User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Johnuniq. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Wikipedia Library, Metrics Coordinator

Hey John. You've been invaluable to demonstrating the imapct of our library donations. I want to ask you if you'd like to take on this role more fully, running metrics reports for all of our partnerships every 3 months. The key ones we have not done yet are Questia and JSTOR and Cochrane. Having data on these would help us greatly in making the case for extension and expansion of these parternships. Would you be interested in having the Metrics Coordinator position and doing this regularly? You've been great at it so far and it's really invaluable. Perhaps we should set up a time to chat and see what would work best for you. Hope you're well, Jake Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There will be a more clever way of doing what I have been doing. I have been wanting to investigate WP:Labs for a while, and something run there on a regular basis makes more sense than searching downloaded external links dumps. A problem for me is that a major project (Module:Convert) that I have worked on for a year has just gone live, and I won't feel like looking at anything else for a few weeks. But yes, I'm happy to do more link searching. Johnuniq (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! Yeah, there must be a way to automate this.

I was wondering...if we could run the JSTOR numbers using the old method, from 1/2011 to 11/2013 searching for http://www.jstor.org*** or https://www.jstor.org/stable*** (I'm not sure which is more appropriate). This could be really useful in persuading JSTOR to extend the partnership and expand out of pilot phase to more accounts. Any chance we could have that by New Year's? Pretty please? ;)

Oh yeah, you're informally now appointed the Metrics Coordinator, so congratulations!! We can talk more later about how to make that easy and rewarding on your end, but I want you involved, most definitely. Cheers, and thank you for your work, Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at the JSTOR issue soonish. Poke me if I forget because there's a few things going on. Johnuniq (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Ocaasi: The JSTOR results are below. You wanted 1/2011 to 12/2013, but my earliest dump of external links is 6/2011 and my "history" method for estimating counts at earlier dates is unattractive because far too many pages (20,000 articles) would need analysis.

I started by looking at all the JSTOR links in articles in December 2013, and saw no reason to exclude some of them, so I ended up searching for all links of form "jstor.org/something" (not case sensitive, but virtually all occurrences are lowercase).

The following shows all external links of form "jstor.org/something" (not case sensitive) in articles, found by examining dumps like enwiki-20131202-externallinks.sql.gz downloadable from here. Links in pages other than articles are not included.

All links to jstor.org/something in articles
Date	Unique articles	Unique links	Total links
2011-06-20	19,953	27,727	33,001
2011-07-22	20,263	28,121	33,486
2011-09-01	20,696	28,825	34,359
2012-02-11	22,808	29,886	36,294
2012-03-07	23,471	30,600	37,115
2012-04-03	23,733	30,963	37,588
2012-05-02	24,318	31,619	38,400
2012-06-01	24,668	32,598	60,531
2012-07-02	25,698	33,290	40,313
2012-08-02	26,089	33,783	40,897
2012-09-02	26,412	34,164	41,431
2012-10-01	26,756	34,614	41,981
2012-11-01	27,070	35,103	42,578
2012-12-01	27,607	35,803	43,402
2013-01-02	28,055	36,460	44,187
2013-02-04	28,496	37,111	45,016
2013-03-04	82,983	91,903	100,024
2013-04-03	83,679	92,826	100,984
2013-05-03	84,666	94,049	102,352
2013-06-04	84,881	94,304	102,644
2013-07-08	86,430	96,285	104,920
2013-08-05	87,253	97,268	106,059
2013-09-04	88,258	98,458	107,415
2013-10-01	89,031	101,316	121,514
2013-11-04	90,125	101,643	137,188
2013-12-02	90,843	102,537	138,574

The number of pages and links dramatically rose during February 2013—the number of articles tripled, and the number of links more than doubled. I investigated to see if that was some bug in my scripts, but it appears to be correct. It looks as if a tremendous amount of wikignoming went on in that month, but the most significant factor is that the number of "doBasicSearch" links rose from 1300 to 55,300, and most of them appeared to have been placed in articles which had not previously had a JSTOR link. So, in February 2013, 54,000 JSTOR "doBasicSearch" links were added to articles! Looking at a couple of examples shows that doBasicSearch is coming from {{notability}} which generates "Find sources" with a JSTOR search. Confusingly, "Find sources" is not visible on some articles (example), apparently due to {{notability}} being embedded in {{multiple issues}}—however, the JSTOR link is present in the html source of the article, and it is counted as an external link. An example of an article where the JSTOR search is visible is here. All that suggests that I should run my scripts again, but adjust the search to eliminate doBasicSearch links. On the other hand, the fact that a search to JSTOR is visible at the top of thousands of articles could well be seen as a bonus for JSTOR, so for the moment I'll just report what I have found, despite the fact that a significant number of the links are not visible. While comparing the February and March 2013 results it was clear that hundreds of standard reference links were added, as well as the 54,000 doBasicSearch.

Fantastic Johnuniq. I'm adding this to the JSTOR/metrics page and will let Steven (WMF) know about how much we have expanded out links to JSTOR. Hopefully that will be persuasive for increasing/expanding/continuing the pilot donation program. Thank you! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, I noticed that the oldest article that currently contains JSTOR links is Anarchism, which was created in 2001.

I guess you are aware, but in case you missed it, I did some Credo results earlier this month, see here. I'm afraid I still have not got around to fixing the graphing software that I use, so I don't have a graph for the above. Please find someone at WP:VPT to plot it because the numbers look like they show a steady increase. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

One week alive and no sleep lost for anyone: here it is

1 mi = 1.6093440 km	[[ module:express barnstar for Lua contribution ]]
	p = {} global function expressBarnStar ( star, reasons, sign ) -- todo: function to handle the data; ask Juniq return '[[file:' .. star .. '\|150px]]' .. reasons .. /n .. sign end return p
	`One week live already and wonderfully stable, consistent and very few faults appearing. A pleasure to work with. -DePiep 12:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)`

Thanks, that's stunning, and very much appreciated! Johnuniq (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You might enjoy this

You might enjoy this. [1] Maybe you could come up with a "kind description". Barleybannocks (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it will be a while before I get a moment to try that. Perhaps some seasonal goodwill (backed by some solid topic bans!) will bring an outbreak of peace soon. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if you keep banning everyone who knows what they're talking about, the chances seem rather slim. Better just to write a reasonably neutral article and be done with it. Even if that does mean telling some of the frightened children to grow up.Barleybannocks (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Convert and use in val template

I've been trying to use convert module in the {{val}} template with the following code:

which works fine for when the unit is a recognised one but when the unit is not recognised, it is displaying a warning.

{{Val/unitsfromconvert|1|abcd|disp=unit}} - | Gy=Gy | rad=rad

| m2/ha=m²/ha | sqft/acre=sq ft/acre

| cent=¢ | ¢=¢

| A.h=A·h | coulomb=C | e=e | A·h=A·h

| kgCO2/L=kg(CO₂)/L | lbCO2/USgal=lbCO2/US gal

| oz/lb=oz/lb | mg/kg=mg/kg

| $/acre=/acre | $/ha=/ha | $/m2=/m² | $/sqft=/sq ft

| $/km=/km | $/mi=/mi

| $/m3=/m³ | $/oilbbl=/bbl

| £/acre=/acre | £/ha=/ha

| kcal/mol=kcal/mol | kJ/mol=kJ/mol

| Sv=Sv | rem=rem

| kPa/m=kPa/m | psi/ft=psi/ft

| G=G | T=T

| A/m=A/m | kA/m=kA/m | MA/m=MA/m | Oe=Oe

| kg/kW=kg/kW | lb/hp=lb/hp

| kg/h=kg/h | lb/h=lb/h

| /l=/l | /USgal=/U.S. gal | /usgal=/U.S. gal

| Bq=Bq | Ci=Ci

| C=°C | F=°F | K=K | keVT=keV | MK=MK | R=°R | Celsius=°C | °C=°C | °F=°F | °R=°R

| cuyd/mi=cu yd/mi | m3/km=m³/km

I had thought that setting warnings=0 in Val/unitsfromconvert would have suppressed the message and just output the unit but it doesn't seem to. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A warning can only be disabled if the problem does not prevent valid output. Because an unknown unit has no valid output, it's an error that cannot be disabled. What do you need? With some new option, disp=unit would display the unit if valid, or the input unit code if it is not known? Are other options involved like lk=on? Is anything else needed like also showing a value while suppressing an error message? If you have suggested syntax, let me know, or I'll think about it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a test of a very q&d modification I just made to Module:Convert/sandbox:

{{convert/sandbox|1|abcd|test=noerror}} → 1 abcd^{[convert: unknown unit]}
{{convert/sandbox|2|abcd|test=noerror|disp=unit}} → abcd^{[convert: unknown unit]}
{{convert/sandbox|2|abcd|test=noerror|lk=on|disp=unit}} → abcd^{[convert: unknown unit]}

The option "test" is an exception that does not require translation in convert/text, so I used it. If a better name is devised ("error=ignore"?) that can be used, but it would have to be defined properly in convert/text. Using test=noerror means an unknown input unit is assigned a dummy unit of type length, with scale 1. Is this useful? Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Good, but are you ready to say exactly what should be done? Are any other tricks needed for {val}? I used input value 2 above to show that the dummy unit suppresses adding an "s" to make a plural name. I guess that is wanted, and/or you don't care because {val} will always use 1? The trick will only ignore an unknown-unit error when looking up the input, but other errors like specifying a nonexistent output unit would cause an error. I guess that's ok? Does any option spring to mind, or will I make something up? Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it in a bit more detail & get back to you after christmas. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

test should not be used in mainspace. Stay clean. -DePiep (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: What do you think of the following, which I have put in the module sandbox? If you can think of a better option name, let me know. Is anything else needed?

Forget |test=noerror (I have removed that).
Use |disp=unit or text to display the input unit if known, or the input text.
Examples:
{{convert/sandbox|1|um|disp=unit or text}} → micrometre

{{convert/sandbox|1|um|disp=unit or text|abbr=on}} → μm

{{convert/sandbox|1|um|disp=unit or text|abbr=on|lk=on}} → μm

{{convert/sandbox|1|abcd|disp=unit or text|abbr=on}} → abcd

{{convert/sandbox|1|abcd|disp=unit or text|abbr=on|lk=on}} → abcd

In {{val/units}}, I think you would replace the first of the following lines with the second.

|#default={{#ifexist:Template:Convert/{{{1}}}|{{convert/{{{1}}}|d=ScientificValue/LoffAonSoff}}|{{{1|}}}}}
|#default={{convert/sandbox|1|{{{1}}}|disp=unit or text|abbr=on}}

For {{val/unitswithlink}}, do the same but add |lk=on, although you would probably wait until the code is moved to the main convert module.

I replaced Template:Val/units/test with the text necessary to use Module:Convert/tester because it actually tests the results, and it is easy to add new tests. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

disp=unit or text looks good to me. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

agree, 'disp=unit or text' will work. for now, I have simply expanded the list of units in the switch statements to cover all the actively used units, so it's not actively using any of the convert subtemplates. once we have 'disp=unit or text', we can trim the switch statement back to only the ones that are needed. Frietjes (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I wonder what's in the box?

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

Verily trembling, little J welcomes Bigzilla, and hopes to escape with perhaps only a pocketing. Many thanks for the greetings, and don't worry about leaving sulfur fumes ... they will dissipate, eventually. Johnuniq (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello, Johnuniq! How did the switch of the Convert template go? Smoothly enough to stick around, I see :) I must keep an eye on {{val}} and its subs to see what you guys come up with there. Once that's done, I'm probably going to delete the network of convert templates on simplewiki. Osiris (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

HNY Osiris! I don't really understand why, but the transition to using the module seems to have passed largely unnoticed, other than by a handful of the regulars who monitor Template talk:Convert. I had anticipated that a few things would break, but the slow job queue meant that only a small number of pages were reformatted each day, and people seem to have fixed the few glitches that arose by following the error tracking categories. I can't seem to stop fiddling with the module, and there are some large changes in the sandbox which will go live in a week or two. I'm hoping WOSlinker will resume work on {val} in due course so that can be sorted out. I suggest looking back in about a month when you might consider updating the modules at Simple. Removing the old templates would involve some work, but I guess it would makes things cleaner. Let me know how you go. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's great! You all deserve a sincere congratulations for the hard work you've put in to make it work so well! It was no doubt a massive undertaking. No problem about the updates, I'll keep an eye on them and check back with you when they become stable (to check whether there will be anything to look out for). Happy New Year to you also :) and thank you so much for all you've done! Osiris (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey there again! How are things? I see the modules were updated recently, along with the Val template group. Everything is working as expected at simplewiki; the utter silence of nobody complaining is the surest sign of approval. I nuked the 4,000 or so templates a few weeks ago. Should I copy the new code on the modules as it is or are there some differences that need to be retained? And anything to look out for? Osiris (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleting 4,000 templates—very stylish! Silence is definitely golden!

I would like to have a closer look but can't do that at the moment. I'll update this when I get a chance to check, probably within 24 hours.

I'll mention one difference you should be aware of although it has no impact: in the past, the default was that error tracking categories were applied to articles and templates; in the new version, it is only articles.

I've got a couple of fixes for two irritating issues that I have not put on en.wiki yet. One issue concerns the fact that Module:Convert/extra is accessed when a convert has a range (not important in your application). The other concerns {{val}} and required me to make a few edits like this (prior to that edit, the val output was showing a convert error message; "val2" is a temporary fork of "val"). OTOH I will always have fixes that I'm thinking of deploying, so that should not be a concern. See you soon. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Osiris: Good grief! I've now looked at the diffs between the modules at Simple and the latest, and there are a lot of changes. Anyway, they are all benign and I doubt that you will notice anything different. Some tweaks to error messages have occurred, and the visible text is now lowercase for conformity with some other similar error messages here. There are lots of new units, and the "scale" of each unit now does not include a lot of excess digits. I have put new versions in the sandbox modules here, and I recommend that you copy them to Simple when convenient so you are using the latest (and in fact, will be using a minor tweak not yet deployed here).

Module:Convert • Module:Convert/sandbox • same content
Module:Convert/data • Module:Convert/data/sandbox • same content
Module:Convert/text • Module:Convert/text/sandbox • same content
Module:Convert/extra • Module:Convert/extra/sandbox • same content
Module:Convert/wikidata • Module:Convert/wikidata/sandbox • same content
Module:Convert/wikidata/data • Module:Convert/wikidata/data/sandbox • same content

The above list shows the modules—copy the sandbox modules on the right. The fix for the {{val}} issue I mentioned above is not included—I'll be thinking that over for a while. You do not need the last (Module:Convert/extra) because it is the same as at Simple. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've done the update using the code on the sandboxes. I also did Module:ConvertNumeric, I assume that's right? I promise I won't bother you every month with this! I just happened to notice the change on {{val/unitswithlink}} from a slash to a pipe, but we're not holding out for that anyway. You didn't need any of those templates did you? It actually only took 20 minutes to delete them and if ever we were to need them again, it'll probably only take another 20 to restore them. I'm pretty sure nobody is going to miss them though. Osiris (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was a good idea to update ConvertNumeric as well. I just looked at the diff to see what the change was, and FYI I learned recently that you can put [[:en:Special:PermanentLink/585106081]] in an edit summary over there in order to make a clickable link to here (just Special:PermanentLink/585106081 here).

I'm not sure what you mean about the slash/pipe in val/unitswithlink. That no longer uses the convert subtemplate because it calls convert with a new "disp=unit or text"—you need to update that (and probably the other subtemplates shown at Template talk:Val#Sandbox) on Simple.

No problem about dropping by every month! Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right! I misread you above, when you spoke about the "{{val}} issue", but now I see what you were referring to. Thanks for the tip regarding linking! And thanks for the help again. Osiris (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Pony!

Pony!
Congratulations! For all your hard work on the hands conversion issue, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Hey that's great, thanks! I enjoy carrots as well—I hope we can reach an accommodation on sharing them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You and your pony will have to work that one out between you! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 19:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice from an IP

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.221.69 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I think reading the previous comments might be more profitable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you

Hi Johnuniq. Just a quick, but sincere, thanks for your edits in archiving threads and changing headings which were including my name in unfounded and extremely uncivil postings. I won't mention the pages as I would rather not draw any further attention to them, but my thanks.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that nonsense was way over the top. It will probably need more in a day or so when the IP comes off the range block, but at least it is clear that the matter will be readily handled now. Glad to help! Johnuniq (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

List of units

Hi, I was going to update the various "Convert/list of units" documentation subpages to use the convert module, and I nearly got everything working. the only issue is that the tables have the conversion factor as one of the entries, which is not as easy to extract. there are a few options here, (1) forget about the conversion factor column and just replace it with a sample conversion (2) rewrite the row generator in lua, and import the list of units, or (3) have a disp option added to the convert module which returns the conversion factor. what do you think? Frietjes (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I created a sample of option (1) here -> User:Frietjes/example (compare with Template:Convert/list of units/length/short list). Frietjes (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's difficult. I'm hopeless at making up my mind about things like this because I see benefits and problems. Thanks for taking this on!

My preference would be an automated system of some kind, and I would be happy to write some code to extract the required data in the wanted format—perhaps the output would be wikitext calling User:Frietjes/unitrow. The benefit is that we would know that the displayed table matches the data, and we would not need to spend a lot of time formatting the tables. The problem is that any automated system loses flexibility (or requires heaps of code to provide the flexibility), and I'm sure the table has many exceptional areas where you wouldn't want to just follow a fixed pattern.

I guess you've seen my initial attempt at Help:Convert units#Units (click "edit" on that section to see that it is entirely automated). That displays core information for simple input units (it currently cannot show tricky things like ftin which outputs feet and inches). We can very easily add units to that—I just put a few to get started—search for "common_units" in Module:Convert/show.

I think we should show the "recommended" unit code first, and only show the aliases when there is good reason to do so. I know the full list of units is intimidating, but if someone wants to see all the details, that's where they should go. For example, tell people to use "um" for micrometres so they don't think they need to fiddle with the micro symbol.

Re extracting the scale: That would be difficult for convert to do, and in general cannot be done in a helpful way because Module:Convert/data only has the result of any expression entered as the scale in the unit definition. For example, a bu has scale "1/330" in the definitions, but all that convert knows is that the scale is 0.0030303030303030303. For ~~lightyear~~parsec, the scale is 3.0856775814671916e16 which would need tricky formatting, with no guarantee that the digits would be exactly as expected due to floating point precision limitations. However, the scale could be extracted from the unit definitions, using some variation on Module:Convert/makeunits.

What about the SI units? The old templates had to define each SI term, whereas the module allows all combinations. We need to choose which of those to show, and have a note explaining that all are possible.

I'll be elsewhere for a while, but will return and think some more. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

After some thought, I don't think we can do any better than what you have done. While the scale could be extracted from the unit definitions, it's not terribly meaningful, and has some tricky cases (for example, Mm is not a defined unit—its scale is calculated using the mega prefix). Also, it's quite nice to show the sample conversion because that includes the default output unit.

While rewriting the row generator as a module would have benefits, it would be quite difficult in practice because Module:Convert/data omits redundant fields in a complex manner—missing fields are constructed on demand if needed for a particular convert. Also, the link and default output can have exceptions—µm has a different link and default from the m base unit—and the rules for handling all that are buried in convert. I think calling convert is best.

What do you think about the "full list" tables? They would be difficult to create and maintain, and I'm wondering if we should skip them, and instead link to the relevant section in the master list. We would then have the really simple list of units shown at Help:Convert units, and the more detailed overview in the lists you are preparing, and the master list.

If you think there may be something I can help with, please get in touch. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I updated all of the list of units pages as suggested. I agree that we can probably ditch the 'complete lists' and instead just link to an automatically generated complete list, otherwise these will be perpetually out of sync. for now, though, I did update everything to call convert directly. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Spell

looking through the module code, it looks like there are some vestiges of support for 'spell=out' and 'spell=Out'. if we could add 'spell=on' and 'spell=On', I think we can completely replace 'convert/spell'. I created a wrapper in 'convert/spell/sandbox' which would work if we had 'spell=on' and 'spell=On', assuming that's the best choice for the parameter. thank you again. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have put that in the sandbox. When pondering spelling months ago, I checked all usage of convert/spell in articles and found that spelling for the output is never used. Because there are some ugly corner cases, and because of the rounding issue, I decided to just implement enough to make disp=flip work. The rounding problem is that it is very unlikely that spelling the output from a conversion would be helpful—there are some cases like 8 km → 5 miles where the value would be reasonable, but usually it would be something silly like "five point one two miles". Anyway, now that frac=N works, spelling the output is more plausible ("five and a half miles").

There may be some glitches with strange combinations. One known issue is that I did not bother implementing spelling of output values for the hand unit.

Here are some artificial examples:

{{convert/sandbox|17+3/4|in|ftin|frac=4|spell=In}} → Seventeen and three-quarters inches (1 ft 5+3⁄4 in)
{{convert/sandbox|17+3/4|in|ftin|frac=4|spell=On|abbr=off}} → Seventeen and three-quarters inches (one foot five and three-quarters inches)
{{convert/sandbox|17+3/4|in|ftin|frac=4|spell=In|disp=flip}} → One foot five and three-quarters inches (17+3⁄4 in)
{{convert/sandbox|17+3/4|in|ftin|frac=4|spell=On|disp=flip}} → One foot five and three-quarters inches (seventeen and three-quarters inches)
{{convert/sandbox|53|in|ydftin|spell=On|disp=flip|abbr=off}} → One yard one foot five inches (fifty-three inches)
{{convert/sandbox|2|ft|3+1/2|in|cm mm|spell=On|-1}} → Two feet three and a half inches (seventy centimetres; seven hundred millimetres)
{{convert/sandbox|2|ft|3+1/2|in|cm mm|spell=On|disp=flip|-1}} → Seventy centimetres; seven hundred millimetres (two feet three and a half inches)

The spelling of fractions is probably not always fully correct (perhaps it should be "three-quarter inches" above?), but I'm not going to worry about that. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

awesome, looks close enough for me. let me know when this is implemented, and we can update 'convert/spell'. thank you again. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Hmmm. On actually thinking about this, we don't need to replace convert/spell because there are not all that many of them in use in articles, and one day I intend updating the wikitext in them to use convert with spell=in/In.

already updated, and only found one use of words=out in the articles, so having spell=on and spell=On is not a high priority. I plan to update 'convert/spell' anyway to allow for old revisions to display properly, but we can certainly deprecate the frontend now. Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I had forgotten about old revisions. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for this. BMK (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

First time I've been thanked for bitching! I was feeling irritated and ready for war, but the reply strangely charmed me. However, one day we'll have to do something about the incessant whining. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's only two options: ignore it, or ban him. Well, maybe a third, he could be topic banned from Wikipedia space, but he'd still do it on user talk pages. I'm doing my best to ignore it, by doing pretty much what you suggested, two or three words into the comment, when I get the sense that I know who it came from, I jump ahead, and when I verify the source, I skip to the next comment. BMK (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

{{ygm}} Kurtis ^(talk) 05:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Crowdsourcing

Thanks for your hints. I will delete the cites and add the part again, OK? Schreibmalwieder (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I added now the paragraph about sofware development again without the link to the director tool. I guess you mentioned this cite link to the tool. Probably I choosed the wrong tag to link (reference). The tool and the cited person (Stimmer) is indeed one of the specialists of those issues. So I hope you don't see him as a spamming goal? Please let me know. Best regards Schreibmalwieder (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding links to a website is often abused because it is so easy to use Wikipedia to promote an external site. There are a great variety of techniques for doing that, and one of them is known as WP:REFSPAM where a small amount of information is added to an article, and the wanted external link is added as a reference. People do that in the hope that the link will not be removed, whereas experience tells them that if they simply add the link to the external links section, there is a strong likelihood that it will be removed. It is not possible to know whether any individual is adding links for spam or because they think it benefits the encyclopedia, so reverting such links is a matter of judgment that can be wrong.

You added a link to plixos.com at four articles: Crowdsourcing and Online outsourcing and Online marketplace and Software factory. That suggests there may be more interest in the link than in the article. Also, the text added is not very encyclopedic—consider "The complexity in crowdsourcing increases when the solution requires the coordinated effort of numerous members of the crowd (e.g. in software development). But even in this case, solutions to manage those deliverables emerge (e.g. the pliXos Outsourcing Director[ref: plixos.com]". After removing the marketspeak, there is not a lot of information there, so it looks as if it is just promoting an external website. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed an interest, but not in business or for marketing or whatever. I am interested in Crowdsourcing, I am a Crowd Tester myself and I want to enrich articles about. Sorry if you have seen this as spamming.

Schreibmalwieder (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Online marketplaces for services and outsourcing

Thanks for the hint again also here in this article. I agree to choose other references. But I hope you agree that my addition concerning the facts make sense? Best regards Schreibmalwieder (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It might be best to raise any other thoughts on the talk page of the article concerned. I merged these two sections because they are essentially about the same thing. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks. Schreibmalwieder (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I take this as an opportunity to pay my respects and express my thanks. Take care John. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering whether to leave that for you, but removed it on the principle of DENY. Cheers! Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I subscribe to exactly the same principle. Cheers and thanks again. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the note. Cheers! Drmies (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! FYI there was a follow up from a sock 24 hours later. While I was pondering how to handle that, a highly qualified editor wrapped the matter up. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your professional response to me. I have taken your advice. Do you have any advice for me in a case like that where an editor is impeding dispute resolution? I have been cooperative but he refuses to participate. --Precision123 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I saw your mention of CPUSH. I have never been accused of this. My edits speak to the honesty of them. I agree that DR with a real POV pusher is not worth it, but I have never done anything akin to that. --Precision123 (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that the discussion at WP:AN (permalink) has not gone in your favor. Let me put it another way: there are two main sides in the WP:ARBPIA dispute; can you point to an edit or a comment that you have added which an impartial onlooker might think was at least slightly "for" the other side? Or, are all your edits and comments "for" one side only? That's a rhetorical question and I am not expecting an answer, however pondering the question may explain the ideal of collegial editing. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Module:Convert/data

As I have struggled with this problem before I took a quick look on Module:Convert/data. Sorry to say but this is incomplete as it is and I'm not even sure if it is possible to correct it without some rewriting. A typical error is length calculations, where a lot of length units are missing and some finer points on when and how they were used is not available at all. A foot? When was the measurement taken. Under which jurisdiction. Some length measurements that are called the same can be quite different. Some units can even be converted to other known units from the era, but can't be converted to present time.

If you want to promote this you must be more accurate on metadata about the units. Do not just say that it is a foot. As it is now this module is misleading at best. Jeblad (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, but this warrants wider discussion, so I have moved the conversation to Template talk:Convert#Metadata. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

> Kevin has not shown any acknowledgment of being in error

"I erred in using the term, and regret doing so. This was not a situation I handled with finesse; I made significant errors." – Kevin Gorman 19:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"I'd like to reiterate that my actions were far from perfect, that I erred in accusing Malleus of gravedancing, regret accusing him of such, that I would take an alternate path in any future scenario" – Kevin Gorman 23:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"I fucked up how I handled this situation. If I'm put in a similar situation in the future, I will not handle it in the way I did." – Kevin Gorman 04:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't really discuss this here in detail because of the need to notify relevant editors, and the need to avoid using a talk page to essentially attack another editor, so let me just repeat my comment at the case (permalink):

Kevin's "I could have handled the situation in a significantly better fashion" is a string of weasel words to say the minimum required to make the fuss go away.

This case involves an admin who asserted as fact that an editor had violated WP:BLP, and who followed that up with "Show some common decency ... Don't gravedance" which assert that the editor lacked decency and had gravedanced. The three assertions are incorrect and have not been retracted anywhere I've seen. The quotes above are what people say when they see things are getting out control and they want to defuse the situation without making any acknowledgment of being in error.

Consider a hypothetical report at ANI where editor X says editor Y repeatedly added incorrect information to an article, and where it is later shown that X was mistaken. Would you regard "I erred in using the term, and regret doing so. This was not a situation I handled with finesse; I made significant errors." as a plain acknowledgment of error by X? Why not say "Sorry, saying you added incorrect information was wrong." Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I would not regard that as a "plain acknowledgment" of error. However, you accused Kevin of not making "any acknowledgement" of error. Three separate acknowledgements (even if they did not include apologies) must surely count as something. Regardless, I just wanted to make you aware of the error, as I didn't think that part of your statement was accurate. Kaldari (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Without wanting to diff dive too much, I believe I have previously apologized to the community for the way I handled the situation (and there are a few more than three acknowledgements that I fucked up spread out around a bunch of talk pages as well, as well as many more in private.) One of the accusations you mention, I've explicitly retracted ('gravedancing.') The second you mention hasn't been brought up past my initial comment to that effect significantly, so although I may not have explicitly previously retracted it: initially accusing Eric of lacking decency was absolutely a mistake. Regarding the third: I believe Eric violated the spirit of BLP/BDP, as well as the spirit of the Foundation's BLP resolutions. (I also believe that the entire thread was problematic in that regard, and should have been IAR actioned in a way that could not have been reversed without discussion and did not put the blame for it on a single editor.)

To state it bluntly: I significantly regret and am sorry for the effect that my mistakes had on the community. I could have handled the situation in a significantly better manner, and will in future situations do so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Emily Kimbrough Historic District

Thanks for the note. The infobox reflects two separate National Register entries (the original district and the expansion), and the 25.6 was supposed to be {{convert|25.6|acre}}, the area of the expansion. I've fixed the problem. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, Sven. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

At your service, as always. Seeing my page again reminds me of an eye-opener regarding the "Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests" section just above—it turns out that Gorman was an intern at the WMF, and Kaldari is a WMF employee. We don't need Sven, we need Heracles. Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

About the Outline of software

Hello,

I would like then to know where is a proper place to put this kind of information. I'm not sure if you have read what I've write at Talk page there, but I am sure it is an important and helpful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asustua (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see my response at Talk:Outline of software#Reversed. If you want to reply, please do so on that page so there is a record of opinions about the article on its talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

edit on Market Research page

Hi I noticed you scrapped my edit on market Research. Granted, possibly a little too business-related language, however in business,irrespective of the forum, is not that the purpose? I feel it is extremely important that Market Research is put within a broader context rather than as some random element of information. For me, adding the bit that I did re how it relates to marketing as a whole (and by extension the business world) gives it more context. Best regards Blamethemessenger (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted an edit at Market research mentioning "too much marketspeak" in the edit summary. That is a matter of opinion, and discussion on that point should occur at the article talk page (Talk:Market research) so it can be seen by other editors. If you choose to post there, you might want to explain what terms like "uniqueness of the marketing function" mean. Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Plumbbob

Thanks for fixing that again, johnfos. I thought I had fixed it in the database, but apparently I didn't. It is fixed permanently now. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A pleasure, it makes me feel useful! Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding CYl7EPTEMA777's recent edits and block threats regarding "Talking bird"-named articles. The thread is User:CYl7EPTEMA777, blocking threats, and disruptive edits on Talking bird and related articles. Thank you. —Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at AN/I

I wanted to thank you for your perceptive comments in the recent drama at AN/I. Of the comments I have read, only yours and one other editor's show evidence of having a) read and b) understood what the discussion was about. I don't think I have anything else to add there, unless someone suggests burning me in effigy on the Washington Mall. Thank you for taking the trouble to read and understand. It's amazingly rare. --John (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It looked to me as if the objection was "but if this RfC passes, we'll have to stop arguing and what will we do then!?". I see you are still INVOLVED and you failed to fill in the correct forms to formally decline the pompous mediation ceremony! I suppose DR does something useful or it would have been closed down, but this is the third time I've seen completely misguided nonsense there, with a mediator-in-training doing everything wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with edits?

Hi, a question re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). AFAIK, I've had virtually no interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of Mallexikon (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 17:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not think I am being personal—I oppose all WP:CPUSH editors who use Wikipedia to promote their world view. Experience shows that debating issues with such contributors is a waste of time—we just have to wait until a sufficient portion of the community has recognized the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The problems have been continuing for a number of months now. The latest problems are being discussed at the talk page. Too much time is being wasted trying to explain the problems with the recent changes to the article that include copyvio and original research. QuackGuru (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

There is a dispute-resolution case about your on the noticeboard 124.168.48.21 (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Marian Dawkins". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 04:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to viewing the case unfold with great interest due to my comment above at #Your comments at AN/I. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And now you've been pinged on ANI as well! Sweet dreams, Drmies (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No such thing as routeing?

I don't really understand why you've reverted this edit, which was clearly and correctly referenced. If you look at, for example, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/routeing?s=t, Colins, Harts Rules (as ref’ed), or Wiener and Delahunty’s The Oxford Guide to English Usage (but, oddly, not Fowler). you will see that it is given as the correct British & int. English spelling.

The reason it is spelled that way is to differentiate the gerund and p.p. of route from that of rout, as with "swingeing" and "swinging" and "singeing" and "singing", which are pronounced differently almost everywhere but the US.

As to context, it is used in British and international English in all contexts, including networks.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 11:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Routing#Routeing in networks. Discussions about an edit should be at the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC on naming

Please see the further RfC here. --John (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Kudos

		The Interwiki Cooperation Barnstar
		Thank you for all your help and tireless efforts in making sure that module:convert works properly and flawlessly in Ilokano Wikipedia.--Lam-ang (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It all seemed so simple when I started, but now I don't expect it to ever end. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You tricked the system

Interesting. Userpage User:Johnuniq/translate ended up in Category:Convert invalid options. We expect mainspace pages there only. I'm sure, 18 hrs ago it was not there (I checked the category Fri Mar 28, ~15:30 UTC). -DePiep (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Groan! I pasted the output of a convert error message as an example of a problem occurring at fawiki, and I forgot to remove the category text. Thanks for pointing that out! I wouldn't have noticed for a couple of days because I've got deeper and deeper into the mysteries of internationalization. Trying to do anything over at fa: is really quite an experience. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You must be happy to find that it was hardcoded on this page. Not in the module ;-) -DePiep (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Convert module in fa.wikipedia

Hey, I haven't checked all of your changes, but most of those strange errors are because of the {{formatnum:...}} which has been used in w:fa:Template:Convert. You should have created a separate template identical to Template:Convert, i.e., without {{formatnum:...}}, and test your module using that. Regarding localizing the numerals, we should use mw.language:formatNum. BTW, most languages that do not use Latin script generally do not use abbreviation. Can you create some way with which one can disable abbreviating completely? --Z 12:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Z: In case you are not aware, I created User:Johnuniq/translate to discuss convert at fawiki because I do not know how to edit properly there. There is also an ongoing discussion User talk:Yamaha5#Module:Convert, although I was hoping to move that to the translate page because I would like all the fawiki issues on one page where I can find it in the future. When everything is finished, I might copy related discussions to the translate page because it's handy to be able to find comments, for example, I just checked bn:User:Johnuniq/Translation for how the Bengali Wikipedia handles abbreviations.

I created fa:Template:Convertlua after finding that using the proper "convert/sandbox" name appropriate for fawiki did not work for me (I could not get the sandbox modules to work, nor could I use the sandbox template—I was a bit frustrated from the wasted time and decided to just drop everything in the main modules). At any rate, Yamaha5 has now fixed the protected fa:Template:Convert to match Convertlua so fawiki is using the module without the extra "formatnum".

I looked at formatNum, but its input has to be a number, not a string. That means formatNum controls how the number is formatted. It would probably work for most cases, but convert allows the user to specify the precision, and an output of "1.00" is perfectly valid, yet the output from mw.language.new('fa'):formatNum(1.00) is "۱" (that is, just "1" with the decimal mark and trailing zeros removed). I suspect there would be other examples where formatNum would change the precision requested in the convert template.

Yes, I can disable abbreviations. There was a similar request at sl:User:Johnuniq/translate#Unit names, but they wanted abbr=on, not off. I'll probably do that soon and upload the new convert module to fawiki, but the setting to force abbr=off will be in the convert template so I will put information about what is needed in that template at User:Johnuniq/translate when done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I had seen User:Johnuniq/translate, but I didn't notice the "Discussion" section there while writing the message, please feel free to move or copy discussions.

Yeah, it seems Scribunto's formatNum (and parseFormattedNumber, etc.) do not preserve precision of the given numbers in these cases. I think we should ask the extension's developers to add an argument or something for this.

Thanks, --Z 11:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Why should I deny?

Could you please reason with me why I can't write ANYTHING on the talk page? It's not called a "Talk Page" for nothing, you know. I hope you aren't just doing this because you have a grudge against me or something. Stop reverting my edits and let me TALK. Blimey! --60.230.248.254 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What is your interest in that page? Talk pages are for discussions aimed at improving the project, not for chatting about a banned user. See WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm being rude to you. I get fixated on random things like this all the time, and I develop obsessions about that topic (much like when I asked the two questions). I'm just eager to fulfil my curiosity. I'm autistic by the way, and I tend to have difficulties abiding rules, not necessarily because I abuse them, but rather because of my lack of understanding and various misconceptions that follow. I promise I will not be editing this page anymore. Thank you, Johnuniq. --60.230.248.254 (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a vote!

Hi, You are welcome to present your views of course about the Infobox matter - but you didn't! You just attacked me for trying to get other editors to give opinions! You failed to give a 'single' reason why you oppose an Infobox on the page! LordFixit (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This refers to a minor skirmish where an editor has been unable to get support for their position:

I do not see an attack, and I do not think anything more needs to be said. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Convert

Hi , Johnuniq. I just have to tell you that I am on a long wiki-break. Don't have the time, nor the mood to do it. Thanks for notifying. You can drop a message to a Greek sysop instead. All the best. --Γλαύκος ^message 17:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Enjoy your break! Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)