After that I would be happy to help with any problems. It might be a good idea to wait in case some last-minute updates occur here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq, and for getting back to me so quickly. In the meantime I've tried copying over a smaller model (climate diagram/(in Occitan)'diagrama climatic'), to see if I've got the basics of this down. Aside from a small bug with decimals, everything appears to work. I'm giving you time to work, though I'm eager to get started. Still getting used to Wikipedia and how the various knobs and switches for adding and testing things work. Kind regards, BrennodAloisi (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately you need a lot of stuff to make it work. The weather box code is:

• Template:Weather box
• Module:Weather box
• Module:Weather box/colors
• Module:Weather box/row

However, the weather box template uses a system to check parameters and output a warning category if required. That means the following is also needed:

• Module:Check for unknown parameters
• Template:Namespace detect
• Module:Namespace detect
• Module:Namespace detect/config
• Module:Namespace detect/data

Also, the weather box module uses Module:Math which requires the following:

• Module:Arguments
• Module:Math
• Module:Navbar
• Module:Yesno

No one has raised any problems with regard to the major changes that I mentioned so it is probably ok to copy whenever wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Got everything in,I'm just not sure how to handle the final part, which is setting up a WeatherBox with the localization. The Catalan version (nearest language, localisation in the Template code, updated early this year) uses a "buildRow" function, which the Occitan version doesn't seem to have (hence a line of errors for not having it.oops). Copying either one, English or Catalan, seems to leave a box with three things when I test it: - "Climate data at..." - Month - Jan, Feb, Mar, etc - The sources at the bottom. If you know how to help, pretty please. Catalan page (Clicking the translate link from 'weather box' takes you to 'Clima', a similar but different box) : https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantilla:WeatherBox My page (Occitan; currently has the Catalan text from my last test): https://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8l:Weather_box kind regards, BrennodAloisi (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

EDIT::Someone smarter than me figured it out. Everything is fine. BrennodAloisi (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Just to let you know User:Goldenshimmer improved the general articles section for Portal:Cotingas. It's showing alot more articles, thank heaven.Catfurball (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a -2 value instead of 0 would probably be fine, although TimeandDate.com uses a precise value. It was necessary to make an amendment though since the previous value being rounded off to -5 places was completely inaccurate since it is not possible for the moon to be that close to the earth, so it was confusing. Roy Batty (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Roy Batty: Yes, the way convert was rounding those values gave a misleading result, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why "WP:OWNTALK" is acceptable as a shortcut whereas "WP:OTHERTALK" isn't. That section already has four shortcuts, twice as many as any other on that page, yet five is one too many? Maybe if there are too many shortcuts, some of the others should be deleted to make room for "WP:OTHERTALK", which is after all far clearer and easier to remember than any of the others. "WP:TPO" was created by an indefinitely banned user and its meaning is pretty much completely opaque. Why don't we drop that? Citizen Canine (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please start a discussion at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines with a proposal to change the shortcuts. Any discussion here is likely to be missed by others who might have an opinion, and definitely would be missed by anyone in the future trying to work out the background regarding the guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Lutheran Trinity Church, East Melbourne at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dahn (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded there. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RealScienceGeek --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow they were indeffed quickly. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi! You reverted me, as did 2 other editors, so I have opened a discussion. Please contribute! Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_penis#Link_to_commons_category%7CHuman_male_urination_commons_category%7CHuman_female_urination♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 20:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There is too much drama associated with your account with undue use of Wikipedia to tell the world about sex stuff. We get it, in fact most of us are human and understand about sex but we don't need to make a fuss by hosting sex images on our user page or listing every bodily function in as many articles as possible. Johnuniq (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

On 28 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lutheran Trinity Church, East Melbourne, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lutheran Trinity Church, East Melbourne. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious

autonomy / mastery / purpose

Thank you for quality articles such as Lutheran Trinity Church, East Melbourne and Hermann Herlitz, for help with Lua modules, for welcoming new users, for service from 2008, for the autonomy / mastery / purpose of your user page, - John, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, much appreciated! Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Concerns Regarding User:Bbb23 and Possible Misuse of Admin/CU Abilities". Thank you. Notifying you as I mentioned your name. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Since you aren't responding over at the talk page, I am taking this opportunity to tell you I plan to take a second stab at the documentation issue soon, Johnuniq. Please therefore tell me if you'd rather move directly to dispute arbitration and save me the trouble of coming up with efforts you will never accept. Remember, so far you have provided exactly zero useful suggestions as to what additions you might like. This is your chance of rectifying this.

If I don't hear from you a day or so after your edit history shows activity (meaning you have been alerted to this message) I will assume you won't object and that you will not waste my time. Let me be very clear: You are more than welcome to constructively improve on my effort. However, merely reverting is not an improvement and is not constructive. CapnZapp (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I responded at Template talk:Age#MOS:RELTIME. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your longstanding maintenance of ((convert)) and friends. Wonderful job! — JFG talk 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! As a matter of fact, I'm puzzling over a convert bug at the moment... Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

On 2 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hermann Herlitz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hermann Herlitz (pictured), born to Jewish parents in Prussia in 1834, was pastor of the Lutheran Trinity Church in East Melbourne, Australia, for 46 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hermann Herlitz. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello again! I just tried to AfD Stuck (unit), after User:Reyk pointed out it is almost certainly a corruption from the German "Stück", a counter word for commercial items. Unfortunately I don't practice much, and forgot that you have to have everything ready to paste in; I took too long, and Twinkle aborted partway through. I pasted the text into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuck (unit), but I'm not sure if this is enough - the format certainly doesn't "look" right - and have no idea how to correct it. Please help! Do you also have a neat list of previous contributors to notify? Imaginatorium (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: Thanks for continuing with this. I did what I think is needed to fix the AfD and will join in later. I'll also think about previous contributors. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And again! But mercifully this time nothing to do with Cardarelli...

Are you a template expert? Can you explain a few basics to me? I want to make a version of Template:Wiktionary that does not slope the headword, and really that does not underline it either. I wrote about this at Template_talk:Wiktionary#no_italics_for_foreign_scripts_please a couple of years ago, but nothing has happened. So I would like to try myself, but I cannot see how to even access the source of the template. I understand it is protected, for good reason, but can't find my way through the maze of pages... Imaginatorium (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: I'll look at this soon but am posting to say there is sure to be a way to fix the problem and it will be done. I take it that an extra optional parameter would be acceptable and a first step would be to think about what syntax is wanted (working out what inputs can occur is necessary before going too far into implementation!). Special:ExpandTemplates is useful to see what output currently occurs (it looks like bold italics with five apostrophes from a quick glance at the template). What output should occur? Experiments can occur in Template:Wiktionary/sandbox and it would be useful to add some examples of current undesirable behavior to Template:Wiktionary/testcases so the sandbox template can be tested. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: As you know, we are continuing this discussion at Template talk:Wiktionary#no italics for foreign scripts please. In case you are still wondering about how to see the wikitext of Template:Wiktionary, visit that page and click "View source" which appears at the top in the place where "Edit" normally would be. In the resulting window you can select all text and copy it. Then paste it into Template:Wiktionary/sandbox where it can be freely edited. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Crumbs... I wonder what quintuple quotes are, exactly. This sort of half-baked non-a-programming-language reminds me of a friend who worked for a Tokyo patent office, around 1980. They had the latest super-expensive Toshiba dedicated Japanese word-processor, and it enabled them to edit and print documents successfully. But they were still counting the words by hand, and Toshiba (the "experts") said Sorry, no way to count words. But it had a primitive macro system, rather like wp templates, no iteration etc, so he wrote this horrendously convoluted macro, rather like "template:wiktionar" with 10 cases all over the place, which progressively replaced sequences of words with tags, and, after like half an hour, showed an fairly accurate word count. ... Anyway, I'll talk about the real subject over there. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Five apostrophes gives bold italics. For example, '''''ABC''''' gives HTML <i><b>ABC</b></i>. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, right. Thanks! Imaginatorium (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, another general question about templates: I found the (IMO rather silly) Template:Letters with grave on the page Grave accent. But I can't see how to find what other pages, if any, also use it. What am I missing? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

At Template:Letters with grave, click "What links here" in the tools box in the left sidebar. That gives Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Letters with grave which shows the template is only in that one article. Sometimes complex wikitext is put in a template even if it is only used in one article, to make editing the article easier. That's a bit controversial and minimalists would like to substitute the template into the article, then delete the template. Of course the question of whether what the template shows is useful is another issue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix/clean up! 👍 → 71.236.191.197 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the initial work. I hoped you checked our edits! Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Matthias Goethe at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ykraps (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at the BLP Noticeboard regarding the Halsey Minor article. Both you and the other editor said the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jasonliveplanet/draftHM

proposed draft] would probably be better and more encyclopedic than the current lawsuit-oriented page. However, I wasn’t sure what the next steps are. What are the next steps to getting the draft implemented and/or otherwise addressing the issue? The article is affecting his reputation in the real-world so I am eager to get it fixed promptly while following Wikipedia’s rules. Jasonliveplanet (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jasonliveplanet: Like many others I am despondent regarding an extremely unusual incident (WP:FRAM). In my case, I am taking a short break. As I mentioned at BLPN, replacing the article with a draft will be a problem. The first step might be to try it and see what reaction occurs. If reverted, falling back to editing the existing article section-by-section might be tried. Other processes are also available but nothing works quickly in a situation like this. Ping Govindaharihari whom I see you have also approached. I would be prepared to do something perhaps around the middle of next week. Feel free to post here again at the end of next week if I forget. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

On 16 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Matthias Goethe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Matthias Goethe, who was born in Prussia and trained to become a Catholic priest, became a Lutheran pastor and established congregations in Australia, the United States, and Mexico? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Matthias Goethe. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Johnuniq. Regarding this, any idea how to resolve the limit so that all of those editors are pinged? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Did this edit at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images fail to ping the specified users? And you know that because you have a preference set to notify you when a ping fails? Notifications are a bit mysterious. It's quite possible that the system regarded the diff as an edit which did various things including adding some user names. That does not trigger notifications. Imagine what would happen if someone posted a bunch of user names and then edited the text a dozen times to correct typos. The named users do not want a dozen pings. That's why the system works as it does. For a notification, it wants to see a new comment (which does not alter existing text) and which has a signature. There is a hard limit of 50 pings per edit and apparently no pings are sent if more than 50 user names are provided. To fix the pings at that page, make a series of edits. First, remove all the pings (and publish). Second (in a new edit), add new text with the pings (no more than 50) and a signature. If 80 pings are wanted, do one edit to add 40, with a signature. Then do another edit to add the remainder, with a signature. If wanted, make another edit to collapse the text. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy stated that my second try failed. So I think it did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, so proceed as above. I suggest using an edit summary that includes "sorry if you got this again". Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather you give it a go. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

At Module:Coordinates, your latest edit completely reverted the edits of Jonesey95. I was assuming this was an error (because the formatting changes were also reverted). I made a hybrid version that kept your change for qid, but also kept Jonesey95's edits. I'm now realizing that you may have intentionally completely reverted that edit. Did you purposefully want to delete Jonesey95's edit (including the formatting changes)? —hike395 (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Hike395: you probably want to see John's comment at [2] if you haven't already. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thanks for pointing that out. I saw that after I made the hybrid: I should have attempted to find more context for today's edit by Johnuniq. Now I'm trying to figure out whether to entirely self-revert back to the version by Johnuniq, or to keep the formatting changes by Jonesey95. There's also some ambiguity about whether Jonesey meant to remove the visible error messages in addition to the tracking category by his edit on May 7. Given all of the ambiguity, I want to understand what everyone meant to do before I make a further mess in the Module. —hike395 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record, my edit to Module:Coordinates was good and the changes were explained in the edit summary. I have put more detail at Template talk:Coord#Proposal to limit "malformed coordinates" category to article space. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted --- I apologize for assuming it was a sandbox sync issue. —hike395 (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem and thank you for checking edits to the module. My change was a mess because I like cleaning whitespace inconsistencies. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

My edits were constructive. I edit Wikipedia correctly. Read the article now and see the NHC before you revert edits. 86.182.213.108 (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue is 2019 Pacific hurricane season where you made a series of edits (diff) with no edit summaries. The edits involved what appear to be arbitrary changes to numbers. Unfortunately the template immediately after "with gusts up to" was also damaged—a large error message would have been seen if the edit had been previewed. A lot of edits with what appear to be arbitrary number changes are made to a lot of articles every day and I'm afraid it is not possible to carefully review all of them. Fixing the template would be an endorsement of the edits. Please give a clue in an edit summary about what your edits are doing, preferably with a link or at least a mention of the source. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC).

Sorry for getting all annoyed with you. I now understand. Thanks very much. Have a good rest of your day. 86.182.213.108 (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

... here, was that since I was/am working off a hard copy I was unsure at first whether the fraction was made using the special character for it (¼) or through the ((frac)) template. I assumed the former, which is deprecated as it's harder to see, but found after making the change it was the latter, meaning the way I had set up the ((convert)) template was unnecessary; however, I forgot to take the display option out. Thanks for fixing that. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Understandable and thanks for working on the article; my contribution was very small. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

And what noticeboard will that be?--Biografer (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Biografer: You could try WT:Short description but first read the talk page and its archive for background. That would be unlikely to get support for the idea of removing short descriptions so anyone wanting to do that might try WP:Village pump (proposals) where the proposal would be that descriptions should be removed from articles while making other edits because [reason]. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to lift IBAN". Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This follows from some comments at my RfA. I agree that the iban is pointless now and will support its removal. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I'm convinced. Good luck! GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Thanks very much! Only 3 days, 16 hours more... Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ha yes, I remember that feeling. GoldenRing (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations Johnuniq! Your RfA was successful. You are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I hope you have just as happy a time editing in the future as you did before your RfA. You may want to look at the admin guide to read up on any tools you are unfamiliar with.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Congrats --DannyS712 (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: Welcome aboard, man! – Athaenara ✉ 05:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all! I'm going to take some time to digest this no big deal! Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you! Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Felicitations on your successful RfA. Please pause for a moment and savor your triumph... Done? Good. The CSD backlog is here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! Double sharp (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

From me too. It's long overdue. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Chiming in to add my congrats as well J. MarnetteD|Talk 05:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all! Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Well deserved. You're an awesome editor, Johnuniq! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  07:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you've got the right talk page but I'll accept that gratefully, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

lol! You kiddin' me? Yes, I've got the right talk page. I've always thought for good or bad that there's only one reason to run the gauntlet of an RfA. And that's to show yourself that you've got the trust of a significant sample of the Wikipedia editing community. You've earned that trust! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  07:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for running for adminship, and for your continued interest in improving Wikipedia. Congratulations, and carry on. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• If mine passes, let me know if I can help you get acclimated. If it doesn't, now I know where to go if I need admin stuff done, or if I need WMF merch and want the admin discount... -Floquenbeam (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Congratulations, Johnuniq! You survived Hell Week! Know that you can always ask questions if they come up. You're not in this alone. Good luck with adminning!
• Congratulations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks all! It will be a slow start for me but I'm likely to be around for years more and hope to justify the good wishes sent my way. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on the successful RfA! Csgir (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I will need that, thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on the successful RfA. It takes real courage to stand up for something like that and you deserve all the credits. Although I am a critic, I would be overjoyed to be proved wrong by your good work as an admin. Good luck and cheers. DBigXrayᗙ 08:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll see. It would be more accurate to describe me as cautious rather than courageous. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations. "Cautious" is good. Wishing you the best! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on becoming an Administrator! I wish you all the best. I’m now getting into editing on a regular basis and noticed the support you received in the RfA, so I hope to learn a thing or two. :) Giooo95 (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, there are lots of good people at Wikipedia and it's a good place to learn. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Good grief! These people should start handing out cards for AA with all this beer. (I usually give cigars.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, a nice red wine every now and then would be good. Johnuniq (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm also partial to a nice red. Port is a particular weakness. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! Let's see if you can handle the bit with all these beers :-). Dirk Beetstra T C 06:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, an interesting challenge! About time for you to restart? Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Drinking beer, you mean? I will be in a non-dry environment from Wednesday ... :-D Depending on my views with some beers, and/or the events that will occur on-wiki around that time I will certainly reconsider. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You know we need you! Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, for drinking beer? You'll do perfectly without me :-D. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Bit late, but congratulations! Linguist111^{my talk page} 15:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that's fantastic, thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template ((Ds/aware)) to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sorry I missed your RFA until I saw your promotion listed in the admin newsletter. I was surprised by it, because I thought that you had been an admin for years. So I was not surprised to see that it all went smoothly.

Congrats. It's good to have such as skilled and cool-headed addition to the admin pack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not really smoothly, but it went. Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Congrats from me too, Johnuniq! Drmies (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this is all rather overwhelming! Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I would've supported if I'd been around. Glad to see something good happened while I was away. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I will want to ask if you can help me to find a solution with a problem that we have at the Macedonian Wikipedia with the module:Val, when I try to make the transition from the template:Val to the module:Val as it is at the English Wikipedia, all the values that used the template, vanish only empty fields are seen. Is there something that has to be changed in the code of the module, as I'm not skilled to do that, can you see if there is a solution, so that we can transit to using the module:Val. Thank you for you time and help. Cheers Инокентиј (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Инокентиј: Please link to the template and the module. Also, there needs to be a sandbox with at least one example of a failure. If you are still using the old template, I am hoping you have a sandbox version of the template which uses the module so I can see what the problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq here are the links to the template and the module: mk:шаблон:Вред , mk:модул:Val, I found this template I hope is the one you seek as a sandbox mk:Шаблон:Val/sandbox. Cheers Инокентиј (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Инокентиј: That looks good but now I need an example of syntax that fails. I tried previewing ((val/sandbox|1.23|12|34)) and it seems to work. Can you make a test page somewhere (perhaps my mk sandbox) with a couple of examples that do not work? By the way, while doing that test I was surprised to see that Module:Convert was used. The same val also does that here at enwiki. I don't understand why I have not noticed that before—val should not try to use convert unless needed for a unit. I will think about that. Also, would you please put the standard welcome at mk:User talk:Johnuniq because I like to see what the different Wikipedias do. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I found the reason that Module:Convert is used by ((val|1.23)). It's because val defaults to including a hidden sort key in case the template is used in a sortable table. I was never very happy with the bloat that causes because a lot of val templates are not in tables, however that is the reason and convert is used to generate the sort key. Something like ((val|1.23|sortable=off)) does not use convert. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq for an example of fails in the template and then in the module you can see this two pages: mk:Список на вонсончеви планети забележани од вселенско летало Кеплер-here the template can not show all the values it goes freaky if all the data is shown, I have hidden most of the text in the tables because the problem escalates if all is seen. And if we transition to use the module no value is seen in the tables. The second page where you can see only the failing of the module is mk:Планкова константа-here when we will transition to the module the values in the table vanish, now it is OK with the template, but when we will try to use the module the problem starts. I hope this will help you to see the issue in full. Cheers Инокентиј (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will put some tests at mk:User:Johnuniq/val. The first article you link has over 3000 val templates! I am looking for just a small number which do not work using val/sandbox. I'll look at this in the next day or two and will notify you when needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Инокентиј: You provided two articles to show problems:

• mk:Список на вонсончеви планети забележани од вселенско летало Кеплер
• mk:Планкова константа

Those articles are currently using the old Template:val (redirects to mk:Шаблон:Вред) which does not use the module. Both articles are showing problems that I think would be fixed by switching them to use the module (by using template mk:Template:val/sandbox).

The first article has 404 occurrences of "Шаблон:Val" because the Newpp report in the HTML source shows "Post‐expand include size: 2097152/2097152 bytes". That is, the size of the article has reached the maximum allowed of 2 megabytes which stops template expansions. Using mk:Special:ExpandTemplates shows that ((val)) expands ((val|1.91|0.36|-0.47)) to 430 bytes, whereas ((val/sandbox)) expands it to 279 bytes.

The second article is showing several "[[:Шаблон:Val/units/sandbox" due to a template problem. That would be fixed with the module. If you want, set my account to auto-confirmed or whatever is needed so that I do not see "Your changes will be displayed to readers once an authorized user accepts them" in an edit window. I will then put ((val/sandbox)) temporarily in the articles, and update the modules to the latest versions. Or, you can do that. At any rate, I cannot see a problem with ((val/sandbox)). If you can see a problem, please copy/paste some text showing the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hi, Johnuniq, our goal is to transit to the use of the module:Val because I think that will solve all the problems we have now on our Wikipedia. I think I have changed your user rights and now you can change things without waiting for confirmation. Thank you for your effort and time. Cheers Инокентиј (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Инокентиј: I found the small problem and fixed it. Please see mk:Special:Contributions/Johnuniq. Let me know if you see anything else that needs fixing. If you ever want to properly translate Module:Convert I could help. An editor has updated some unit names but not with the recommended procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@I'm very grateful and also our community for your effort and time Johnuniq, till now everything is OK and I think that you should have this appreciation for your work and help:

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your help in improving and evolving the Macedonian Wikipedia. Инокентиј (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem! Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I received your ping, and the only thing I got from your biased threat was that you had not probably followed the TP discussion correctly. RFC seems logical but BLP? who spoke about BLP??? FYI, The core of the discussion is an author who's affiliated with an org paid to support MEK. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: There may be a misunderstanding—I am not threatening you. I'm letting you know that, given the situation, some admins might issue blocks for edit warring. The edit warring policy includes an exemptions list for reverts that should not be counted for WP:3RR. Being right is not one of the exemptions. I mentioned BLP because it is one of the exemptions—if someone reverts frequently they might not be blocked provided their edit summaries mention they are reverting a BLP violation, and providing that claim looks reasonable. I wrote "should not be counted" because admins might not notice the precise reason claimed for a revert—if they see edit warring they might block straight away. I wrote "It appears three editors are reverting you and I didn't see any support for your position on talk". Possibly my quick look at the Hafte Tir bombing history and talk misled me because another even quicker look suggests your are one of two editors removing some text, while two others are adding it. That does not alter the fact that edit warring is prohibited—spreading it out with 16 reverts in the last three weeks is still severe edit warring. The advice I gave was good—request help at a noticeboard and follow that up with an RfC asking whether the text should be included. It can be useful to ask for other opinions, for example, at WP:Teahouse. Ask whether anyone agrees with the response I gave, and ask what people think should be done. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response which was informative, logical and applicable. Now, I understand why you mentioned BLP in your previous comment. Yes, edit warring is prohibited but, though "Being right is not one of the exemptions" and I refrained from editing the article for two weeks, I believe my removal was backed by TP discussions of the article in question and People's Mujahedin of Iran (a highly related subject, where the admin said we need to use fresh sources for reaching conclusion and that MEK-sympathetic sources should not be preferred). You see, when writing the lead these two issues should be taken seriously. So, I thought the edit was agreed by un-involved parties. Anyway, thanks for the response. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Good Afternoon. I was reading the above page last night and noticed a clear bias in wording. After not understanding what I was doing wrong and it continuing to be reverted I then only changed one word. Which is provable fact. The paragraph above the one I edited last night stated that scholars cited them to imply credibility. The paragraph stating it was not credible has the sources as Pundits, politicians, and some of the groups designated by them. This is not unbiased or neutral language. The definition of the word Scholar per dictionary.com is "a learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject." I am not sure why either the word scholar or government officials can not be added to the second paragraph as it is the case. The attorney General of the USA directly challenged their definition. That is the top law enforcement officer in this country, so I am pretty confident that makes him a scholar on hate crimes. Since he is the one who is charged with enforcing the laws on it. There is one editor that kept reverting it that invited me to go to the talk page but when you look at it, it and the prior conversations it doesn't look like equals talking. He even mocks one guy by implying only random people say negative things about the SPLC. Obviously, if I created an account and am trying to figure this out I am not some random troll. I believe you have editors, monitoring the page that are intentionally protecting it from factual criticism. Saying some government officials challenge its credibility is true. When you compare the word some scholars to some pundits, which has more weight? Like I told the one guy, I never edited before so I get why I was wrong the first time and see the clunky of the second. But one word? That is neither clunky, POV, or coatrack. The SPLC used to be above the politics but as you can see from their fundraising campaign directly using Trump as a tool of hate to raise money it is hard not to see bias. Right now it seems you just have a couple bullies who prevent facts that may hurt their beliefs chasing off new editors. There is only one new editor at a time that challenges it, and they are established and evidently can just block new editors in favor of their own meaning I can never hope to have a group on my side as dedicated. In conclusion I hope you will see the logic in this and change the one word to either "some scholars" or "some government officials" to give fair and accurate weight. Otherwise it hurts the credibility of the entire wiki idea. just bully new people out of editing and participating. Thank you for your consideration and have a great rest of your day! Sincerely, Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attmepttobalance (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC) — Attmepttobalance (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

While this is an opinion piece it was published in the USA TODAY, today. https://www.yahoo.com/news/southern-poverty-law-center-hate-090008447.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attmepttobalance (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Attmepttobalance: Presumably this relates to my temporary protection of List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Discussion regarding possible improvements to the article should occur at its talk page. If you comment there, please try to post a brief statement regarding precisely what text in the article you think should be changed and why. At Wikipedia, "why" means specifying the reliable sources that would be used to verify due information. You did mention "some scholars" but that comes after quite a lot of opinion that deflects from a helpful discussion. Your user name is not desirable because editors here should be attempting to improve the encylopedia based on its fundamental principles, and should not be attempting to add undue "balance". Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

While I am not sure I put a lot of opinion in any of my edit, I did pare it down substantially. There was a single line that would have been wrong and I agreed with it not being allowed and was bad wording on my part. The rest was simply examples. Some of which I just took off the SPLC page. Not sure that is my opinion at that point. As you can see, after they explained coatrack, which I had never heard of before, I reduced it to one word. Are you saying if I post it in talk page there with a direct link to an article saying the Attorney General's words, that you will allow it to be edited? My last edit was one word being changed and it still got reverted. Looking at the talk page on that it doesn't seem promising for the exact reasons I mentioned above. I am not arguing the page shouldn't exist. It should. I am saying that a man went into an office building and shot at a bunch of people because they saw the SPLC list and thought it was just a statement of fact. Which if you read that link it mentions. All I am asking is that for the safety and accuracy of the page it should have more than clear biased words of pundits, politicians and people accused. That is not giving people that pause before they pull the trigger and it is not complete in its accuracy. Balance should be required if it is also factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attmepttobalance (talk • contribs) 04:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I did add it to the talk page. Hopefully that is what you guys needed and you change it before the bias and inaccuracy gets people killed. Like I said before, I have never edited before but I have given money and I may never edit again, especially considering this experience. My name was only created to have this conversation. Thank you and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attmepttobalance (talk • contribs) 05:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Attmepttobalance: My involvement was to temporarily protect the article because of a series of disruptive edits per a request at WP:RFPP. I do not want to think about the topic, at least I don't want to think about it at the moment...there are other things I should do. We are all volunteers and have no interest in whether someone donates or not, and certainly would not take comments regarding that as a reason to change an article. Every conceivable topic is covered at Wikipedia and editors argue about appropriate wording on hundreds (thousands?) of talk pages every day. In other words, making comments in favor of a certain change most certainly does not necessarily allow the edit. To be more precise, while anyone might make a change, anyone else might revert it. When that happens, dispute resolution is used. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You guys are all volunteers? As an admin? Holy cow. Dedicated. And a lot of time. You must be very rich to afford that. I was actually just stating the lack of editing and donation to show that I wasn't trying to troll, I am being sincere. It would make more sense to fight my edits if I tried to edit every page kind of thing. I'm very frustrated by the amount of time I have spent on this. I admit the way I started was incorrect for this format, and apologize, but I feel I have heeded everyone's notes as best I can and attempted to make a legitimate argument backed with links. It seems clear the people monitoring that page have a political bias that will always win as they are established and been doing it awhile. I wish you the best of luck. Good day sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attmepttobalance (talk • contribs) 08:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I would not have bothered you further had I known you were a volunteer. I thought you were a wiki rep. I am just going to close my account and move on. Good day to you sir and best of luck in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attmepttobalance (talk • contribs) 09:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid we are all volunteers, and everything takes a long time with a lot of "discussion". Later I will probably restore the previous comments we exchanged because the standard procedure is to leave them visible for a record of what happened. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Restoration done. Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Said sock is TEUETDUTHRFTY. Their e-mail has already been disabled. This is literally the first time anyone's sent me e-mail from Wikipedia. The E-Mail has no links, but their language glaringly idenitifies them as a Nate Speed sock. Crboyer (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Crboyer: That account was blocked at 01:18, 27 August 2019 UTC with email disabled. Presumably they sent the email before that block took effect, or maybe a minute or so after but the system had not yet disabled email. There is no need to do anything more. Childish threats are best ignored: they are obvious nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)