User talk:Johnuniq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise.

Uploading images[edit]

Hi, I have uploaded the images during the improvement of an article. However, one thing that I'm skeptical about is whether should I choose as my "own work"? The images that I upload are redrawn from the sources, and I have added the source in the summary.

Did I miss something? I'm new at uploading images, and I have no clue how to upload them to Commons even if I have read the WP:MTC. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: I don't know about the status of a diagram redrawn from a (presumably) copyright source. Normally, images would be uploaded at Commons and then used as normal here. In case you haven't seen it, WP:IMAGES has links to relevant pages. You would get better advice at WP:HELPDESK or (if uploaded at Commons) c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. To upload at Commons, you would visit, for example, c:User talk:Dedhert.Jr and use the Upload file link there. It appears you redrew the images so they are your own work but I don't know if you are then legally able to donate your drawing to Commons or Wikipedia using one of the standard licenses. As an example, I uploaded File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2014.svg at Commons. If you click that link, then "view on commons" at the top, you will see where I uploaded it along with the copyright tag I used. Following all that is a bit of a puzzle, good luck! Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About "Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War" and it's talk page[edit]

Recently this page's protection was raised.

The reason was proposer gave is editwar, disruptive editing, sock puppet and meat puppet.

Editwar: I have not reverted a single line from the article. I found multiple statements which provided source didn't back it up, grossly misinterpreted which other users also have pointed out and statement taken out of context I've recorded each and every each in talkpage.

But I didn't removed any statement just added inline tags.

The other edits I've done, I've added multiple reference for each statement I've added. I've commented extensively for each edit. Even added references about the citation in the edit description.

A disputed and misinterpreted claim

"Mostly Hindu women were victims..." which he initially added without any source and interestingly, he deleted 5 sources all secondary not original which seems to imply Women were raped irrespective of religion.

An user has given well sourced complain about the claim but he didn't participated in the discussion and didn't defended his claim, i think it's been 15 to 20 days when the dispute was logged. Initially I added inline disputed tag but when it was clear he won't be defending it i restored the original claim which was backed by 5 sources which he deleted before the pov push. I also added additional 2 sources from newyorktimes and a paper from academia.org.

While he wasn't defending his edit he reverted my edit saying no consensus! He didn't improved on the material instead reverted my 3 days of work on this article.

I reverted back and added more references, check the logs if I'm lying. He again reverted back a jouranal published in National library of Medicine and a world renowned book as a primary source. It was clear even if i cite nobel prize winning paper(phrasing wrong) i would get reverted. I documented his destructive and Vandalism in details in the talk page of the article before reverting I don't call it edit war. He actively reverting sentences with multiple references it is clear vandalism.

Also He and the user who proposed protection is involved in similar article "Bangladesh Genocide".

I'm the only active user who is contributing in this article constructively ,by increasing

page security and immediately after reverting every contribution i've done is a blalant gaming the system. He've also removed all the inline tags which questions the neutrality of the article.. plz refer to the talk page of the article.

Take everything i said as grain of salt and investigate yourself.

I also propose, restore the inline tags and revert the last revert, even if you don't do please keep both conflicting view if you don't find the disputed claim as misinterpretion

I've worked hard for 4 days continuously on this, reverting each and every contribution like that feels very discouraging. I'm also want your advice how to handle this.

Salekin.sami36 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Salekin.sami36: This refers to Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and the fact that I applied indefinite WP:ECP protection as a result of a request at WP:RPPI. I'm sorry but I am in no position to adjudicate regarding the state of the article which is a contentious topic. All you can do is make suggestions at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War but you would have to pick one specific point at a time and focus on that. Do not mention other editors and do not use terms such as "destructive". Instead, focus on actionable proposals to change article content, with sources, and keep it brief. There is clearly considerable disagreement and a more realistic approach would be to acknowledge that much more experience with editing difficult topics would be needed. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's a reality of Wikipedia that contentious topics are contentious and the tools to deal with the situation are very limited. See WP:DR which would probably lead to an WP:RFC. It appears "Mostly Hindu women were victims" is your immediate concern and an RfC focused on a concrete proposal to change that wording might be all you could achieve. The article protection is very unlikely to be reduced due to the contentious topic issue. Also, you must not post too frequently on article talk and you must keep comments brief. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've used the talk page to document the issues with the article and the editor involved,
after all my contribution were reverted which i think done through gaming the system to perserve a certain POV (i think). I won't engage with the topic any further at least for now as my vacation is coming to end, also have done everything that could be achieved(i think) in the current setting. I agree that the topic needed more experienced ones with editing difficult topics but all i could see bunch of IPs and sockpuppets name-calling,blaming each other without doing anything constructive.Salekin.sami36 (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid that's why the topic is contentious. A relevant essay might be WP:CPUSH but again, I have no knowledge of the topic and no ability to decide who is correct regarding the content. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horse racing distance template[edit]

Your new template has worked brilliantly - someone added a new race to the list today, and they used the template and the distance sort has worked. Thanks again, really appreciate your work on this. Bcp67 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm glad {{hrd}} has been useful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YGM[edit]

Hello, Johnuniq. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, it was just another crank message. Hard to say if it's trolling or genuinely disturbed, but there's no practical difference here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on revert on Robert FitzRoy[edit]

You asked "does it make sense to prevent a widow from living in destitution?" Why wouldn't it? I understand widows were often made destitute by the deaths of their husbands. Regarding the edit, I made the change because she had been widowed by this point and was no longer his wife. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message but this sort of thing should be discussed at article talk (Talk:Robert FitzRoy) so others can see it, now and in the future. I might have been wrong in how I read it but someone has added a word that looks fine. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chris Brown ECP[edit]

Hi Johnuniq, just a quick reminder to restore indef ECP on Chris Brown since the full protection has expired now. Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I've done that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:PolParsEstCat[edit]

Hi! I was wondering if you would be willing to lower the protection level of {{PolParsEstCat}}? It is in use on 212 pages, which per WP:HRT is not enough for automatic semi protection, much less TPE (or even XC). Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HouseBlaster: I template-protected {{PolParsEstCat}} as a result of a request now archived at 29 February 2020. At the time I asked why protection was needed with a small number of transclusions and was told it was used for categories and problematic edits would create difficult problems. Two other admins were identified as having handled similar requests. If you think there would be a benefit from your request, please make it at WP:RPPD where I have noticed your activity. You might link to the archived discussion and ping the other admins to see if they have an opinion on the category issue. Why not work out how many more of these you might like to move and keep links in a sandbox for a couple of weeks? Then think about whether there would be a real benefit from lowering the protection and consider the alternative of a move request to get several of the moves done in one request. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to go to WP:RFPD. I will address why I disagree with BHG there, but I will address the "maybe do these at all at once" bit here.
My experience with making requests of others (and, I will add, when I am on the other side, e.g. answering edit requests or listings at RMT) is that people usually prefer to have requests broken down into smaller bits, rather than handing off their entire to-do list to someone else. (I also think a mass proposal could have WP:TRAINWRECK issues.)
I will note that I have been making use of WP:RMT when I think the protection is justified, and I certainly make my fair share of TPE edit requests. That is to say, I am considering whether the protection is helpful before requesting unprotection. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive IP range...still[edit]

I'm not the OP, and this isn't the original notification location, but problems are continuing. Wasn't sure whether to notify there or here. Mapsax (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mapsax: Here is fine. I see there is continued edit warring at Talk:WTIC-FM which would justify a longer block (the previous block for Special:Contributions/2601:183:4B00:0:0:0:0:0/40 was one week). However, superficially at least, the IP's edits seem defensible and certainly are not vandalism. What is needed is for someone familiar with the topics concerned to find problematic changes and patiently try to engage the IP at their most recent IP talk page and/or article talk (ideally, there would be a very polite comment at article talk and a link to it at the IP talk with a polite request to respond there). If the IP failed to engage satisfactorily, it would be a lot easier to justify a long block. I've got too much off-wiki turmoil to dive into the details. Can you try it and let me know what happens? Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, since as you know, the most recent talk page changes rapidly, and attempts to address issues go ignored, so, added to the lack of edit summaries, it doesn't look like trying any communication would seem practical. Just keep an eye out periodically if you can, and I'll see if there's anything egregious that happens. Thank you for what you've done already. Mapsax (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't put a great deal of effort into it because, as you say, the chance of getting a response is very low. However, if there is no effort it is hard to justify, say, a three-month block on the basis that the IP would have failed to respond. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Highly inappropriate warning of a block[edit]

Hi. On 08:46, 9 February 2024 , you Johnuniq warned me that you were going to block me, stating, "I will block you if you reinstate obvious nonsense again". I consider this a highly inappropriate warning of a block and it even appears to be misuse of administrative powers. I explained in detail my rationale in my talk page, where there is already a discussion about the situation. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was away from keyboard and did not have a chance to respond before you were blocked for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Time sink editors should simply be banned outright.....block will not help behavior in this case as seen by the inability to understand the problem. Moxy- 05:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, yes. Accommodating all comers has benefits but when I speculate about the End of Wikipedia I think it will sink under the weight of unproductive argument. Good editors can't last forever when dealing with nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My sense is that it's getting worse. Bon courage (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanish protests edit[edit]

Hello. When I asked that the Spanish protests page be protected, I also noted that the users who were making those edits, one of them changed the title of the page itself without providing any evidence or sources, and I was never able to undo that. They changed the page to Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024), and they did not provide any evidence. Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024) - Wikipedia

I ask that you please change the title to "2023 Spanish protests against Catalan amnesty" because the protests the page covers were about Catalan amnesty, whereas the current page just says amnesty with no context, and because the user who changed it did not give any sources or evidence that the protests were still ongoing, and everybody else was in agreement that unless someone showed they were ongoing, the protests ended in 2023. In addition, he also changed the duration to say they were still going on without sources or evidence, so when I undid that, I changed it back to October 29-November 18, a duration of 20 days, since that was the reliable dates we had, but the duration was difficult for me to read, and I accidentally put it to 11 months, 3 weeks and 1 day. If you can put those changes in, it would make the article more reliable, and it would be up to date with the most reliable information. Thank you. (2607:FEA8:7221:F600:6D6D:96B4:58C3:9331 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Moving articles when there is a dispute causes trouble. Another administrator has correctly modified the protection to prevent page moving (renaming). I recommend waiting to see what discussions occur regarding the article content then worry about the title later. See WP:DR for dispute resolution and WP:RM for how to deal with title disagreements. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, again[edit]

Well, I made that mistake twice, and you fixed it twice. Thanks. I think the fix I implemented last time was lost by not being saved.🤦 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess this was one of my template fixes, but I've forgotten about it now! No problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twomad page protection[edit]

Why did you decide to extended-protect Twomad when both requests (1, 2) were for semi-protection due to IP vandalism? Doublah (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doublah: Something confusing happened with Twomad. While working through the protection requests I looked at the article and its history and decided that the request for semi-protection was appropriate. If a page currently has no protection, I see "protect", click that and set the required parameters. If a page is currently protected, I see "change protection" and can click that and change existing parameters. For this article, I saw "protect", clicked it and set semi-protection. After I clicked the last button, I briefly noticed the protection log at the bottom and saw a very recent "extended confirmed access" entry. I then clicked "change protection" to more carefully look at the log and saw that the log appeared to show that I had changed an existing ECP to semi. That should not have happened and I wouldn't do that intentionally without first asking the protecting admin. I thought about making enquiries but I decided that it would be easier to assume ScottishFinnishRadish had a good reason so I changed the semi that I had set back to ECP. See the protection log which shows the reason: "Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts". Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before I draftified the article and it reads recreated there were BLP/BDP issues and disruptive editing from autoconfirmed accounts, so I went to to ECP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I am sure you did the right thing. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection[edit]

Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm late. Someone else has semi-protected. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Hello, Johnuniq. You have new messages at Template talk:Convert.
Message added 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]