User talk:Johnuniq

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

Index of archives

Hi, John. I just created Category:W. S. Gilbert composers, but I made a mistake. Can you please change it to Category:W. S. Gilbert composers and co-authors, leaving this as a redirect? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why leave a redirect? Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a category is mysterious but do-able. This is a new category with four pages and no sub-categories: Edward German + Frank Osmond Carr + Frederic Clay + Gilbert Arthur à Beckett. Wouldn't a move with no redirect be cleaner? And edit the four pages for the new category title. That would make Category:W. S. Gilbert composers and co-authors along with the newly existing Category:W. S. Gilbert mentors, protegees. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] OK. Should I try to do it, or will you? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I believe I have done all that is required. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Great! Thank you very much! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,

Not sure if you're the right person to ask, but I figure it's worth a shot. A source in front of me says "All Station Masters who occupied a (railway house) were supplied with ... 150 units of electricity per annum (a miniscule amount)". Do you have any idea what the unit was, e.g. kWh? This is circa 1961-1964 in Kyabram, Victoria, and was apparently approximately equivalent to 32 gallons of kerosene for the same year, in the sense that staff were allocated one or the other, not both.

Thanks, Anothersignalman (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall hearing that term. However, Google has an astonishingly large number of hits for "150 units of electricity" and it appears a unit is 1 kWh. If necessary, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science or maybe Wikipedia talk:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, will do. Also, well done in avoiding the pun opportunity and going for "astonishingly" instead :P Anothersignalman (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure if you remember, but on December 15, you blocked 会黄, who then went to commons to vandalize some of my files there on the 17th. I just noticed a new username, 黄笑, edited a page I watch today. It was created on commons on December 19 and has proceeded to edit primarily firearms pages there and here on en.wiki, with no edit summaries, questionable sources (youtube, etc.), and only one talkspace edit so far. It appears to me like a pretty DUCKy coincidence that another 2-chinese-character username (sharing one character) would pop up at that exact time and start making the exact same edits the first user was without any newbie edits. I figured since you were the original blocking admin (and maybe remember the situation) you might be able to help without me having to file an SPI case. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I should take action on what I've seen so far. Special:Contributions/会黄 is globally locked and a quick look suggested no constructive talk page comments to or from the user. By contrast, the talk for Special:Contributions/黄笑 has a "Nice work" compliment and a good reply from the user. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] So, 99% the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR, but includes a talk page comment, so you're going to let it slide? Excellent... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] The problem is that you know exactly what has happened but I have no knowledge of the topic and almost no recollection of what I did a month ago. When I look at recent edits all I see is changes that may or may not be desirable, I don't know. Sorry, that's how it is. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] It's fine, I assumed that you would remember the case and be willing to look into a pretty obvious case of sockpuppetry, I will file an SPI report instead. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, notice taken... I read what you said. Anyway, I knew it was pointless to highlight an administrator's concerning statement you deserve this because it is my (and so many people's) opinion that there is a "protective shield" for some users, especially bureaucrats. But thanks for advising me to take things cooler, wait, and directly refer vandalism for action. I insist though, if you think that I deserve a shove it, then we are getting on a nasty side of debate. CoryGlee 03:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I checked WP:BOOMERANG, and seems that you as an administrator do not seem to understand what I reported. I didn't ever say that my actions wouldn't come under scrutiny ... I'm not naive. I just stated ... and clearly that I did not deserve a vulgar insult. That's where I insist on nasty level of debate. Nothing else to add, and I can assure you that I never had a problem (check it)... It's unfortunate that I have to waste my time responding to easily offended users who cannot abide by civil words. If, as stated by that administrator, I did deserve the vulgarity because of my "civil incivility"... then, you are the ones not assuming GF. Thanks and nice weekend ahead. Nothing else to add. CoryGlee 03:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @CoryGlee: My comment at your talk (diff) had no suggestion of "deserve it" other than that it is acceptable for the TA to remove a very inappropriate comment even if accompanying the removal with a little venting ("shove it"). As explained at your talk, that was your second inappropriate post to the TA and that explains (not justifies) the edit summary. It would be better to think about a post at your talk for more than five seconds before reverting it (diff). Thank you for your response although it is not necessary here. Your second comment above is just wrong but I'll leave it there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my "chenistry". How can I ce an edit summary, I was not aware that was possible. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for stepping in here.) @Ldm1954: It's not possible to change an edit summary after the fact, but you can make a WP:DUMMYEDIT with the intended edit summary. Renerpho (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I did not think I could but this diff by @Johnuniq implied that one could. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I was saying that you can change the comment in an edit summary when making an edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] To explain, if you look at the history of the page I edited, you will see "chenistry" in two earlier edits, but "chemistry" in the edit summary of my edit. That is, I fixed the typo in the section heading and in the comment in the edit summary. When publishing the edit, the browser will then return to the section just edited. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many of this IPs edits appear to be vandalism, but I am not certain. what do you think? Special:Contributions/~2025-43771-78 -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look but it's a bit too mixed and early for me to want to take action. I might look again in a few days and see what's new. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Sounds good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you; my Hungarian friend is active again,[1][2] can you protect the article above for a year or two? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks and see ya next year! Polygnotus (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.