Jump to content

User talk:Johnuniq

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

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

Telugu cinema

[edit]

I was the one requested page proection to Telugu cinema from L5boat's dsiruptive editing. You restore to 21st December old version before his disruptive edits and block the article, and user Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq TIme yet for a TBan? Doug Weller talk 14:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq I see my block was reverted as an "abusive post:[1] Doug Weller talk 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what happens at Telugu cinema and Talk:Telugu cinema. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Le Blue Dude (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to Talk:Sinfest. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil edit warrior

[edit]

Can you please look at this edit summary (and 3rd revert)? BTW, do you know how this IP slightly changes the IP with each edit? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4 times now adding the unreferenced category, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5 times. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just arrived. Done. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW do not edit war with people like this! Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old vandal is back

[edit]

This many times blocked IP removed material from musical theatre twice today without explanation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, for a year. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @RfPP

[edit]

Hey. Thanks for closing that request. I got unexpectedly tied up. Appreciate you picking up my slack. Yours, El_C 09:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all the work you do, it's only fair that a few bits and pieces should be available for others! Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace

[edit]

Didn't take long before IPs and a brand new editor arrived.[2] Doug Weller talk 15:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: It's irritating when IPs repeat edits (although I don't see an actual repeat; it's more like another edit in the same vein). However, the IP's edit summary that the reference does not support the claim is correct. I've never heard of the people or show concerned but I read the reference and it has three mentions of KKK, none of them going anywhere close to saying the subject a "was a member of the KKK". Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I couldn't find a source for membership of the KKK / Ok, we'll see how it goes. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

readded
removed Euryalus

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed

Technical news

  • Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
  • A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another vandalism-only account

[edit]

Made another vandal edit today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.19.230.10 -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have to tolerate that because Special:Contributions/47.19.230.10 has made only one edit in the last three+ months. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
For your assistance with quelling the edit warring here. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but I have done very little! However, I'll watch the article for a while. Let me know if admin attention is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Views of Kanye West

[edit]

Hello again, thank you for your assistance protecting the Kanye West page last night. I am contacting you because I found that the BLP-violating categorizations of that page bled over into this related page, and I made it a point to remove the content immediately upon seeing it. I mention this because you noted at the talk page that you would be enforcing such BLP violations with blocks. Whether or not that is necessary right now is obviously up to you, but I figured I'd inform you about this, given your stern warning to those attempting to include these categories. Thank you for all that you do here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffSpaceman: OK, I'll have a look although I will be slow. Briefly explain the situation for any onlookers at Talk:Views of Kanye West (a summary of key points from Talk:Kanye West), wait a while, then ping me from there if it continues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the recommendation. I have left a statement at the talk page, feel free to let me know if you feel that anything's missing or incomplete in my comment. I appreciate your assistance in this area. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Reda

[edit]

This actress does not have an article. Angel Reda redirects to Wicked, but she is not mentioned there. Can you please delete the redirect? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't delete that page as Angel Reda has history (it was created in 2009 and changed to a redirect a month later). Also, deleting pages is sensitive and an WP:RFD would be required. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I looked her up. She has since played more Broadway and regional roles and may or may not be notable. If Schmigadoon! (musical) comes to Broadway, she may play the Countess. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White Mexicans

[edit]

Regarding Talk:Mexico § Contentious, as you can see I only responded once to you in a concise way per your request... Unfortunately as with prior venues, others have decided to carry on the edit war discussion in what should have been a very straightforward question and answer. This is unfortunately not the first time this has happened, where a simple question turns into chaos. You can also see this starting to happen over at ANI, even after Liz tried to redirect the focus of the ANI discussion back to behavior. Hopefully their bickering will not dissuade you from reading my simple response to your precise question. Feel free to reply and ping me in any venue you find best to carry on the conversation. TiggerJay (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply which I just posted at Talk:Mexico#Contentious. There is no need to reply. Nor there, for that matter. Leave it and see what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refspam?

[edit]

In this edit, you reverted a an addition of a further reading reading section with the edit summary "apparent refspam". The additions appear to be reputable books by big name publishers. Can you explain why you think they are spam? Ca talk to me! 07:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ca: Looking at Special:Contributions/79.13.24.38 shows around 170 edits, all of which involve adding external links. That is a sure sign of someone using Wikipedia for promotion. It would need quite a lot of effort to work out what is being promoted—it might be an author, a publisher, an idea, or something else. See WP:REFSPAM. The only effective way to combat spam is to revert it. WP:Further reading does not give much help but it is clear that there should be a good reason to add a reading link other than it is possible. If you have reason to believe that the particular reference you highlighted is worthwhile, please restore it. Johnuniq (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've filed a Administrative action review request. Ca talk to me! 12:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The review has closed with a headline that the initial action was not endorsed. The full closure is slightly more nuanced and can be read at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#February 2025 block of 79.13.24.38 by Johnuniq. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the close. Links for the record: 79.13.24.38 + WP:AN (archive) + review above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request unsemiprotect "Q"

[edit]

Any chance of experimentally removing the semi-protection for the page Q for a while. It's been nearly five years now. I'm an annoymous editor and would like to make some minor fixes. No worries if not. Requesting original protecter per advice on WP:RFUP 51.6.11.172 (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The theoretical answer is that there should be an actual edit request at Talk:Q rather than your current comment there. However, I have removed the protection although I will probably put it back in a week or so because a couple of similar pages that I checked had indefinite semi-protection. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for receipt of rights to rollback

[edit]

Hello, would like to ask you to assign me rollback rights. I need the rights of the rollbacker to more effectively eliminate vandalism. I have read the rollback policy and am ready to follow it. Oostpulus (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oostpulus: Sorry but I do not recall encountering your edits. Please use WP:PERM/R to request rights, after reading the advice on that page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll make a request there. Oostpulus (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:79.13.24.38 evading their block

[edit]

Hello Johnuniq,

About 13 days ago you blocked the 79.13.24.38 IP address for adding "promotional external links". Examples of edits being diff 1, diff 2, diff 3.

It is now suspected that they are using the 87.17.158.221 IP address to evade that 3-month block and continue their medium-large scale link-adding disruption. Here are some example edits: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4. Even the geolocation of the two IPs are the same, i.e. in Italy.

They've been reported to AN/I by another editor earlier on here, but I just thought I'd let you know about this since you'd been involved with them by placing a block before.

Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AP 499D25: Thanks for the update. I posted at ANI to say that I don't think I should take any action until the admin review is closed. I blocked the first IP nearly two weeks ago and there have been several comments about me biting the IP at the review, but no one has unblocked them yet. And now the person has popped up again. It's good to see such enthusiasm... Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, understood. For the time being I have left a message on the latest IP's talk page informing them that blocks apply to persons behind an IP and not the IP itself, as well as instructions on how to appeal their block should they wish to get back to editing legitimately sooner rather than later. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Padopera$

[edit]

Time for TPA to be revoked? Jfire (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for more because they restored User talk:Padopera$ to how it was. That is, the current 07:13, 28 February 2025 revision is good. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
  • Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved your comment

[edit]

Hiya! Please forgive me, I moved your comment from WP:VPP to Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Template:Finance_links. I wasn't aware that that noticeboard existed. I hope you are OK with moving the discussion including your comment. Polygnotus (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, good idea. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A876

[edit]

Hi there. I noticed a really strange edit by A876, which led me to leave a message on their user page. I then saw you'd given them a final warning for certain editing behaviours, which I think may have resumed. Could you have a look at these three recent diffs and tell me if I'm wrong?

[3],[4],[5]

All these edits contain a minor change of actual content, and a very large number of cosmetic changes invisible to the reader. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: Sorry, but I wimped out because my last warning was four years ago. See User talk:A876#Another final warning. Let me know if you notice more. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, will do.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't take long [6], [7]. It's compulsive behaviour at this point.--Boynamedsue (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw them. I'm going to take this slowly and will have another look over the weekend. Remind me on or after Monday if I have missed more. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, couple more for you to look at. [8], [9].Boynamedsue (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A876 (talk · contribs) Blocked for a week. In many cases like this, it would be indef until undertaking to avoid further disruption but it may be a case of a habit which needs help to overcome. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I would agree. There seems not to be much content in these recent edits either. Just deleting Oxford commas and changing afterward>afterwards. I would suggest the user needs help to get back into normal editing.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election

[edit]

Should this be reduced to WP:SEMI? The Joe Biden article has already been downgraded. If done, it will still be applied to post-1992 politics, hence why I'm requesting it to be downgraded to semi. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did that. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also mind decreasing the move to semi? You didn't do the move decrease. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 02:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I purposely left it at ECP move. Is there a reason to think someone with ten edits might need to move the article rather than discuss it first? Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad

[edit]

I'm glad you saw the comment because Wikipedia has enormous problems. I don't think you can begin to fix them. One, the dispute resolution board is hardly used and there are no other recourses. You "warning" me when I used a talk page correctly is another oddity. I don't want to post on that person's talk page. They have been on this site for 15 years and are making major mistakes. You could take an interest if you wanted. Look at how they didn't even check the infobox. I had to tell them. Two, the teahouse? For what? They don't solve disagreements. Three, this user, SSilvers has kind of taken over the Sia page and Grace VanderWaal. They don't care, apparently, that you don't have to mention "Sia" or VanderWaarl 200 times in the article. Good writers know that. I welcome your expertise but you seem to have no idea what's happening on those two articles. Then SSilvers doesn't want something that may be mentioned on the film Music article to be said on the Sia one, why? I told them that they could change it back to not mentioning the scenes were changed if they had a reliable source, Four, why are you not looking for big things on this site that make no sense? I could give you a list of over 15 things that are giant problems. Do you care enough to ask me about that? Engage01 (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Engage01 (talk · contribs) The normal procedure is to reply to comments at the place they started. Except, if a comment is about an article, it should be on article talk and experienced users often only respond there, and not on their talk. At any rate, I started this at your talk and you removed it along with another message from someone else (diff).
It generally takes people a long time to get used to the simple procedures that apply at Wikipedia. It is a good idea to ask questions for a few months rather than tell people how things should be. Of course, you are welcome to tell everyone but they are welcome to ignore you. Wikipedia cannot work any other way—anyone can come here and blow whatever trumpet they like. People have learned to tune out from all that and only engage when a substantive discussion about article content occurs. As soon as an editor's name is mentioned, everyone knows the discussion is a complaint about a person, not an attempt to discuss content. If you have something to say about content, please start a new section on the appropriate talk page: focus on content (see my comment which you deleted); don't mention other editors. One advantage of creating such a section is that someone like me (no knowledge of, or interest in, the topic) can readily see what the issue is. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how you put up with things on here. You pretty much have to focus on narrow things and not have a wide glimpse of the site. I can't tell you how disappointing this all is. Engage01 (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on an unrelated talk page someone just told me they're experiencing stress on the site. It's not just me. Engage01 (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Taking a step back, I don't understand. You said Johnuniq is from your past (John) and uniq (something you added because John apparently wasn't available). Not asking you to say if your name is John or not, but John relates to your past then? You have some of the right approach to what Wikipedia aspires to be. I mean you understand Larry Sanger has nothing to do with this site for the exact reasons, probably more that I mentioned. Also even if I am infallible, of course no one would listen to me-or 99.3 percent correct. Engage01 (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking about my user name, I'm not very happy with it but I didn't realize at the time that I would hang around so long. All reasonable variations on "John" that I tried were taken while I was trying to find an available unique name. I have done a little Unix stuff (that's what I meant by "my past"), and am familiar with utilities such as uniq, so I appended that. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SOS

[edit]

Johnuniq, this is really bad. I went along with it-well I was "pushed" into it. Where are these opinions coming from? Sia has an "honorary" uncle who happens to be very known (a celebrity, part of Men at Work). It's so odd to me that people would not see the value in that, enough to be included in an article. Consensus is definitely wrong sometimes. Something really should be evaluated. Engage01 (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for everyone. Don't worry about it. I have spent a fair bit of time explaining that Wikipedia relies on collaboration—we have to get on with other editors. That means that when consensus is against us, we have to let it go. At any rate, I recommend concentrating on the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Habitually non-collegial behavior which looks serious. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Serious? How? If I explain enough would you understand? I really find it hard to imagine you in circumstances where "consensus" was not in your favor, not that often at a minimum. Engage01 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say any editor who edits here enough has had times where consensus wasn't it their favour. It's a natural part of working on such a large collaborative project with policies and guidelines which in many areas generally intentional don't clearly proscribe how to handle stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that long term editors who have a better understanding of our policies and guidelines and how they're often applied, and what their fellow editors are likely to think about certain things, are probably less likely to find consensus against them on average especially in areas like the inclusion of certain content in articles. Still you haven't been here for long, so if we're talking overall numbers most regulars have likely had consensus against them more times even in one year and definitely way more in their careers, than you have in your time here. As Jonhuniq said, being able to accept when consensus is against you and moving on is a very important part of being able to edit here. Even more important is there should be no personal attacks or other incivility just because editors disagree with you. Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by IP

[edit]

In January you blocked 2601:47:4B01:4B30::::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) an uncommunicative editor who makes DATEVAR, ENGVAR, and unsourced BLP edits. They had been on that range for at least 18 months repeating their preferred edits, and never communicating with anyone. On the 12th they appear to have found a new IP address and are back as 2601:47:4B84:EC80::::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)).
Edit to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King new IP[10], old IP[11] (they've been at that since at least May 2023[12]).
Edit to Caroline Chikezie, new IP[13], old IP[14].
Edit to Lance Reddick, new IP[15], old IP[16] (repeatedly since at least March last year[17])
Could you block the new IP range? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll block Special:Contributions/2601:47:4B84:EC80::/64 in a few minutes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Johnuniq. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, although I'm on a bit of a break lately. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&oldid=1283034711"