I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise. |
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)
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)
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)
Scorpions1325 ( talk) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 03:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
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)
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))
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)
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)
Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Stop deleting comments from my talk page. I will revert your edits if you do. Any editing that needs to happen on this talk page I will do myself, if I see the need. There is no need to reply to this request. Nangaf ( talk) 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
Would you please look at the discussion on Talk:Grace VanderWaal? It follows some IP vandalism concerning a tik-tok singer named Daniel Larson alleged to be dating VanderWaal. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi I have pinged you in a discussion on this recently protected page, would appreciate your attention on the talk page. Thank you. Oz346 ( talk) 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment here. I note further that the off-wiki "campaign" now, apparently, includes on-wiki physical threats against certain editors (see this ANI report I initiated yesterday). I mention it here so that, being an administrator, you would have a fuller understanding of the depths to which this active campaign is willing to sink. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
You do understand that " what is the point of fiddling with this" is not a valid reason to revert. Please provide a reason why you think my edits did not constitute an improvement. 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Up the Walls ( talk) 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Jon. This editor has been pushing infoboxes at two more articles that I worked on extensively. In reverting him, I inadvertently deleted the lead images, and in one case he accused me of vandalism:
Would you please review the last couple days' edits there? Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks,-- Thinker78 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, John. I have been resisting this on the grounds of WP:BLP, as none of the sources have confirmed this marriage directly with the subject, but the photos in this New Zealand article look pretty convincing. Do you think it is time to add it to their article? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
...I have a Android 📱 phone that gets out of hand, keypad got stuck in caps. How do I thank and complement you and other Admins? Four of Sixteen ( talk) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
....this has something to do with that glitch that caused me to change Wikipedia IDs. I have some kind of inquiry about this in the bell shaped icon. Four of Sixteen ( talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm a user on FANDOM and I'd like to ask you a question. Could you show me what would need to be changed to the Age module so that the year is the last numeral, rather than the first. For example, here it is year, day then month, I'd like for it to be month, day then year. I'd gratefully appreciate it if you could show me :) ValenciaThunderbolt ( talk) 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
{{start date|1993|02|24}}
is 1993, February, 24. What do you want {{
start date}} for? Its documentation says it is only for use inside a template. Frankly it would be a bad idea to require people to enter month/day/year. Module:Age can accept dates in a variety of formats, for example "February 24, 1993" as a single parameter.
Johnuniq (
talk) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
{{age in days|1993|2|5|2024|4|6}}
→ 11383{{age in days|Feb 5, 1993|April 6, 2024}}
→ 11,383{{age in days|2|5|1993|4|6|2024}}
would be guaranteed to result in confusion. Modifying function getDates
to do that would require some tricky changes and I wouldn't want to take the time.
Johnuniq (
talk) 05:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
{{example|month1|day1|year1|month2|day2|year2}}
If so, something easy might be possible. However, things would be too difficult if Module:Age is used for any of its other possible templates where a variety of date formats are accepted.
Johnuniq (
talk) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Here, several templates allow entry of six values (ymd order) or two dates, for example:
{{age in days|1990|07|20|1992|9|20}}
→ 793{{age in days|July 20, 1990|Sep 20, 1992}}
→ 793A simple adjustment would accept six values in mdy order, for example, {{age in days|07|20|1990|9|20|1992}}
. However, the two dates would no longer work and more adjustments would be needed to make that work as well. I put the simple fix in
Module:Age/sandbox. See the following diff.
Johnuniq ( talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
{{extract|April 1, 2024}}
or three numbers, for example {{extract|2024|4|1}}
. I won't be changing that.{{death date and age|2|24|1993|4|12|1921}}
display?Hey, I saw you undid my change to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P but I don't understand your logic. At present it now states:
What is the difference between these two statements that make you feel they're both required? Thanks. WikiMane (TP2001) ( talk) 13:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq,
Remember that R&I LTA range you blocked for trolling and ban evasion back in February? Remember how there was some question about whether the /40 or only the /44 was necessary to prevent further violations? Well, the LTA has returned to the topic area, so I'd suggest that a widening of the block to the /40 would be warranted.
(Note that in this case the revert would ordinarily be justified because of the way the discussion on the relevant content left off at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive357#Heiner Rindermann, but it's still a flagrant t-ban violation.)
Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
2600:1004:B1
. However, it should not affect someone who is logged in. The fact that you posted the above comment indicates you are not affected. Can you say exactly what happened? Were you logged on? What did you do before seeing a message? What was the message? Perhaps record all that if you can next time.
Johnuniq (
talk) 01:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)There is a huge amount of IP disruption here. Would you please semiprotect the article? Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you or somebody do something about The Merchant of Venice? User:AlexAndrews seems to be waging a campaign to completely rewrite it by continual expansion: 34 changes in 13 days so far. You have already placed a warning on their talk page about procedures and consensus, but they seem to want to interpret WP policies in their own way and it's still happening. As you point out, much of it looks like OR. They seem to be using it as an opportunity to write an interpretative blog, and are not persuaded to cease by other users. Ideally, I would like to see the article rolled back by about 2 weeks, before this user started to inflate it. Masato.harada ( talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise. |
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)
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)
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)
Scorpions1325 ( talk) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 03:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
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)
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))
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)
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)
Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Stop deleting comments from my talk page. I will revert your edits if you do. Any editing that needs to happen on this talk page I will do myself, if I see the need. There is no need to reply to this request. Nangaf ( talk) 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
Would you please look at the discussion on Talk:Grace VanderWaal? It follows some IP vandalism concerning a tik-tok singer named Daniel Larson alleged to be dating VanderWaal. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi I have pinged you in a discussion on this recently protected page, would appreciate your attention on the talk page. Thank you. Oz346 ( talk) 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment here. I note further that the off-wiki "campaign" now, apparently, includes on-wiki physical threats against certain editors (see this ANI report I initiated yesterday). I mention it here so that, being an administrator, you would have a fuller understanding of the depths to which this active campaign is willing to sink. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
You do understand that " what is the point of fiddling with this" is not a valid reason to revert. Please provide a reason why you think my edits did not constitute an improvement. 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Up the Walls ( talk) 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Jon. This editor has been pushing infoboxes at two more articles that I worked on extensively. In reverting him, I inadvertently deleted the lead images, and in one case he accused me of vandalism:
Would you please review the last couple days' edits there? Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks,-- Thinker78 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, John. I have been resisting this on the grounds of WP:BLP, as none of the sources have confirmed this marriage directly with the subject, but the photos in this New Zealand article look pretty convincing. Do you think it is time to add it to their article? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
...I have a Android 📱 phone that gets out of hand, keypad got stuck in caps. How do I thank and complement you and other Admins? Four of Sixteen ( talk) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
....this has something to do with that glitch that caused me to change Wikipedia IDs. I have some kind of inquiry about this in the bell shaped icon. Four of Sixteen ( talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm a user on FANDOM and I'd like to ask you a question. Could you show me what would need to be changed to the Age module so that the year is the last numeral, rather than the first. For example, here it is year, day then month, I'd like for it to be month, day then year. I'd gratefully appreciate it if you could show me :) ValenciaThunderbolt ( talk) 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
{{start date|1993|02|24}}
is 1993, February, 24. What do you want {{
start date}} for? Its documentation says it is only for use inside a template. Frankly it would be a bad idea to require people to enter month/day/year. Module:Age can accept dates in a variety of formats, for example "February 24, 1993" as a single parameter.
Johnuniq (
talk) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
{{age in days|1993|2|5|2024|4|6}}
→ 11383{{age in days|Feb 5, 1993|April 6, 2024}}
→ 11,383{{age in days|2|5|1993|4|6|2024}}
would be guaranteed to result in confusion. Modifying function getDates
to do that would require some tricky changes and I wouldn't want to take the time.
Johnuniq (
talk) 05:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
{{example|month1|day1|year1|month2|day2|year2}}
If so, something easy might be possible. However, things would be too difficult if Module:Age is used for any of its other possible templates where a variety of date formats are accepted.
Johnuniq (
talk) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Here, several templates allow entry of six values (ymd order) or two dates, for example:
{{age in days|1990|07|20|1992|9|20}}
→ 793{{age in days|July 20, 1990|Sep 20, 1992}}
→ 793A simple adjustment would accept six values in mdy order, for example, {{age in days|07|20|1990|9|20|1992}}
. However, the two dates would no longer work and more adjustments would be needed to make that work as well. I put the simple fix in
Module:Age/sandbox. See the following diff.
Johnuniq ( talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
{{extract|April 1, 2024}}
or three numbers, for example {{extract|2024|4|1}}
. I won't be changing that.{{death date and age|2|24|1993|4|12|1921}}
display?Hey, I saw you undid my change to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P but I don't understand your logic. At present it now states:
What is the difference between these two statements that make you feel they're both required? Thanks. WikiMane (TP2001) ( talk) 13:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq,
Remember that R&I LTA range you blocked for trolling and ban evasion back in February? Remember how there was some question about whether the /40 or only the /44 was necessary to prevent further violations? Well, the LTA has returned to the topic area, so I'd suggest that a widening of the block to the /40 would be warranted.
(Note that in this case the revert would ordinarily be justified because of the way the discussion on the relevant content left off at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive357#Heiner Rindermann, but it's still a flagrant t-ban violation.)
Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
2600:1004:B1
. However, it should not affect someone who is logged in. The fact that you posted the above comment indicates you are not affected. Can you say exactly what happened? Were you logged on? What did you do before seeing a message? What was the message? Perhaps record all that if you can next time.
Johnuniq (
talk) 01:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)There is a huge amount of IP disruption here. Would you please semiprotect the article? Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you or somebody do something about The Merchant of Venice? User:AlexAndrews seems to be waging a campaign to completely rewrite it by continual expansion: 34 changes in 13 days so far. You have already placed a warning on their talk page about procedures and consensus, but they seem to want to interpret WP policies in their own way and it's still happening. As you point out, much of it looks like OR. They seem to be using it as an opportunity to write an interpretative blog, and are not persuaded to cease by other users. Ideally, I would like to see the article rolled back by about 2 weeks, before this user started to inflate it. Masato.harada ( talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)