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.
Hey I just wanted to thank you for helping me understand the protocols around page protection. It's a small thing but if you hadn't said anything I probably would have just given up. Much obliged. Connorlong90 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Connorlong90: Glad to help. I know that WP:RFPP and the other noticeboards have trouble dealing with some (many?) kinds of problems and I'd be glad to offer an opinion if you ever need assistance. Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the common leopard gecko page so far. Is there a point we should revisit semi-protection? The page is currently back to saying they are crepuscular from an IP editor. For all the changes nobody has ever commented on the talk page regarding the cited sources. It's a weird dynamic - there appear to be many (or at least one very dedicated) people/person who want that changed to crepuscular or cathemeral, but nobody is able/willing to cite sources or discuss it. Connorlong90 (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The activity at Common leopard gecko is very strange. I have left a dozen messages for the user trying to direct them to your message at article talk. They should be seeing those messages (if they use the same IP). Maybe their English is poor? I will semi-protect in due course but will leave it for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for following up with that - it's odd, there have been IP edits to other eyelid gecko pages as well (genus Eublepharis and the African fat-tailed gecko) to similarly say they are crepuscular without citing any sources. On those pages I just marked the assertion as "citation needed" with an explanation, as it seemed less likely to be immediately reverted. I should probably bring this up with the wiki herpetology group. Do you think this is one user? The IP addresses looked similar but not the exact same - I am admittedly not well versed in how IP addresses are assigned so that means little to me Connorlong90 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if it is the same person but my guess is that it is. If you have a problem on other pages give me a link and I'll have a look. It would help if there were at least a small discussion on a relevant wikiproject showing consensus against the IP's edits. By the way, thanks for writing the explanation at Talk:Common leopard gecko#Discussion: Nocturnal vs. Crepuscular vs. Cathemeral but next time I would suggest making it much shorter and more focused on the issue (reliable source X says Y). It is possible that the IP is not a great English speaker and they may not be able to engage with so much text. That's just my thoughts for another time. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
We are back to what appears to be edit warring on the common leopard gecko page (presuming it is the same person changing it back without providing citations). No commenting on the talk page so far, no citations provided. This time there is an account named "advancing husbandry" which I believe supports my contention that this is a pet keeper or pet keepers trying to force social media speculation into the wiki article without citations. Connorlong90 (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Connorlong90: I left a nice message at their talk but will partially block them to prevent editing articles if they repeat the edit. Thanks for continuing to monitor the situation. This is part of Wikipedia! Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The first LAN in thee world
Dear Johnuniq,
I added the paragraph on my invention, design, construction, implementation, and operation of the first LAN in the world.
I invented the system to use it in the European Parliament electronic voting systems in Strasbourg, France, and Luxembourg.
The system was sold by Olivetti Spa, an Italian company, to the Parliament after winning an international bid to which all major European companies presented a proposal.
My system was the favorite for its price/performance characteristics.
Official records from the European Parliament attest to the truth of the above statement.
The system was using 430 microprocessor-controlled voting terminals each; the microprocessor was an Intel 8047, just released to the market by Intel.
The LAN used a twisted-pair telephone cable wiring system, arranged in a star configuration, controlled by a Central Control computer; initially, an Olivetti P6060 running an interpreted basic LAN control polling-selecting software.
The first time the first system was tested in Strasbourg in late 1980, the response time was miserably slow.
Official records from the European parliament can attest to it.
Olivetti asked me to solve speed: I proposed replacing the P6060 with a polling-selecting microcomputer based on an 8080 CPU, with a PL/M software.
They accepted my proposal, and the "Concentratore Intelligente" - as I called the polling/selecting unit - was installed in the second system in Luxembourg.
This system was used for the first time for the votation and approval of the European Union budget in 1980 - it was the first time that the Parliament was involved in the procedure to approve the European budget, and it was the reason why they have invested 24 million Belgian Francs in having the system.
The budget's approval required more than 500 nominal votes - and to register the vote that each of the 430 deputies had expressed.
If done manually with the existing procedures, the votes would have required more than three days, at a cost for the Parliament of three-person for each MEP: the MEP, his/her secretary, and his/her assistant. The parliament would have paid for their expenses of staying out of town.
With my LAN-based system, the 500 votes have been completed and registered in less than five hours.
Again, official records of the European Parliament can attest to the truth of the above sentence.
Unfortunately, the Olivetti engineer who was the project manager asked me to implement in the terminal firmware a new feature, that was not present before, and was such that if at power-up one of the voting buttons was pressed, the terminal would go into test mode, starting to transmit a square wave. My flat has been to not question his request and implement it.
It happened: the first time the LAN system was used in Luxembourg a few MEPs pressed the voting button and the system failed, as you can see from the Italian RAI TV service https://vimeo.com/408089128
The Olivetti engineer who requested the change did not know what to do. As you can see in the RAI video, I was the operator of the system and intervened by manually switching off and on the terminals that were in maintenance mode. It lasted for five hours, and the Parliament completed all the voted successfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangoitalia (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You are correct, my posting should read "The first implementation of a microcomputer LAN" and not generically "The first implementation of a LAN", as this statement includes LANs of mainframes too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangoitalia (talk • contribs) 07:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Email?
Do you accept email through your account? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:10 on January 24, 2021 (UTC)
@Lourdes: No problem! I did notice that the fuss was due to one IP but I didn't like to block as I could not see a genuine attempted engagement with them so I tried a nice talk page comment. Alison Hinds claims the person was born on 1 June 1970 and so should be listed at births in June 1 although I cannot see a reference for that date, so it should be removed from the biography. At any rate, I agree that blocking the IP was needed although I saw it differently at the time. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ouch, that's the second time I've made that blunder and I suspect Redrose64 had to correct me last time as well. I'll record the problem as a reminder:
I put the following as a guide to what was needed to restart the RfC:
<nowiki>{{rfc|bio|style|policy}}</nowiki>
But when the RfC bot arrived it read the wikitext without regard to the nowiki and treated my comment as a (broken) RfC. Instead should use the following as documented at Template:Rfc#Usage.
{{tlx|rfc|bio|style|policy}} which displays as {{rfc|bio|style|policy}}
Hi! You are a good soul. You understand about compromise, give and take. That's just one example. Here's another one. The editor who got all worked up is DrMi3s, who is on noticeboard a lot. He always wins. (Yes, yes, I know we're not supposed to think of it as winning or losing on AI. Even though I'm a girl, woman, XX chromosomer, whatever, I see it this way.) Sometimes, Dr. Mees is right. But I understand about people (e.g. Super Dino) getting bad attitudes. You assuage the feelings of those who might feel BITTEN, and gently explain our sometimes-inscrutable WP protocols.
You are an agent of peace with dignity. I wish there were more people like you on Wikipedia, and in this world. Keep up the good work.
I just edited my comment, in order to provide properly linked evidence :o) <~~~ That is a smiling piggy of good will.--FeralOink (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
local rowspan = (rounds > 1) and 2 or headings['ss1t'] and 2 or nil
makes the Party and Candidate headings have a rowspan of 2 when there are two rounds of voting, or when ss1t is called, and works if either of these are done alone (here and here). However, the rowspan function fails when both exist and I can't work out why. Cheers, Number5718:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: I'll have a bit more of a look at that soon. The unusual indenting is puzzling and I'll hassle you about that later. Meanwhile I notice
local rowspan = headings['ss1t'] and 2 or nil
local should be deleted to make rowspan work when it is used later. Unfortunately that does not fix the "DSV with two rounds and two types of seats" test. I assume the problem is that the sandbox output should exactly match the main template? Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look. I've undone two changes made in the sandbox as they messed up some of the examples in the testcases (specifically they led to the cell containing the diagram in parliamentary tables having a colspan of 1 and the Votes and % headings in these tables having a rowspan of 1). What the outstanding non-working table should produce is:
What's the rules regarding indenting? Apologies, I am an amateur at Lua and have been very much learning as I go along, having had an unfriendly and unhelpful response when I asked for assistance at Help:Lua some time ago. Cheers, Number5712:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I know there are still problems which I'll look for. However, see User:Johnuniq/sandbox mentioned above. My changes fixed that problem. I'll fix the whitespace later. I haven't done that yet because it would make checking diffs against the main module very difficult. Actually, I might clean them both so this can move forward as there are under 1500 transclusions. Johnuniq (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
What is the problem in the example in your sandbox? Both appear to be working fine and look identical to me? Number5722:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: That's interesting, I just tried it on a second browser and sure enough it looks ok. However, in Firefox it is completely broken (in brief, "Alexander Lukashenko" and "Votes" and "4,661,075" all appear in the second row). You can see that it should be broken by asking what rowspan for the Votes cell should be. Currently (when broken), it is set to 2. While I don't understand all the possibilities with this template, it seems the rowspan for Votes should always be 1? Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, so it looks like the :attr('rowspan', rowspan) in lines 220 and 224 is not working as I'd hoped (though the code in line 213 (rowspan = headings['ss1t'] and 2 or nil). Any idea how that can be fixed? Have I put the code in line 213 in the wrong place? Cheers, Number5700:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm getting around to working on that. I decided to clean the whitespace in the sandbox module because it is best to be consistent. I also did the same edits in the main module so they can be compared to see the substantive differences. I started fixing the indents but gave up. They will have to be fixed because it is too hard to follow when if/elseif/end and so on do not align in the conventional manner. I can see the reason for the nonstandard approach (to make the row items line up in the same column) but it's not a good idea. There is a long block of code which I need to understand but it's a struggle to see what the conditions apply to. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: I changed User:Johnuniq/sandbox to show the sandbox result for "DSV with two rounds and two types of seats" together with its HTML. The UNIQ stuff is the strip marker resulting from Template:Independent politician/meta/color which generates <nowiki>#DDDDDD</nowiki> with unhelpful nowiki tags (presumably so the # isn't taken as a numbered list). The nowiki should be removed. I haven't had time to work out the problem with the module but will return to it in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I may have cracked it – using the html trick you showed me above (thank you very much for that, it's a big help) I managed to figure out a rule for setting the rowspan of the votes and % columns, but then found another issue that a was being inserted before the ss1h headings, so made the insertion of that dependent on whether a secondrow was already being called elsewhere. I've checked all the examples in the testcases in four different browsers and they seem to work fine.
Re the colorcode issue, I'm afraid I don't even know where to start on that, as it was inserted by someone with a far more advanced knowledge than me. I'm kind of amazed it actually works given how it appears in html...
Hi, Johnuniq. I've disabled Special:AbuseFilter/1042; it doesn't seem to catching much of anything. I've been creating quite a few new filters recently, and filters are kind of a finite resource. We aren't near the limit yet, but I don't want to be close when we suddenly need to create a dozen complex filters to deal with a the next TikTok meme. If you think it's still needed, I'll re-enable it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
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. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:No_Nazis".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:No Nazis.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Please respect the rules when (and in this case after) using the admin tools.
Rules state: "After a page has been protected, the protection is listed in the page history and logs with a short description indicating why it was protected, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article." But I'm the only one to edit Talk:Prevention of COVID-19 so far. You didn't respond to my comment on the protection request either. No one has. I explained WHY I changed the page. TW?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Many topics are highly contentious and subject to a never-ending stream of repetitive proposals that argue agains current consensus. Covid is one of those and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 explains that adminstrators can, and indeed should take steps to protect the relatively small pool of good editors from burn-out due to discussing everything dozens of times a week with new arrivals. The general sanctions page also has a log of page protections which merely record the facts (page, protection, duration). If you want to pursue the matter, try to find other editors who would support a separate article at Prevention of COVID-19 which currently is a redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019#Prevention, having previously been a redirect to Workplace hazard controls for COVID-19. However, please do not push the matter too much and if there is no support within a short period, take the hint that consensus does not support an additional article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Johnuniq. Just noting my view that you are entitled to use your discretion to apply any suitable (AE) sanction on the aforementioned user by invoking the authority of WP:ARBBLP. Regards, El_C18:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
"hopeless" is a hard word, but I really don't understand why you and Aza and I see something that admins seem to be blind for. There are guidelines about copying, and yes, they were formally (almost) observed, but there is interaction between colleagues, and respect or not, and appreciating achievements of others or not, call it decency. - El C, why is that? - Can you - one of you - perhaps remove the template on the Clavier-Übung? I am banned from the talk page of FS and try to interact as little as possible. Can I interest you in the FAC for BWV 1? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
That problem seems on its way to solution, and the FAC also. Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Ban Appeal
Hi! I would like to make a ban appeal. This editing ban on south asia topics seems unfair. With regards to one of my objectionable edits where I used the term "right wing muslim supremacists", I want to note that I apologized for my remarks with two editors and promised to work on improving my editing in the future. Additionally, in many of my notifications about objectionable edits, I always discussed the issues with certain administrators and asked for feedback. I don't think one edit should ban me from editing south asia topics. I really hope you can understand and try to assist me with my ban appeal. Krao212 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I have to go elsewhere and won't be able to investigate for a while but will reply with a ping when I've had a chance to remind myself of the details. This relates to a close at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Krao212: Sorry but I decline your appeal at this stage. The enforcement request is at WP:AE permalink. The requestor stated that diff showed "egregious original research ... cited source does not at any point state ...". Your statement included "that's why it was my bad that I added this WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. I am a new editor who happened to jump into controversial areas". While you have under 200 edits, your account was created on 28 April 2020 and the diff shows an attention to jargon in the edit summary of "Removed poorly source info that violate WP:NPOV and replaced it with better info". Another administrator recommended a topic ban and mentioned an earlier problematic edit: diff. That edit was discussed here and here. The problem is that an inexperienced editor with an aggressive attitude is not compatible with a highly contentious topic under discretionary sanctions. The idea of a topic ban is to ensure that experience is gained while editing other topics. When evidence is available that a topic banned editor is able to edit collaboratively and in accord with policies and guidelines, they can appeal their ban. Arbitration enforcement procedures should be as fair as possible, but an emphasis is given to providing fairness for experienced editors who work in the area and who have to deal with a continual stream of problematic contributors. While personal mentoring for new arrivals would be desirable, it is not a feasible objective and people have to fit in with standard procedures or find another area to work in. The notice on your talk mentions "may appeal this sanction" and shows what other steps can be pursued. My advice would be to let some time pass before pursuing that—time in which you demonstrate desirable editing in other topics. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
I'll confess I have no idea how Wikipedia works. All I know is that I am trying to correct a series of falsehoods and misleading statements and every time I do they get reversed. It's like the other user has carte-blanche to write a whitewashed version of his reality and when I try and fix it I am getting referred to the teahouse and being called names and being told I am the one breaking the rules. Not sure what I am supposed to do. Foodprofessor (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Foodprofessor: Did you see my message to you at Talk:Sylvain Charlebois#Consumer Advocacy? Edits should improve the article. If you think that the npr.org report is best summarized as "Charlebois wrote an op-ed on 21 February 2021", you should not be editing at Wikipedia. Sure, your opponents should not be editing at Wikipedia either, but successful editing requires actually improving the article, not making your distaste apparent. I removed your latest comment from article talk because that page really is not available to comment about other users (see the edit summary I used for more). I'll check what's going on later but you should worry about what you do. Don't edit war—that is fatal, just be patient because stuff takes time here. If new stuff arises, feel free to edit this section and ask a question or suggest that I check recent edits or comments.
I will have to talk to you about your user name because an opponent of someone who blogs as the Food Professor should not use that name. See if you can figure out the labyrinthine instructions at WP:RENAME. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Foodprofessor: I have had a look at who is editing the article. Perhaps you could tell me how you came to be interested in this topic. You started here on 27 February 2021 and seem to be the only editor who is trying to remove promotional puffery, while five others plus an IP want to add it. One of those five others has been indefinitely blocked at the French Wikipedia. Without details, I would like to know what off-wiki incident has provoked all this interest. Everyone involved is a single-purpose account (SPA) except for one of the other five. That non-SPA editor, like everyone involved, has no clue about how Wikipedia works although they have been able to edit other topics. The article needs attention from someone with the patience to see it through in order to remove promotional puffery. I am going to remain an uninvolved administrator so won't edit. However, I have mentioned to a couple of people certain general points about what is expected. The best way to proceed would be to ask questions and take advice. Feel free to ask here. In principle, other noticeboards for advice are available but you might find people are too busy to respond meaningfully. I suggest focusing on improving the article by mentioning WP:DUE facts such as two or three points from the npr.org report. It's fine to acknowledge the person has been noticed and has advocated various things. We have articles on people who advocate creationism or crazy conspiracy theories—what they advocate doesn't have to be bullet-proof science. The trick is to write a version of the article that other editors (apart from the SPAs) would be happy to restore. They would not want to restore undue puffery, but they also would not want to restore undue negativity. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate your feedback re: improving the article, point taken and that is the approach I am taking in my most recent edits. This morning it seems much more balanced than it had been so that's a start. The subject writes a lot of editorials which are potentially damaging if the public can't separate fact from argument. I appreciate your advice, I will look into name change, I would edit more articles if I understood how it all works. Foodprofessor (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
On fr-wiki, there was an edit war a few days ago with 3 SPA: Janvez (SPA promoting Charlebois) and 2 who are not happy with whatever he said. There's currently a RCU about these other 2. One of them, DALalumni, sounds like "alumni of Dalhousie University", but I may be wrong.
I'm not sure Foodprofessor a really new account, it may have been created by someone?
Hope it makes the situation clearer about what's going on on the French-speaking side. The page is currently protected because we're tired of SPA, sockpuppets and edit warring. Best regards, - - Bédévore[knock knock]19:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. We will have to proceed slowly at enwiki but eventually the article will be under control. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The editor Intforce has decided that an external link for a scrolling video on YouTube, downloaded to accompany a 1983 recording of Ton Koopman, is what they claim in their edit summary is a "copyright-violation". In their edit and edit summary they write, Remove links to copyright-violating YouTube uploads (WP:YOUTUBE).[1]
This type of scrolling video, created by the downloader Pannonia77 in November 2019, is an educational aid and has been created on YouTube, with no reports of "copyright-violations". Exactly the same 1983 recording had been licensed on YouTube with the account of Ton Koopman: here is the video. The recording was licensed by Universal Music Group for YouTube with the release date 17 March 2017. (The same YouTube license indicates the original recording by Deutsche Grammophon in 1983.)
Intforce's assertion of a copyright-violation for a legitimate license seems incorrect: they have not checked their facts carefully. To prevent further confusion, please could Intforce be given some advice about (a) copyright-violation, licensing and YouTube and (b) WP:COPYVIO on wiki.riteme.site and Wikimedia Commons. As far as I'm aware, the scrolling video here is perfectly legitimate as an external link. Graham87 is the normal administrator I would contact about this kind of music material, since he is an expert on baroque music and on audio matters both here and on Commons; in this case, however, it is the video aspect that is relevant. I would dearly like to use scrolling videos like this without being bothered. I think Intforce is just wrong.
Further comment. In my experience, YouTube normally add the licences automatically. That happened with the videos I downloaded in 2010 for Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel) and Organ concertos, Op.7 (Handel). Meanwhile I have sent a public message to Pannonia77, with a query about the licensing (normally done automatically by YouTube & Co).
Today I uploaded a Deutsche Fotothek image from the Dresden archives (SLUB Dresden) onto Wikimedia Commons; I then transferred it to wiki.riteme.site and then to two articles on de.wikipedia.org, with three "thanks" acknowledgements. One was for the German featured article on Gottfried Silbermann. Mathsci (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Copyright is way over my head. I guess they left links where the youtube target page had a "Licensed to YouTube by ..." note, and removed those that lacked such a notice. That sounds defensible. I would ask about this at WP:ELN or possibly WT:CP. However, if that were done, enthusiasts would attack Organ Sonatas (Bach)#External links as a link farm and strip it back to perhaps nothing. Unfortunately many people with not enough to do cannot distinguish between educational material and genuine link farms with promotional waffle. Re the issue, I doubt that one YT page with a licensed release means all other YT pages with the same material are similarly licensed. I can see that the scrolling score is extremely useful but I have doubts about whether an article here can be defended with those links. At any rate, I don't know enough about copyright to say anything useful, sorry. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I consider it to be in very bad faith to ask people to lecture an editor on something without even giving them the courtesy of a ping. In any case, Mathsci's allegation that I have not checked my facts correctly is just plain wrong. Linking this video is fine: it was provided to YouTube by Universal Music Group and is therefore correctly licensed. The scrolling video is a copyright violation, like thousands of other similar videos on YouTube. Though they may be of great educational value, they have not obtained the consent of the respective rights owners. WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK are very specific about this. Re the issue, I doubt that one YT page with a licensed release means all other YT pages with the same material are similarly licensed Precisely this. If I upload my original content to YouTube, then I am its copyright holder. It someone copies my content without my permission, then that is an immediate copyright violation, even though the content of the videos may be the same. intforce (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Not at all. These comments were made directly to Johnuniq, whom I've known for quite a long time, and were made as noping. Since 2009, I have operated a channel on YouTube, only downloading classical music videos between 2009 and 2010 for a selection of movements from Handel organ concertos; at that stage, licensing was done automatically by YouTube, once audio recordings were identified on their audio database. I never had to initiate licensing and even slightly diminished the recording quality. Subsequently advertising policy changed on YouTube.
I have chatted briefly with pannonia77. On their channel, there is a large number of scrolling videos that started 6 years ago. Occasionally, after uploading, the license does not appear: that does not seem to be any indication that the uploaded file is illegal, just YouTube programming errors. On my channel dashboard, I have posted "send feedback" twice—possibly it might result in gmail messages re licenses.
Looking at pannonia77's videos, they are almost all of scrolling videos; they are uploaded with the same careful annotation; and then, when the recordings from the audio database is identified, the license is mechanically appended by YouTube. Here is an example where the license has been added. Here is an example where it has not yet happened for a Mozart Divertimento. Here is an example where the license has been added for an early Mozart symphony. Here is another example of a Kyrie from a Latin Mass BWV 233 by Bach with no license. This YouTube issue seems to have almost nothing to do with wikipedia or wikimedia commons. pannonia77 is a prolific creator of classical music scrolling videos; except for a handful of cases, the algorithm for adding licenses appears to work. Mathsci (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
A question for you.
Hello Johnuniq,
I was editing on the 2021 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament and it seems that you have semi-protected the article. My two questions are A. Why did you decide to semi-protect the article? and B. Can you remove the semi-protection from the article? Thanks.
@ColtsFan9372: Clicking "history" at the top of 2021 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament shows "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content" as the reason that I protected the article. That was in response to a request at WP:RFPP. That request will be archived soon; a permalink is here. Protection is unfortunately necessary from time to time when a lot of edits based on unreliable sources occur. You only have to make one more edit and you will be "autoconfirmed" and able to edit that article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Does it have to be so hard?
What about this lot, John?
2A01:4C8:1468:7B69:1:2:8E80:99A
2a01:4c8:148b:2aa8:1:2:a5c1:8a3b
2a01:4c8:1465:31e3:1:1:ae96:3514
They've been long-time harassing User:OliviaZoe0. I'd be very happy to block the range from her talkpage for a few years. And I've been staring at this. Is there really not a simpler way? Bishonen | tålk16:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC).
LOL, the only thing missing from that page is a flowchart. There is no easy way and I don't know anything better than what you have tried before, namely:
I added the user page to my watchlist and spent a little time looking at what's going on. I decided to partially block Special:Contributions/2a01:4c8:1400::/40 (the "c" in the first row from the above table) from
User:OliviaZoe0
User talk:OliviaZoe0
for one year. There was at least one other IPv4 address last year but we can take further action if needed. I think your semi-protect which you did would be needed if it happens again. As you know, the point is to break the habit. This should do for now. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@Guy Harris: Thanks, although I noticed that (except I only assumed the connection) but I lazily left Mistral Solutions alone because it isn't really bad. I've watchlisted it for three months. I don't know how to handle the promotional firehose. Someone is supposed to spend a few hours trying to help the new editor become a good contributor to the encyclopedia although blocking them seems more pragmatically worthwhile. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The links are pretty convincing and would help justify protection. However there is a strong (and rather optimistic) view that open is good. There has only been one dubious edit since 06:38, 19 March 2021 when protection expired so I think I should wait for more evidence of problems before protecting again. I will watch it for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@YorkshireExpat: I reverted your edit at Template:Taxonomy/Myrmecia because it inserted "Lua error in Module:Autotaxobox at line 225: attempt to index a nil value." in the template and several articles, for example, Myrmecia aberrans. Apart from that, I do not know anything about the template. If you want to discuss a problem, I suggest asking at Template talk:Taxonomy. If that doesn't work, try looking at the history of the template and contacting the editor who created it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Protection expired and the disruption started up again. The thing is, there really isn't a lot of disruption -- days go by between attempts -- so I am not sure whether protection is justified. Your call. I can see going either way with this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Re: Guy Harris, unwanted comments on the 68000 talk page.
"@Vapourmile: I am an uninvolved administrator who noticed the above report. I'm sure you are editing constructively and have the best intentions but consensus is against you. I will issue a block if there is any further disruption at Talk:Motorola 68000. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)"
Really, what grounds do you have to accuse me of being the one causing the disruption? There is so far nothing which can be adequately described as a consensus when just one other person not involved in the discussion has commented since it took place. I believe neither you nor Meters have really bothered trying to understand what's going on, all you've noticed is me deleting a large section from a talk page, an action which I absolutely stand by, and you haven't really considered the grounds for doing it.
FYI: Guy Harris's comments add nothing to that page. First of all, it's the 68000 Wikipedia entry, and the bulk of Guy's comments are a cut & paste from and commentary on a manual from a completely different system, the IBM 360, which has its own separate Wikipedia entry. If he wants to talk about the IBM 360 then that's where his comments on it should go. So I maintain my stance that Guy's lengthy and substantial additions to the 68000 talk page fail it dismally on grounds of relevance.
It is also true that I think my say on the matter can be taken seriously since most of what Guy has written is an ongoing entirely incongruous response to something I had written on that same page, something he innately agrees with anyway. He is merely arguing for the sake of it and abusing the talk space as a platform for indulging his hobby interest in a subject which is irrelevant to the context. I had said to him several times during the exchange last year that Guy's additions to that page are not pertinent to the subject matter, a 68000 subject matter which I began and to which his comments are an attempt at a response. My comments to him on grounds of relevance are still there. He for no good reason wants to talk incessantly about the IBM 360 on the 68000 page. His is the sort of persistent incongruous monomaniacal off-topic chatter you expect from somebody on the autism spectrum, meaning no disrespect to people who are.
I imagine neither you not Meters have read that whole section, I don't blame you, I don't particularly want to read it either. I also expect it is highly unlikely anybody else will want to read it either. It has neither purpose nor relevance there, it isn't interesting and by itself it also constitutes about a third of the bulk of what has been submitted to that talk page now. It will never inform the long-term content of the 68000 Wikipedia page and as such it should be removed on grounds of relevance.
Meter remarked that I had deleted the work of three contributors, what he didn't add is two of those three contributors are Guy and myself and the other addition from somebody else is barely more than a sentence, from another user who accepts what I had written. Here is the word from the single other person I can find who commented that same section:
"That's what I said (with a lot less words), didn't I? 16-bit ALU makes 16-bit design (68000/8/10), 32-bit ALU makes 32-bit design (68020/30/40/60). It's the processing size that matters"
This is pertinent. Zac is right, the consideration of the ALU is relevant to this discussion. As Zac67 says correctly, the 68000 ALU is 16bit. This comment is correct and relevant, but it only repeats what I had already written. Everything else in that same section is a long time-wasting argument in which Guy and I are the only people involved which features my multiple laborious attempts to explain to Guy why his comments do not inform the section and he continues to go around in circles repeating the same thing and I continue trying to explain to him why it isn't relevant. That ongoing exchange is most of those 9,000+ words accounted for, except where Zac comes in to say I'm right in a sentence. So as far as consensus goes, the single other person commenting besides Guy and myself accords with what I had already written. So, Guy's comments add nothing but a whole lot of words.
Do you know what the real clincher is? It appears somewhere in Guy's own comments:
"the 68000/08/10/12 internally and externally 16-bit"
So there... so after a 50,000+ character argument Guy says exactly what I had said throughout that whole exchange: The 68000 is internally and externally 16bit. So all of those other words Guy wrote are a total waste of time and space that achieve nothing but throw fog at what is a very straightforward and simple issue: The 68000 is 16bit. No further talk on the IBM 360 has any pertinence at all.
So then what you are defending is almost 60K of text which doesn't do a single thing to shift the basic point I was making: The microarchitecture of the 68000 is 16bit. The bit rating of a microprocessor is based on an assessment of the ALU operating size and the width of the data bus, usually the correct answer is whichever is least. What's the IBM 360 got to do with it?
What is most infuriating is that in stating himself that the 68000 is "internally and externally 16bit" even Guy Himself accepts what I was saying so everything else he wrote o that page is a waste of time. Do the right thing: Delete it. What is the purpose of defending Guy Harris, whose 50K text of off-topic chatter and copy-pasting the IBM 360 has no relevance and, even by his own deduction, changes nothing anyway? Vapourmile (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Vapourmile: Thank you for responding. However it's time to realize that Wikipedia is imperfect. All the above could be 100% correct but it would still be a mistake to edit war in an attempt to remove the large posts at Talk:Motorola 68000. The article is about a microprocessor. The talk page comments provide what is claimed to be a history of certain mainframe architecture, presumably to highlight similarities/differences with the 68000. If the comments were about bread making, you could happily revert them a few times. However, it is not enough to assert your opinion that the claimed CPU history is unworthy of mention. You could do that maybe twice, and then move on. However, you've done it four times in the last two weeks and you have to shrug it off and move on. Imagine if people started removing your comments because they were superfluous. Be thankful that you're not editing an article on politics where every comma is fought over for weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
It is *not* just that. The section heading, recommending it for deletion, was added by me. Until I had added the section heading Guy's comments existed for no purpose except as a response to what I have written so Guy's comments are just an argument he is having. As I have said: Having made that argument everybody involved in that argument, including Guy himself, accepts the 68000 is, in Guy's own words "internally and externally 16bit". It is not merely my assertion it is the assertion of many people. It is the same "assertion" which appears in Motorola's own documentation. Everything Guy wrote boils down to him trying to use the programmer representation as decisive in some way. That is what the argument was about. It is Not decisive. The programmer representation, which is the analogy you mention which he is trying to draw between the 360 and the 68000 makes no difference. There are Fortran compilers for 8bit microprocessors which have 32bit integers. It is irrelevant. At the compiler level you can have ten thousand bit integers, it doesn't alter the microarchitecture. If you're going to allow Guy's comments then it would validate me going back with more information about other processors with wider registers, such as the Intel AVX extensions, which are NOT rated according to the size of those extensions but on Other things.
Do you see my point? He is trying to make something relevant which is not relevant and if you think that's fair game for talk page content then it also opens the door to Anything anybody decides for themselves is relevant. If the IBM 360 is relevant to "*presumably* highlight similarities/differences with the 68000" then you have opened the door to talk about almost anything from which somebody wants to try to draw an analogy. Your use of the word "presumably" is telling because it means YOU don't know how Guy's comments are relevant either.
I deleted the comment, Guy reverted it. Why don't you go and condemn him for multiple reversions? You're making comments about assertions and yet neither you nor he has provided reason to accept his assertions, and yet you are allowing his to have precedence, even though you admit you don't know what makes them relevant either: You just assumed.
I think Guy should be called upon to defend his comments to give them warrant to stay because on the grounds you're offering then anybody can use any computer talk section to talk about any computer at all. Vapourmile (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but Wikipedia really is imperfect. I'm not saying you're wrong or that the other person is right. I'm simply reporting what can be done. There is no Wikipedia noticeboard that would support removal of that text. That's due to the reasons I mentioned above. Indeed, the ANI discussion (permalink) has four uninvolved editors agreeing with my claim and none supporting you. The count of four does not include you or the other editor, and does not include me (including me would make it five–zero). None of the five are going to investigate the comments in detail—we just know that comments about computer architecture on a microprocessor talk page are fine (given that they're not growing into someone's personal blog). Please take a pragmatic approach at Wikipedia and tolerate how things work rather than engage in an unfulfillable quest. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The Motorola 68000 is internally and externally 16bit, you say?
"Motorola 68000 (MC68000) is the first member of 680x0 line of microprocessors. Internally the 68000 is a 32-bit microprocessor - it has 32-bit data and address registers. Externally the processor has 16-bit data bus and 24-bit address bus, which limits the size of addressable memory to 16 MB. Motorola also made 68008 - a version of 68000 CPU with 8-bit external data bus."[2]
"The industry's lowest cost 32-bit microprocessor, the MC68000 offers an excellent low cost entry point to the M68000 Family. The MC68HC000 is a CMOS version of the original MC68000. The MC68HC001 is also a CMOS version of the original MC68000 with 8-/16-bit selectable data bus."[3]
"The Atari ST was a home computer released by Atari in June 1985. The letter "S" and "T" were short for "Sixteen/Thirty-Two," a reference to its 16-bit bus and 32-bit CPU; the Motorola 68000."[4]
"The Motorola 68000 is internally and externally 16bit, you say?" Is this really the place? No. I didn't say that. Guy Harris did, I'm merely quoting him to show that at the end of the day, he doesn't even dispute the central point. But I didn't say it. I'm not really to concerned with those sources because I already have enough, including relevant documents from Motorola themselves, and people who worked on the design of the CPU we're talking about. It's really a case of "You either understand how this works or you don't". A quote which says it's 32bit or 16bit doesn't mean anything. It's a similar problem with Guy Harris: The decider is the microarchitecture of the CPU. Nothing else means anything. Just like the cylinder count of an engine is decided by the number of pots it has and nothing else. The two main components involved in CPU classification are the data bus and the ALU. It's whichever is smaller, but the data bus is the "choke" on the maximum it can be: Whatever the rating of the CPU is, it cannot possibly be more than the width of the data bus because that limit places a hard upper limit on the rate at which the CPU can present results to the outside world. Even the 8088, which is Entirely 16bit internally, including the ALU, is rated as "8 bit" because of the half-size of the data bus. It has "16 bit registers" too, it doesn't matter. You can quite literally look at the underside of a 68000 and point at the pins and count them, and consummately end the discussion. The 68000 fits into 16bit CPU slots in 16bit motherboards with a 16bit interface to 16bit RAM. There is nothing to discuss. You can type "68000 pinout" into Google Images and look at a schematic with your own eyes and count. The idea it was somehow 32bit was started by Motorola's own marketing which essentially said "Hey wow, microprocessor bit-ratings are hard to understand, aren't they? So how about instead of doing what the whole industry does and rate our CPU on the data bus width, how about we do it by the register-space on the die instead"? Why not? Because that's marketing nonsense. The whole rest of the industry does it differently because they all do it accurately, they don't cherry pick details from the CPU die. When the data bus AND ALU are *BOTH* 16bit then there is NO route from that to "So I guess it's 32 bit then!". To draw an analogy, it's like taking a car with 6 cylinders and arguing that, owing to some other details in the engine bay which it has 12 of, it's therefore a V12. It isn't true. Those arguments are all posited by people who fall into at least one of two camps: 1. Marketing people, and other 68000 fans and evangelists. 2. People who just don't really understand how micro architectures are definitively rated and don't mind blurring the boundaries with fog. That said, almost all of Guy Harris' comments rest on his "portable instruction set" argument. It's pointless. There are 6510 assemblers which allow you to define 32bit integer types, it's simply ludicrous to imply that somehow implies a 6510 magically becomes 32bit that way. Fortran allows the programmer to declare 32bit integers on the multiple 8bit architectures it's been ported to. The language specification doesn't do a thing to change the classification of the underlying CPU microarchitecture. It's just nonsense. 100% of Guy's argument is totally superfluous. He has wasted literally hours talking about things that simply don't count. Vapourmile (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Please compare WP:OR wit WP:V and WP:RS. Come back when you have sources that support your rather odd notion that a CPU with a 16-bit external bus cannot be a a 32-bit CPU. One can only wonder if you treat the Intel 8088 the same way. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is based upon citations to reliable secondary sources, not walls of tldr unsourced original research. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
To quote myself: "Those arguments are all posited by people who fall into at least one of two camps: 1. Marketing people, and other 68000 fans and evangelists. 2. People who just don't really understand how micro architectures are definitively rated". Remember I wrote that because you will notice a pattern emerge that contradictory arguments about it come from nowhere else. To quote you: "your rather odd notion that a CPU with a 16-bit external bus cannot be a a 32-bit CPU". So, you fall into at least the second category. That is how it is done. In the way that I have already described. To quote you further: "Wikipedia is based upon citations to reliable secondary sources". First of all, you haven't used any 1. Reliable- 2. Secondary- sources. Even Motorola themselves are Not a reliable source on this issue, for reasons that I (as ever) have already given: Motorola themselves mooted the notion the 68000 was 32bit for marketing purposes, using exactly the process I (as ever) have already described. The exact document where they first do this is here below, in the linked issue of Byte from 1983, on page 70 (incorrectly appearing in the .pdf as page 74). In this article, written by Thomas Starnes, who was then *marketing* manager at Motorola, ie, this document primarily intended as a piece of *marketing*. Turn to page 70 (74 if you're going by the .pdf pagination), and I will quote it below. https://vintageapple.org/byte/pdf/198304_Byte_Magazine_Vol_08-04_New_Chips.pdf
"Many criteria can qualify a processor as an 8-, 16-, or 32-bit device. A manufacturer might base its label on the width of the data bus, address bus, data sizes, internal data paths, arithmetic and logic unit". Short version: "Oh, isn't rating CPUs hard? There's just so many things to consider, where should we begin?" Answer: No there isn't, it's the data bus. He then goes on to say, and read this bit out loud to yourself: "Generally, *the data-bus size* has determined the processor size". Did you read that out loud to yourself? Everything he writes until that point is nonsense to create confusion amongst people who don't know how it works as a prefatory. This is not a technical document, it's rhetoric. He then tacitly admits, *it is the data bus size which is the determinant*. Did you read that bit?
I have also already (as usual) explained why claims made in documents don't mean anything: What you need is an understanding of microprocessor architecture. For the same reason as the analogy I have already (as usual) used with car engine cylinder ratings. If you are a mechanic you can pop the hood and count the damned cylinders. It doesn't matter if somebody hands you a user manual which says the car is a V12. You can pop the hood and look. What it takes is understanding what V12 means. What is does NOT mean is anything the manufacturer and its fans want it to mean for publicity purposes.
68000 = 16bit data bus, 16bit CPU socket, 16bit RAM interface, 16bit ALU, 16bit instruction word length.
68000 fans: "Yeah but there's 2x16bits of die space for the registers so it's 32bit". facepalm.
NO. One random detail on the die elsewhere in a portion of the chip which doesn't contribute is NOT somehow magically an overriding fact. It was already 16bit before you got there. It can have some ad hoc ten billion bit operations somewhere on the die.... it doesn't upgrade the entire chip rating. Those values will still reach the real-world 16bits at a time.
Your argument is "Yeah, but who actually uses cylinder-count to decide if a car is a V6 or a V12?". Answer: Everybody who understands the mechanics does.
All you can do is what Motorola marketing did: Perform semantic legerdemain by falsely redefining what "32bit" actually means for the benefit of selling the 16bit 68000.
The most 32bit thing the 68000 has going for it is *some* instructions will take TWO 16bit values across the bus. But: *it still takes them 16bits at a time*. It takes them 16bits at a time because it is a 16bit CPU. Intra-register chip-die operation do not contribute to the overall chip rating. They aren't relevant. The 68000 is 16bit so those movements cannot enter the real world faster than 16bits at a time.
I have just noticed somebody(?) has removed the entire talk page just to have this argument, after I have received threats for removing only the garbage, and it has been changed it so only the garbage you have written appears, so this discussion is very obviously just bullshit. There needs to be a far better complaints procedure than having entire pages administered by a policy of obvious intentional bias and sabotage. You are exactly what I predicted: A 68000 fan doing this for competitive reasons, not for reasons of being honest or truthful, the same as Motorola did.
In answer to your question: "One can only wonder if you treat the Intel 8088 the same way".
Why would you even ask? Projection? I AM *NOT* THE ONE DOING THIS FOR PERSONAL REASONS. I AM THE ONE DOING THIS TO GET THE TRUTH OUT. You really need to look at yourself and YOUR motives.
I was going to say this previously: Clearly the 68000 page is policed, as so many Wikipedia pages are, by fans, so it says quite a lot of what its fans want. No wonder people don't take this site seriously. With people like you on it, it cannot be taken seriously.
RE: "One can only wonder if you treat the Intel 8088 the same way".
You obviously didn't read the discussion, as I said you wouldn't, and others can't now because somebody just conveniently hid it all from view. If you had looked and bothered to read it first, you'd have seen I have already (as usual) answered this, so I will just cut and paste from what I have already written on that talk page which you have strategically removed. This time you can have a source too:
1. "You will notice, if you look for the documentation, the Intel 8088 appears in their own self-sourced manuals as 'The 8088 8-bit microprocessor'"
Can you read that OK?
2. "The 8088 was internally almost identical to the 16bit 8086. It differed from it only in the data-bus pin reduction" (and a multiplexer).
Do you get what that means? It only took a change of the data bus width for a chip with an otherwise *entirely* 16bit internal architecture to be downrated to 8bit. Even despite the fact it has 16bit registers AND a 16bit ALU. So according to the Motorola fanboy version, the 8088 has MORE of a claim to be 16bit than the 68000 has of being 32bit. Does that answer your question? I don't care who the manufacturer is, but you, obviously, do. It doesn't say the 8088 is 16bit on the Wikipedia entry. Are you going to start policing the 8088 page to ensure everybody accepts the 8088 is 16bit? No, you aren't, because you are NOT an impartial witness. You are goalkeeping for team 68000 and you don't care about your home team cheating, you will even help them to do it.
Conclusion:
3. "The *primary* metric in these matters is /the size of the data bus/ in exactly the same way the *primary* measure of wether a car is a V4 or a V8 is the cylinder count, not some other random thing you can find to talk about. As with engines, you don't get to ignore the main thing entirely" (purely for it to figure out how you want).
You see, you're confusing me with you. YOU are doing this for competitive reasons. YOU care who the manufacturer is. I don't. I'm using the same measure in all cases. YOU don't give a damn what the truth is. YOU just want people believe whatever you want them to. YOU are dong this for competitive reasons. Inventing whatever rules you want so you can win. I am doing this *to protect the truth*. Something which clearly you will to anything to prevent from prevailing.... including being party to far more damage to the 68000 page than I did.
What is the point when an encyclopaedia has got obviously corrupt editors?
Please let's bring this interesting discussion to a close, although I'll risk another reply by pointing out two issues. First, no one's life or national pride depends on how many bits are used to describe a particular chip. That means there should not be this much passion and debate. Instead, tolerate the fact that different people are different and that some of them have different opinions even if wrong. No editors in this discussion are "corrupt". Second, there is no standards body that asssigns labels to chips and there is no authority capable of declaring, for example, that the 8088 should be described as an 8-bit chip in a Wikipedia article. Thank you for the Intel data sheet showing how Intel described the chip in a particular document but it is possible that an article might still use "16-bit" as a description because from a common-use point of view, that is a reasonable (although incomplete) summary of the situation. A programmer concerned about performance would regard an 8088 as a 16-bit processor because that's what it can efficiently handle, albeit through an 8-bit external bus. A low-level programmer would regard an 8088 as very different from a "real" 8-bit processor such as the 8080. That is yet another demonstration of the fact that there is not always a precise label that can summarize a particular situation and people with one background might say potato while others say potahto. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
No, that "point of view" is simply false, for the same reasons I have now repeated multiple times. On the other points you have made on side issues, for example performance: you are objectively wrong. There is a performance penalty in terms of real clock cycles taken to shift quantities between main memory and the CPU with lower classification chips. This is Because they have a lower classification. The link between classification and performance is material, causal and measurable, is *not* merely notional, as per every single argument I've listened to. As I said very early on in the my case, people disputing me fall into at least one of two camps: 1. Evangelists, who really don't care what the facts are, they just want things to go their way. 2. People who really don't know what they are talking about. Furthermore, the pretence this is merely matter of personal opinion as illustrated multiple times already, has about the same validity of claiming counting is merely a matter of personal opinion and what number comes after 4 is purely down to personal taste. It simply renders the entire thing meaningless. As have said to the others, the Intel AVX-512 extensions add 512bit registers to the Intel range. Do you think AVX-512 extended CPUs are 512bit? Do you recall Intel, or anybody else, announcing the release of world-beating 512bit CPUs? No. Because they haven't. It is a delusion to convince yourself you can simply pick and choose as you feel and come away with whatever outcome you like the sound of. If you want to have the final world then stop writing things which are not true. This is an encyclopaedia, aiming for credibility, you should aim to help it achieve that, don't just freewheel. Vapourmile (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me but there would be far less to say if the discussion wasn't being dogged by falsehood. FYI: I am NOT singularly responsible for writing 100K words on the topic, the bulk of the discussion from 7 months ago was Guy Harris cutting and pasting huge sections with commentary from the IBM 360 manual on the 68000 page. If people were not littering Wikipedia pages with falsehood there would be nothing to reply to. Vapourmile (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
My mistake, the number is actually closer to 80 k than 100 k, but to clarify, that is your contribution on this topic on various talk pages and notice boards, and does not include anyone else's. And now you are back at Talk:Motorola 68000 again. I really think WP:DROPTHESTICK is appropriate here. I won't comment again. Meters (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
"that is your contribution on this topic on various talk pages and notice boards"? Various? The bulk of what I've written *on this topic* is now in the 68000 talk-page archive, after that, this talk page. Do you mean the total amount of words I've added to Wikipedia all together? Which is it? Whatever, the main problem on that page is Guy Harris. The trouble with this subject is it is being contested by people who fundamentally don't know what they're talking about. Also: I didn't kickstart the argument again on the 68000 page, as can clearly be seen. Since then somebody fitting the behavioural description of Guy Harris has also appeared there talking about old minicomputers again which have absolutely no relevance to the topic and are just fogging the subject, again. Why don't you go off and add some snarky remarks to those peeople's talk pages? Better than that, instruct them *not* to continue adding more unhelpful text to talk pages when they clearly don't understand the subject, it achieves nothing but fogging the site with irrelevant banter making those talk pages unhelpful, unreadable and useless Vapourmile (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Hi Johnuniq. I'm not sure if you're aware of the current community consultation around Discretionary Sanctions but as someone who has participated in DS related activities recently I'd like to invite you to participate. You have the opportunity to participate at whatever level you wish; there are questions that are higher level (theoreticaly) in scope as well as opportunities to give feedback about specific areas of DS. The consultation will run through April 25th and I hope you'll participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I need help with editing the China wikipedia page. I'm trying to update it's GDP stats but i'm having issues with using the editing thing. Can you take a look at my edit and give me feedback? --Krao212 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Krao212: That looks good, although I'm not familiar with the infobox used at China. A couple of things I noticed:
There are some extra apostrophes in <ref name='"IMFWEOCN"'> which should be removed.
There is a typo in |website=International Monetary Funday (should be Fund).
Apparently you should have also updated GDP_PPP_year from 2020 to 2021 as done in this edit.
an IP has opened a thread here regarding a block you placed. Just letting you know since it doesn't look like they notified you even though it says must when starting a new section. (apologies if they did inform you and it's simply in your page history - I didn't research that) — Ched (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Hi admin, sorry for responding here due to circumstances. Noted on the comment you posted, I will take note and not do that in the future. My rationale for doing that is not to shame user but rather because I left some inconveniences to other editors/watchers of the page such as 1 IP user hence would like to apologize for that report that I filed even though not my fault ... anyway I will take note on this and not post such topic in the future and keep it to where it should be. However, do you mind reading the lengthy report in WP:ANI as I'm pretty drained by the continuous false accusations against me. If nothing could be done, I would have report this higher authority. Hope to hear from your soon. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)05:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I commented at at ANI (permalink). Let's assume you are correct about the article content (something to do with K-pop at Rosé (singer)). Nevertheless, you should not poke the other editor. Instead, focus on the issue, namely the disputed edit and discuss article text and reliable sources, and pretty well nothing else. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I apologize, I am still relatively new to wikipedia, I certainly didn't mean to cause an edit war. Please let me know if I still did something wrong. --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Thank you! I am not getting any further with Drmies, so here are my concrete questions, I would be grateful if you could please help me understand so I can improve my own writing/editing, or otherwise reinstate the sources directly:
THIS TEXT WAS DELETED BY DRMIES: “In 2017 and 2018, Hannawa was a keynote speaker at several national and international events. Among others, she was invited as a speaker to the Global Ministerial Summit for Patient Safety (in service to over 60 health ministers), the World Patient Safety, Science & Technology Summit with Bill Clinton, and the "Grand Challenges" Meeting with Bill Gates and Angela Merkel.”
The text was deleted with the justification that the following provided sources were not secondary sources:
This source here evidences that Hannawa was a speaker at the World Patient Safety, Science & Technology Summit 2018 in London with Bill Clinton: https://patientsafetymovement.org/speaker/annegret-hannawa/ , which testifies that she actually spoke at this event (there is also a video available with a recording of her contribution), and looking at the speakers, this event is noteworthy
This source discusses Hannawa’s “SACCIA safe communication guidelines” that she presented at a keynote address of the German hospital association’s annual congress: https://www.vkd-online.de/media/file/7311.Dokumentation_final.pdf , this source verifies that she actually presented this keynote address at this event (= accuracy of information + notability)
This source links to Hannawa’s faculty page at her university: http://usi.to/nx2 I would assume that this source is considered as containing accurate content (trustworthy source)?
--> Why are all these sources NOT considered “secondary” + notable sources that justify leaving these speaking engagements in the text? In my opinion, they are an essential component of the “notability” of Hannawa as a person. With what justification was all this text deleted from the article?
THIS TEXT WAS ALSO DELETED: At the end of 2018, in collaboration with the German Patient Safety Foundation (APS), Techniker Health Insurance, and Jacobs University Bremen, she won an Innovation Fund grant from the German Federal Joint Committee in the amount of €1.9 million for a research project which implements her "SACCIA Safe Communication" model in gynaecology and obstetrics at two German university hospitals (Frankfurt and Ulm).
The Clinical trials registry (an independent grant registry) was provided as a source to evidence this statement about Hannawa: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT03855735?V_3=View Why was this deleted? A 1,9 million Euro grant is noteworthy, the content of the grant too (-> a first nationally funded practice implementation of Hannawa’s developed guidelines for 1,9 million Euros could be considered a “milestone” in her life as a notable person), and the source is without doubt objective and accurate (it’s an objective grant registry)
--> With what justification was this text deleted from the article?
THIS TEXT WAS ALSO DELETED: In 2020, Hannawa received third-party funding from the Draeger Foundation for a research project that implements her "SACCIA Safe Communication" competencies in emergency settings, extending her safety research to further high-risk industries (aviation).
--> What is wrong about including this link as a source (as it verifies the claim)? Why was this text deleted?
THIS TEXT WAS ALSO DELETED: Hannawa has developed four scientific models with her team:
SACCIA describes five core competencies for "safe communication" in everyday clinical practice (Sufficiency, Accuracy, Clarity, Contextualization, Interpersonal Adaptation);
MEDC (Medical Error Disclosure Competence) serves as a scientific guideline for communicating medical errors to patients and family members;
INQUAT (Integrative Quality Care Assessment Tool) assists healthcare leaders in evaluating quality of care
TRACE (Tool for the Retrospective Analysis of Critical Events) is an evidence-based tool for analyzing critical incidents in patient care.
--> This information was taken from Hannawa's university’s faculty page (short bio/CV), which was linked as the source. In my mind, these innovations make up much of Hannawa’s notability as a person to have a Wikipedia entry in the first place (all her books were written about her innovation). At first, the books were linked, then Hannawa's homepage where she describes her innovations, then the university, and all three sources were deleted by Drmies, one after another. Why was this important part of the article deleted? What other verifying sources would be more acceptable than these to reinstate this essential part of the article about Hannawa as a notable person? I don't understand why Drmies is suddenly so obsessed with deleting almost everything in this one particular article because of alleged "primary sourcing", whereas articles he/she writes him/herself hardly reference any sources at all. Each and every sentence in this article is sourced! I can't help but fear that there is some personal motivation behind this sudden mass-deletion. As you can tell from this entry, I put a lot of research and work into this article. It is my first Wikipedia entry. Of course, I am new to this and may be wrong. But if I am wrong, then I want to understand why and, particularly, how to improve my future writing and editing. If there is no space here for a constructive discussion like this (which I always thought the whole Wikipedia concept stands for), then I have better things to do. Since Drmies pinged you, I assume you two know each other, and I would like to ask you to take over this sourcing from here to get the article back into a professional shape. Drmies has threatened to block me if I do any further edits, so my hands are tied (for whatever reason Drmies is allowed to bully me like this, which is impossible for me to comprehend as I have done nothing but to try to be a good Wikipedia editor in an entry-level stage). :-(
Finally, Drmies threatened to block my account if I don't submit a conflict of interest declaration. I didn't know that I had to do that, so I apologized and asked where I can submit my declaration, but I received no directive response. Only threats. I want to end these accusations and submit my declaration, please tell me how to proceed. And Drmies should do the same, i.e. declare his/her evident conflict of interest he/she has with either Hannawa or me personally, I have no idea. And with the understanding that of course, whatever sourcing standards are applied to my writing here so harshly shall also be applied to his/hers and all other Wikipedia articles out there so we don't run into any unpleasant bullying/discrimination issues here on such an important public platform that the whole world trusts in. Thanks! --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@BlackPantherDesert: I responded regarding the article at its talk page, Talk:Annegret Hannawa. Regarding claims of a conflict of interest, you are using Wikipedia to note the achievements of a particular person. That's fine, but it obviously involves a COI. Drmies is a very experienced and very general editor who has no interest in either promoting or opposing Annegret Hannawa. The way to record a COI is to briefly explain the connection on your user page (User:BlackPantherDesert) as noted at WP:COI which also mentions other points. WP:COI talks about templates but they are not needed: just use some brief text on your user page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Thank you for the instructions. I read the WP:COI article. I was not paid for writing this article, and I also do not have external relations with Hannawa of any kind. I also have no interest in covert advertising or in campaigning! So I'm not sure what to write in the COI. There is a section on bias: I hope I didn't express any bias in the article, I sourced each sentence and was particularly attentive to using objective language. I have followed Hannawa's work for some time because this topic is of personal interest to me. I think the content of her work is very important and that she has contributed to resolving severe healthcare issues in substantial ways, so that's my personal judgment I guess and the reason why I chose to write this article in the first place, as I think her accomplishments qualify for an encyclopedia entry. So I'm not sure if this constitutes a bias on my end? But doesn't each editor engage in this judgmental "bias" when they decide to write an article about a topic or a person? And as I understand from the COI-article, bias is not equal to a COI? I'm not sure if I should post what I wrote here as a COI on my user page, if it doesn't constitute a COI in the end? Do I write a COI declaration about not having a COI then? I'm confused and don't want to make a mistake here. Please advise. Regarding your responses to my content-questions (about improving my writing/editing skills and resolving the Dmries deletions of essential article content), I cannot see anything on the article's talk page Talk:Annegret Hannawa, where can I find your responses? Thanks!--BlackPantherDesert (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Ouch. I previewed my comment at Talk:Annegret Hannawa but realized that it said that I had responded here. That made me think I had better respond here first and when I finished I forgot that I needed to save my comment at article talk. Anyway I managed to find it and have just posted. Re COI, look at it from our point of view: every day, dozens of single-purpose accounts write glowing accounts of a business or person or other entity. Perhaps they are fans who never wanted to do anything other than tell the story of the article's subject. As might be expected, in almost all cases, it turns out that the author actually is the person, or works with them, or knows them, or has some other relationship. Generally someone who wants to edit Wikipedia starts off with some trial edits before rather than doing nothing other than write about one person. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: No worries. :-) Just saw it and replied. Re COI: Having experienced the past two days, I completely understand your point of view. Maybe it's my obsessive compulsive disorder that made me jump in too quickly, I should have tried editing first. Sorry about that, I am learning by the day. In retrospect, I agree that going on Wikipedia with my first article was a mistake, this whole thing has grown over my head and I will take a Wikipedia-break when this issue is settled. I'm exhausted from all this debating! This is taking so much time, I need to focus back on work and my personal life now for a while. So, what do I do with the COI though, I need to square that out. Dmries said he will block my account if I don't post a COI. So what do I post in that disclosure -- that I don't have a COI, with reference to the WP:COI article you sent me? Or do I post a potential judgmental bias in choosing to write this particular article and not a different one? This sounds silly to me, but whatever it takes to settle this dispute and clean up this mess. Drmies pinged you, so what do you advise? Eventually, I want to be able to edit again without getting accused of being disruptive or pursuing some hidden interests, both of which is simply untrue or at least not my intention. Please tell me what I need to do now to get "clean" with Drmies and have that COI-warning removed from my profile. --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@BlackPantherDesert: What's wanted is a rational explanation of how a new user (you) came to know about the subject, and get the idea to create a Wikipedia account, and write an article about the subject, and post links regarding the subject in two other articles. By the way, you don't have to ping me on my user talk page. While on that subject, bear in mind that not everyone wants to be pinged all the time. It's handy to copy what the person you are replying to did (if they pinged you, you can ping them). Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I posted links because the article had been marked as an "orphan", and the marking editor requested that the article is linked to other Wikipedia article so that it is no longer an orphan. So I just followed instructions. Like now. I will post something on my user site to fix the COI-issue, and I will stop pinging now. Thanks for your constructive help! --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Is there an internal mechanism to address this? Can you please escalate this issue as I am not aware of the relevant processes. Thanks. VV10:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
For example, that image on commons needs it be deleted and the editor account locked. VV10:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
And another commons link. Looks like the edits by this editor on all domains needs to be reviewed. Please check email. And thank you very much for the action. Best! VV05:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately the global user contributions tool is broken at the moment (phab:T282557). I have started a review of activity at Commons but it will take some time. I'll update here if any news. I haven't had much time and will need to review the user's edits, perhaps tomorrow. Johnuniq (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen your notification of a topic ban, and wish to appeal it. This course of action is completely disproportionate to the policy violations committed - which were largely done in good faith, not to be disruptive. I think there are real problems with the process of how the AR against me was made, such that I am not even allowed to talk about the complainant, because of an interaction ban (which I now see that I need to appeal too). The fact is, this policy is not enforced consistently, as evidenced by other comments made there. There was no 100% consensus on this decision: the statement by User:Denham331 seems particularly thoughtful, yet has been ignored. User:Andrew Gray, an administrator, also came up with an alternative solution, which does not appear to have been taken into account. And what about previous character? My thousands of constructive edits on BLP articles, including some I have created? The problems raised in the AR could have been resolved through challenging the edits, as Andrew Gray suggested, rather than escalating it to this level. FreeBMD is not a public records website; it is a genealogy research website. I have already stated that I understand how it can be interpreted as public records, apologised, and said I will not do it again, but these things can be rather opaque, especially when it is a source already used on hundreds of BLP articles. Andrew Gray has already pointed out that the nature of this source can easily be confused. I also wish to disclose that I have a mental health disability, and that I find this process, including the sanction, to be in violation of Wikipedia:Non-discrimination policy: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against staff or contractors on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, national origin, citizenship, ancestry, age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, family care status, marital status, domestic partner status, military or veteran status, or any other basis prohibited under federal, state, or local law." I have already been misgendered in a previous discussion, because I happen to be using a female name whilst editing as a male, so is it perhaps possible that this has led to further discrimination? I also have other protected characteristics included in this list, which, for privacy reasons, I do not wish to declare publicly. If Wikipedia wants to value contributions made by those from minority backgrounds, is this not a regressive step? The more pertinent part of the above passage is mental disability. If it is true that "The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity", should I not be given the opportunity to make amends for issues which may be caused by a disability? In terms of good character, I have been an editor for over sixteen years, with thousands of edits, and no previous sanctions until recently: all three of which were brought forward by the same editor, which in itself feels like I am being targeted unfairly.--TrottieTrue (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. [...] Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time. — Wikipedia is not compulsory
If, for whichever reason, your editing on Wikipedia causes problems, it is not discriminatory to inform you about these problems. It is also not discriminatory to prevent further similar problematic contributions, as this prevention is independent of any off-wiki reason that led to the problems. Preventing a disabled driver from persistently crossing red traffic lights is not a discrimination against their disability; the prevention of further issues is independent of any reason that led to the issue.
Implying that there has been such discrimination, made in an administrative capacity, in violation of the TOS, is a pretty severe personal attack and lacks proper evidence. If you continue to make such accusations, you may be blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
It's typical of you to blame me for "casting aspersions" and make my concerns the "issue" which might be punished (see WP:GASLIGHTING). It appears that you cannot see the forest for the trees, like many here. No, Wikipedia is not compulsory, and if my efforts aren't going to be appreciated, I don't have to give my time to it. But perhaps editors and admin might want to weigh up whether me stepping back will actually benefit the project. The amount of pages I have tidied up and improved is substantial. But all that people can see is the "bad". Perhaps it might be worth considering my points, rather than simply shooting me down. But hey, what does it matter - policy has been enacted. "Even if a concern is raised in an awkward way, by someone with a long history of campaigning on a subject, the concern itself should be approached seriously and not dismissed based on the messenger. It is entirely plausible - and indeed likely in many cases - that even when contributors are all individually making every appropriate effort to be not-biased, there still is a systemic bias caused by structural issues which we may - or may not - be well positioned to address." (quote from User:Jimbo Wales)--TrottieTrue (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@TrottieTrue: I know that participation at Wikipedia can be stressful due to unpleasant interactions with others, and I'm sorry that you have been troubled as a result of your work to improve the encyclopedia. However, similar remarks could be made about other people caught up in this issue. Ultimately, the system of sanctions is intended solely to reduce disruption and often that can only be achieved in a rather abrupt manner because some people avoid hints. In your case, it is most regrettable that some mistaken advice (example) has apparently encouraged your problems with WP:BLPPRIMARY which is the issue raised at the AE request (permalink). An additional factor appears to be that a shifting IP posted blunt messages (see the previous example). Perhaps if those messages had contained more explanation and had been from an established editor, they might have elicited a more appropriate response. I know nothing about your personal issues or what might be implied by your user name. Including myself, five uninvolved administrators commented in the AE result section. All five supported an indefinite BLP topic ban, although one expressed reservations. That means my close to impose the topic ban was unavoidable. Regarding "completely disproportionate": The problem is that the issues appeared to be ongoing and there was no acknowledgement of a problem. Indeed, I see little acknowledgement in the above text apart from "good faith" and "not enforced consistently". A better course of action would be to focus on working out why WP:BLPPRIMARY exists and what it means. Please take it easy because sometimes a relatively minor issue can spiral out of control if participants are unable to let it go. I decline the appeal but note that a successful appeal after a period of uneventful editing would probably be successful if framed in terms implied by my comment here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I was wrongly encouraged by another editor (who meant well), and yes, the IP editor was incredibly rude, which was hardly the best way to help me learn. So it appears that because four administrators called for a topic ban, despite one disagreeing, and a non-administrator making a case for me, it was "unavoidable" (I don't really understand why). I feel it's a misrepresentation to say that "there was no acknowledgement of a problem". On the contrary, I acknowledged my mistakes and apologised. On the other hand, the incivility and harassment carried out by the reporting editor was repeatedly ignored. So essentially, four administrators have decided my fate, completely ignoring all the good work I may have done elsewhere. The constant comments directed at me such as "I see little acknowledgement" suggest that I need to abase myself before administrators, and grovel before I can be forgiven. Perhaps you can understand that after weeks of being hounded for my indiscretions, I may become defensive, even if I am not apologetic enough for the relevant administrators. I think the way I've been treated is frankly a disgrace - a case of bullying by those with the power to do so. Of course, any such comments will be a black mark against my name. If WP is to retain constructive editors who give their time for free, it really needs to engage with them positively, instead of criminalising them for unintended mistakes. I fear that the cultural problems with Wikipedia are so deeply ingrained that those involved simply cannot see the problem. All my concerns about the editor who raised the complaints about me were ignored. Administrators need to remember that there is a person on the other side of the screen. Perhaps you could familiarise yourself with my contribution history: it's clear no one cares what good I might have done, and instead only focuses on the bad. The Denise Welch article was significantly worse before I tidied it up the other day. The comment "sometimes a relatively minor issue can spiral out of control if participants are unable to let it go" is actually applicable to the editor who has been filing reports about me. AE is clearly "won" by whoever can marshal the most support in their favour: hardly an unbiased form of adjudication. I am insulted that after so many years of positive contributions, the only recognition I get is sanctioning. Not the best way to retain people who give up their time for free.--TrottieTrue (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps no acknowledgement is exaggerated but look at the above comment: "wrongly encouraged ... IP editor was incredibly rude ... despite one disagreeing [no, it was five–nil; one had reservations] ... incivility and harassment" and more. Key points from my above comment include: solely to reduce disruption and better course of action .... No one ever needs to grovel at Wikipedia—we're not interested in that. It's true that sometimes there are misguided requests for apologies at ANI but they don't come from experienced administrators. The whole point of ANI and AE is to reduce disruption in a way that benefits the encyclopedia. Unfortunately that means one side of a dispute will be inconvenienced. Your edits would benefit the encyclopedia in many ways but they can't occur at the moment due to the WP:BLPPRIMARY issue. Rather than thinking of opposition as harassment, it would be better to assume good faith and try to work out the substantive point of messages. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Your whole tone is to criticise, condescend and nitpick my messages. It looks like I'm not allowed to defend myself, or criticise the actions of others - even if I have good grounds for doing so. User:Andrew Gray commented "it seems to me that approaches like this don't help resolve the issue" and was seeking to "try and avoid a ban". Just because Andrew did not explicitly state that he disagreed with a topic ban, it's quite evident from his comments that he didn't support it. Such things aren't meant to be decided by a simple vote, but I know I'm arguing with the impossible here. Other editors and administrators are simply too expert in WP policies. Andrew proposed a "better course of action"; this was ignored. "No one ever needs to grovel at Wikipedia—we're not interested in that." Well, I've already apologised and admitted I was wrong with my editing. There is no need for me to continue to beg for forgiveness. At present, it seems unlikely that my edits will be benefiting Wikipedia, although perhaps others will gain something from the work I have already done, and could have continued to do. You miss the point - I perceive my treatment by a particular editor as harassment. It comes across as vexatious, continually picking on me for things that other users simply don't get noticed for in the same way. Hundreds of articles use the problematic sources I was censured for, and nothing has been done. I understand that the "community" (ie. those present at the previous discussions) wouldn't approve of you granting my appeal, and to change your mind at this stage could be seen as embarrassing. "Assume good faith" is something that other editors involved have largely failed to do with me, ironically. It's funny that none of this was ever an issue until a few weeks ago, when one editor took it upon themselves to police me (to which I will be accused of "bad faith" and "casting aspersions", as if my perception of events doesn't matter).--TrottieTrue (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Ram Pradeep Kolasani
Hi Johnuniq. A week ago you responded to an ANI discussion about User:Ram Pradeep Kolasani, saying they "will be indefinitely blocked if you create any more articles or redirects without first discussing the issue with other editors and gaining consensus for your proposals". Could you take a look at their subsequent editing? They are still creating highly problematic articles without any sign of collaboration with others. I'll highlight Telugu Dubbed Series which was completely unsourced and CSD'ed under A1, and Rudhramadevi (TV Series) Sound Track Lyrics which is beyond inappropriate, being written in Telugu, entirely unsourced and a blatant copyright violation. There are several others over the last week. Thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you know what that page is for? Please take the advice in the rest of my edit summary, namely to ask on talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Susan Grace Bellerby: That's pretty bad. I left a message at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kaleena Kiff because I don't want to take it on at the moment. There was a period a few years ago where a couple of admins deleted many articles like this but that created quite a fuss and it seems the subject really was an actress and is a producer so maybe a stub is warranted. All the unsourced information should probably be removed but I would wait for opinions at BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@DePiep: Thanks! I was planning to release the latest version a few hours ago but it will have to wait a little longer. That's an interesting link for knots. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
I thought I'd ask you this question, since you are an admin. You know I was temporarily blocked for that joke on a user's talk page, and you warned another IP editor who was talking about COVID-related editor cabals, besides saying that you would thereafter issue long blocks for such "disruption". What wrong are we exactly doing? Please clarify, thank you 183.83.147.38 (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
A quick look at your contributions shows diff + diff as comments related to covid. I only looked at one other, namely diff which asserted that someone was "a communist" which is a WP:BLP violation without a reference. You may be familiar with corners of the internet where your comments would fit in and even be regarded as mild. However, covid is under discretionary sanctions due to the influx of problematic contributors pushing made-up ideas—see the notice I left at your talk. At Wikipedia, and particularly in this topic, contributors are required to follow WP:CIVIL and to use talk pages to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article based on high quality sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Normally, I would continue attempting to resolve the situation with the other user involved in such a dispute. However, as I explained yesterday, Zachbarbo has been unilaterally changing the data about the tallest buildings in each country for a month without any consequences or major change in behavior. Per your warning on their talk page, I believe that some type of block is necessary.
@RandomCanadian: I have partially blocked Special:Contributions/2601:602:9200:1310::/64 for a week so they cannot edit Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. That might handle the current problem although it does not cover all those IPs. I can do more if needed. It helps if the following is sprinkled around, even on IP talk. The first line is the heading I use for a new section (handy when scanning talk history), and the second is the notification.
@RandomCanadian: Mainly as a reminder to myself, but also for you if wanted, Arbcom just changed arrangements and I have removed the "general sanctions" notice that was just above and replaced it with the "discretionary sanctions" notice that is now required. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Sunshine
Sunshine!
Hello Johnuniq! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, @Johnuniq: I've Request for Pending Change Right and I already Read All guidliness Realted to pending change. I want this right only temporarily, I have seen those articles on Wikipedia waiting for reviewers on which pending change is protected by protection, I will fulfill this right with my responsibility, so I have already request on [[6]]. BestRegard
MXX8Talk✍️03:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@MXX8: There are four requests, including yours, at WP:PERM/PCR. Sorry but I'm not familiar with standard procedure there and it would be better to wait for an admin who understands what is normally required. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
I understand it may not raise to that level, or that I may be misreading the situation because I'm too close to it...
but at what point do these repeated comments in article talk space become an issue? See these diffs: [7][8][9][10].
The user also recently wrote an entire essay called WP:CRYNPA[11] after I (and another user) warned them that snarky and pointy comments were not conducive to healthy discussion [12]. They went on to vaguely describe both myself and that user as "incompetent" for holding an opinion they did not share and labelling their edit as sarcastic/pointy [13].
I think I'm going to back away from this entire thing for a little while, because it's frustrating to be repeatedly accused of malfeasance without much in the way of evidence, diffs, quotes, etc. I told the user as much on their talk page (permalink).
Anyway, I know you're busy atm, and this is a messy situation with extremely long responses back and forth. But any advice you can give or help you can provide would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Shibbolethink(♔♕)00:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: Working in contentious areas is draining and difficult for everyone and I'm sorry that I still haven't got a clue what is going on. You will have seen that I asked a question at Talk:Gain-of-function research and got a reply that didn't include an actionable proposal. It might be best to reduce your activity in this area for a short period and we'll see how things go. I will try to establish whatever the current problem is (but that will take quite a while) and may have a suggestion such as an RfC. I don't think going to WP:AE at this stage would help. As always, it is best to ignore any poking from other editors and always return discussions to an actionable proposal. Also, everything here is a work in progress and sometimes the other side will get their way: you don't need to be concerned about that as it may work out differently in a few weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed recent edits here ([14][15]), with edit summaries which are quite clear illustrations of the continued issues around the concept of WP:OR, separate to the copying and machine translation issues. CMD (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your close of the Autodidact thread, there was a proposal that had garnered a rough consensus in support of an indefinite block. While I don't believe this was your intention, it seems to me that the editor is being rewarded for abandoning the discussion. Despite the fact that 11 out of 15 !voters expressed support for an indef, the editor can now return to editing without facing any sanctions if they so choose. That just doesn't seem right. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: The issue is my close at ANI permalink. To explain my reasoning, there are about 5 bans, 6 indefs, and 4 opposes and the thread was fairly dormant. I meant my "notify me" and intended indeffing if problems resume. However, I take your point and I will remove my close in a moment. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Hounding and personal attacks - what to do?
John, I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'm currently being hounded by User:Youbat in talk spaces unrelated to the content dispute at Barelvi. I contacted User:Coffee about a sock farmer who was blocked in 2014 because of the recreation of a deleted article in 2015 as well as other issues with now-dormant accounts I've noticed. The matter doesn't concern Youbat or the Barelvi article in any way, yet Youbat still made this edit accusing me of taking revenge on ScholarM, of all people, accused me of attacking them (Youbat) "again and again," and brought up the content dispute on the Barelvi article for no readily apparent reason.
My concern is that Coffee may not be able to sort out my question about the aforementioned blocked user because Youbat will fill up the talk page with walls of text and, intentionally or not, bury the original query in decontextualized arguments. I've seen this happen with other disputes before where simply enough talk page posts can cause an original topic or main point to be ignored. What would you advise I do? I have a lot of things I'm trying to work on for the sake of encyclopedia, and I'd rather not have to defend myself from random attacks on unrelated topics everywhere I post. Thanks for any advice you can offer. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Johnuniq to disturb you, I have provided necessary evidences on Coffee's talk page you can check it for confirmation. MezzoMezzo I wrote that on Coffee's talk page by seeing your various edits relevant to ScholarM, And yes you had attack me again and again just because I had reverted yor removal of well sourced content from article Barelvi, one time you accused me for having offwiki relationship with ScholarM in past but I did not respond it as I was busy in my real life, and I why should I respond to you as I am already busy in more important task in my real life then to reply you. Another time you accused me saying I know "claim of exclusivity is the crux of the entire content dispute" doubting my intentions which was an attack to me. Will you stop it please?. User:Johnuniq my apologies for the disturbance.Youbat (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
John, thank you so much for your assistance and advice. This morning - I swear, just before I wrote this message - I found another recreated article which had been deleted, with little changes, by yet another now-dormant 2015 account. I'm not creative enough to make this up. In all cases, the articles were originally created either by Msoamu or one of his six or seven sock accounts, so the recreation has me wondering. If you've seen the sordid history of the Barelvi talk page (though that was only one battleground among many), you already know my concern. I'm avoiding mention of the pages and accounts which I've found out of fear for their talk pages being intentionally flooded.
That's another concern I have, by the way, and one I fear I might need assistance with again in the near future. You've been here about as long as me, so I'm sure you've seen this: when a user doesn't like the way a discussion is going, they simply flood the discussion with walls of text until uninvolved admins/editors move along. That appears to have just happened on the talk page with an admin when my questions about copyright violations were drowned out, and I'm worried that once I eventually seek help on the recreated articles/possible sock accounts, those will be flooded too. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
So apparently, he was on a topic ban for editing these exact topics...for over a year now. He just started editing articles on these topics again without telling anybody. Seeing as how he was topic banned for DR and POV pushing on these exact topics, I'm going to begin cleanup on Barelvi for edits he wasn't technically allowed to make. I'll continue using the talk page in case there are any issues, but with the topic ban back in force, things might be more quiet now. Thank you so much for your care and fairness in enforcing site policies during the fiasco. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Johnuniq could you please do me a favor...
I want all my post removed... All my post... I can't do this anymore and I would really appreciate it. I also have a Zodiac post up as well, you can remove that also as well as a post on Notfrompedro page and any other left over post. I honestly want nothing to do with this anymore. I would appreciate it. As well as this post and any others you can find. I honestly want no part of this anymore. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but the procedure at Wikipedia is that comments should be left in place, particularly if they have a reply. Trolling and off-topic commentary are removed, but comments regarding a disagreement concerning an article are retained. If you stop editing Three tramps and stop commenting on its talk page, there will be no disagreement and nothing further will occur. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for your timely assistance on the Three Tramps page. It's been like talking to a brick wall with that guy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but I was wondering if I could get a page protection on the Phil Valentine article?
To make a long story short, Phil Valentine is a conservative talk radio host who choose not to get the covid vaccine, and now he has it.
As you can imagine, some are joyous about this whereas I’m trying to stay neutral.
I’ve cited an article from Newsweek, but people kept adding a ref from the New York Times That is pay walled.
You can read the talk page on the Phil Valentine article where I left a better explanation.
Thank you.
Paige Matheson (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@Paige Matheson: I see one reverted IP edit claimed a death (there might have been more—I only checked some). If there are more like that (blatant vandalism) I would semi-protect, but it doesn't seem necessary at the moment. Semi-protection would not have prevented this 09:29, 26 July 2021 edit which you reverted without an edit summary. The fact that a reference is behind a paywall is no impediment to it being used, see WP:PAYWALL, and the wording in that diff seemed defensible. I'm not saying it is correct or due, I'm just saying that full-protection to prevent the article being changed would be very hard to justify. You could ask for opinions at WP:BLPN and there is a noticeboard where you can ask for paywalled articles (I forget where, try WP:HELPDESK). Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your help.
I only usually edit small things like grammar, etc.
I had no idea about the paywall thing.
Also, I’m worried about the 3 revert rule?
Or getting an an edit war and being banned, when I’m just trying to stay neutral.
Thanks again.
Paige Matheson (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Regards, Cabayi (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Singled out.The discussion is about the topic FGM. Thank you. --Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
