User talk:RexxS/Archive 55

This is an archive of past discussions with User:RexxS. 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.

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

→

Stop it

Stop it.

If you again remove both indents and para breaks from my post, it's ANI time.

You are way out of line. This is your final warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@BrownHairedGirl: Policy is clearly in my favour: see MOS:INDENTMIX and WP:TPO 'Fixing format errors'. . See you at ANI. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

this is ridicuolous. 'Fixing format errors' dos not mean removing a para breaks and indents.

You are clearly trolling. see you at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I quote from WP:TPO:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance) ...

Do you see the last sentence? Do you see the link to MOS:LISTGAP? Do you see the phrase "avoid disruption of screen readers"? That is precisely what I have been doing.

The only thing that is ridiculous is your unwillingness to read the guidelines designed to protect the visually impaired from your thoughtless formatting errors. --RexxS (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You quote it, but apparently didn't read the words you quote. They say: restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible.

However, you twice removed my whole post, and now five or six times you have removed all indentation and removed the paragraph breaks from my post. TPO does not permit that.

It seems that your anger and your bullying, threatening, abusive desire to weaponise this minor style issue against me (and note the selectivity: it's against me only) has blinded you to what the guidance actually says.

I look forward to your explanation at ANI of why you misrepresent TPO, why you make personal insults ... and above all why you choose to pursue this issue only with an editor with whom you are engaged in a debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I read it. It does allow me to fix formatting errors. I did that consistently despite your deliberate provocation. You know very well how you should indent posts to meet the needs of screen readers and yet you deliberately cause them problems. That's disgraceful behaviour.

In every case, I have removed indentation that was causing problems for screen readers, as TPO allows. None of your posts contained paragraph breaks, so I could not possibly have removed them.

Has your anger blinded you to the falseness of what you are writing? I fixed the indentation of you, Oculi, Marcocapelle in the very thread of my oppose. Anybody can see the diffs and see you are lying. The only difference between them and you is that you repeated your behaviour after having it pointed out to you, and repeated it, and repeated it ..

Your wilful disregard of the seriousness of what you have repeatedly done, despite my every effort to educate you about the effects of you actions indicates to me that you should not be editing Wikipedia in that state. Please take a break, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Lists and Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks at your leisure, and try to show some condideration for those less fortunate than yourself in future. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

At the grave risk of offending both of you, neither of which I intend, I believe this is what this arcane feature of Wikicode requires. RexxS, if you understand INDENTMIX yourself then you should have done this, which I believe would have been acceptable (unlike, say, flowing several of BHG's paragraphs together by deleting all indents, or deleting the paragraphs altogether in edit conflicts). – Fayenatic London 08:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: Thank you fix fixing that thread. However I think you're missing the context. Just as you did, I fixed her indentation the first five times she broke the thread, and asked her to observe INDENTMIX. But by the time she had repeated the problem for the sixth time, I was in no mood to carry on sorting out her mess, so I simply removed the faulty indention (thereby removing the disruption for screen readers), in the hope she would finally learn how to fix it herself. If she can rely on everyone else to clean up after her, there is no incentive for her to improve her posting habits, wouldn't you agree? Incidentally, if she had used paragraph breaks ({{pb}} as recommended) in her posts in the first place, instead of relying on list elements giving the visual appearance of paragraph breaks, removing the faulty indentation would have still left proper paragraphs. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
It appears that you are in denial here and at User talk:Floquenbeam ("to remove or amend her errors, which is all that I have been doing" [1]) about removing BHG's reply twice on a CFD page ([2] and [3]). At first glance I thought you had misposted due to edit conflicts, but it appears that your deletion of BHG's replies was intentional, in which case it behoves you to fess up. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: Let's be straight then. I don't have any need to deny anything that is true. The first removal was the fifth time in succession that I'd fixed BHG's thoughtless indenting, and it was actually an error, which I think was due to an edit conflict with Nyttend. That much is clear because I appear to be replying to a post that was not there, and you can see from the indent level that I was indenting two levels from my prior post with nothing in between. Did you notice that BHG then removed my post and restored her own? My subsequent reversion was indeed retaliation for her removing my post and I should not have sunk to that level, but I was restoring my own post and a quick click on the undo button was just too tempting at that point. You will also observe that BHG then removed my post for a second time immediately afterwards.
You don't seem to be getting so upset about her removing my posts twice, nor about her breaking the thread for screen readers ten times, nor about the dozen clear personal attacks she made on me. Why is that? I ask you again, what incentive is there for BHG to clean up her act if folks tidy up the mess that she causes and never acknowledges? --RexxS (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Goodness. I happened upon this and further verbiage at ANI and see that I am implicated. It may seem that little progress has been made but I now see how to indent properly and also how to
start a new para neatly. So it is an ill wind etc. Oculi (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Picking one cfd at random hardly anyone (all long-term editors) is indenting properly. I don't recall the matter being raised before. Oculi (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think at this point, it's best to bring this discussion to a natural end. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It would be a shame, Liz, if after all that argument, everybody carried on causing problems for screen readers, as if the issues didn't exist. It's true that a lot of editors aren't aware of the problems they cause, and who could blame them because they only ever see our pages and never hear what it sounds like through a screen reader? Before I retired, I used to have to do a fair amount of testing of professional websites for accessibility issues, so I experienced screen readers first-hand. On Wikipedia, it's hard enough with a screen reader to work through a discussion that's properly formatted, without all the extra effort of working out who is talking to whom when responses are being made in different lists from that of the original post. As it happens, the overhead is small when you only have a couple of levels of indentation, but it rapidly gets out of hand as the thread gets longer and the number of levels of nested lists grows.
The only good side is that if you explain to editors how they can avoid causing problems for the disadvantaged, whether it's list and table formatting, text size, unreadable colour combinations, etc., the vast majority are sympathetic and are willing to learn how to avoid the problems. Some fixes are easy, like MOS:INDENTMIX or MOS:TEXTSIZE; others take more work, like MOS:COLOUR or WP:DTT. But none are beyond the capabilities of almost any editor who takes the time to understand the problems and how we can fix them. --RexxS (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent deaths

At present, I feel flooded by people dying, with no articles or in bad shape, and try to improve for decency. To come Krzysztof Penderecki, which makes me shudder ... too much to do, and in the end he will still be without infobox again ... Perhaps I better write again on a composition, or improve Polish Requiem ... - Before: Thomas Schäfer, prematurely on the Main page - what do we know? - and already vandalized within minutes. Can you please keep an eye on it, and protect if it gets worse? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, Gerda, although the problem of vandalism seems low-level so far. It would be easy to put semi-protection on if it flares up, but we never do that preemptively. --RexxS (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you, (borrowing her smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda: Now semi-protected for 24 hours. Let's see if it can manage after the initial news effect has worn off; otherwise I'll try a week. --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

IP vandalism is back, didn't check if same IP. revdel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda: I already blocked the offending IP for a month. They were reverted by another IP, so I'm loathe to reintroduce semi-protection when I can block an IP. The BLP vios are revdel'd now. --RexxS (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, all I asked ;) - I added his successor, - another red link, sigh. - Another IP just added an infobox to Penderecki, - o dear! Reverted, of course, but I asked the reverter about the edit summary. We should assume good faith, no? Of course good faith can never be applied when it concerns infoboxes ;) - I never added one to Penderecki, but others did in the past, and I liked it. Did you know that I am editor No. 6 for the article, by number of edits? I had no idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing 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,Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

My comment removed from FR's page

FR removed this comment from his talk page. It's his talk page, so that's fine. Except, if he is actively discussing me I feel I have a right to respond, hence this notification. Note this is a different comment then the one you already referenced.

Removed comment Volunteer Marek 01:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm only discussing you because you came to my TP. Three times. With WP:ASPERSIONS. And now you're complaining I deleted your comment? You've got some nerve.

If checking two edits of an editor who's active in one of your areas of interest is "hounding", how do you call stalking someone's TP for the sole purpose of WP:PERSONALATTACKS? And we barely even interacted since he was T-banned, so this was completely uncalled for. But hell, not the first time.[4] François Robere (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to your insinuation, before today you’ve never asked me not to post to your talk page. Today, you asked me to do so after my second comment. I was happy to oblige but then you proceeded to make accusations against me there, *after* removing my original comment, which was a bit surreal. Hence my response.

I did not make any personal attacks against you. I summarized what was obvious to everyone, including apparently to you, since you freely admitted following GCB and MMA around and “correcting” their edits. On the other hand, you falsely claiming that I “hate your guts” IS a personal attack (sorry to disappoint you, but I really don’t. You’re either pretending or assuming based ... well, apparently on the fact that your friend threatened me and my family ... ok, I can see where you could expect or assume that to be the case, but still, that’s not based on anything I’ve done. You’re confusing musings of your own guilty conscience with reality. Volunteer Marek 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why but my comments where removed from FR's page as well: [5], [6]. As such, I think it is impossible to have a discussion in that venue. I am not sure if RexxS will appreciate us coming over here, but I don't know what other place would be better. AN(I) are... not known for being the most friendly places to work such things out. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Because they were uncalled for, Piotrus. I filed an AE against one editor, and I find myself having to deal with four: one who came back from a month long hiatus straight to the AE; another who I barely interact with but somehow found his way to my TP just for this; a third who's the actual subject of the AE; and now you. And your comments really don't track with what you usually say.[7] I took notice of them, but there are enough distractions around so I removed them from the thread. I'm trying to resolve this with RexxS, and none of the other comments is helping. Thanks for you concern. François Robere (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@François_Robere A few days ago I asked Piotrus for supervision and guidance[8] that's why he is expressing interest in the whole thing. Accusing Piotrus of acting in a bad faith[9] is unfair to him..GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC) (I’m so sorry RexxS for posting here but François_Robere asked me not to post on his talk page anymore)GizzyCatBella🍁 11:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, François Robere, Piotrus, and GizzyCatBella: If I'm pinged (as I was) in a comment that was deleted before I checked on the notification, I just work through the diffs to see what was said. I've followed the back-and-forth on User talk:François Robere via the diffs for the last few days, so I'm aware of what everybody said. I naturally respect FR's right to remove posts from their talk page, but nothing is lost on Wikipedia. I would urge all of you to disengage and try to find ways to de-escalate. As a veteran of the date-delinking wars and the infobox wars, as well as editing extensively in all the areas of controversial medical topics, I really do get it that both sides are convinced they are right. But I promise you that you'll only find relief from the stress of continual conflict when you make a positive effort to step back from it. Fanning the flames at AE won't help anybody.

Please feel free to talk to me here whenever you wish, but please don't think that I'm prepared to take sides in any dispute. As an uninvolved admin, my overriding concern is with upholding the policies and guidelines we have established to make editing here a good experience for all contributors. Please do your best to work with me on that. --RexxS (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW, both GCB and VM are in violation of their T-bans. Since both T-bans are from the same TA ("WWII history of Poland"),[10][11] they're prohibited from discussing each other's ban. GCB discussed VM's here, and he's been discussing her's basically everywhere. François Robere (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You just can't let this go, can you? And you're shamelessly making completely false accusations here. What I've discussed is you following GCB and MMA around to various articles. These articles have nothing to do with anyone's T-BAN. You've followed both of them to articles that DO NOT having anything to do with "WWII history of Poland" (like 13th century Polish/German villages!). That is the whole point here - you're WP:STALKing other users in OTHER topics areas, ones you've never showed any interest in before. You're purposefully GRIEFING them and trying to annoy them to the point of driving them off of Wiki. Your behavior is atrocious and your comments simply dishonest. This is why this has been an ongoing problem for so long - you're utterly unwilling to change your behavior and you keep attacking people you perceive as your enemies. Instead of just dropping it.

By all means. Keep digging your hole. But enough is enough. This has to stop and this last comment from you just illustrates that your promises "oh I'll stop stalking them for a month or so" are both disingenuous and bad faithed. Volunteer Marek 17:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And just to show explicitly how you're being dishonest - you say "He (Volunteer Marek) been discussing her (GZB's topic ban) basically everywhere". Funny how you don't provide a SINGLE example, only make a general unsupported blanket statement. I have NOT discussed GZB's topic ban anywhere. I have discussed you following her around. I mean, IF I had been "discussing it everywhere" I'm sure you could come up with dozens of diff. But you don't. Not one. Instead you make a completely false claim. And you do so in order to try to get me in trouble and deflect attention from your own misbehavior. Shameful. How can anyone trust anything you say? Volunteer Marek 17:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Think hard, François about whether any further attempt at escalation is likely to be productive. There are any number of uninvolved admins who may not reach the same conclusions as I about your involvement in the dispute. At this point you really need to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND. I do not agree that GCB is in violation of her topic ban, other than arguably her edit to Alfred Rosenberg, which certainly does look like an attempt to revert vandalism. But you already know my opinion on that.

It may also be worth considering what VM's topic ban was linked to:

The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed".

Both that definition and the wording of Wikipedia:broadly construed are clear that the purpose of a topic ban is to remove disruption of that topic, and related topics, from the encyclopedia. I seriously doubt whether it was intended to prevent an editor saying anything about topic bans in general or in a given case. It would be quite difficult for an editor under a sanction to ever come back from that if they were forbidden from discussing the sanction itself. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Should this be summarized at AE?

Regarding the recent discussions you've had with FR and others, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to summarize them, briefly, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GizzyCatBella. Or at least mention that the parties are talking to one another. Errr, if talking is really what is happening here. I don't envy you trying to deal with this. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I'm happy to have the opportunity to try to help other editors find ways of resolving conflict. I don't think it would be productive for any of the involved editors at that AE to comment further. I will make a brief note, though, about my interchange with FR. Thank you for the positive efforts you've made to help. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. I am not without bias here, but I do have some firm opinions about how stuff should work (User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#When_to_use_the_banhammer_-_and_when_not_to:_a_simple_math and such). I think you are right that no blocks are needed here, through I do wonder a bit if something like a topic ban from AE or interaction bans might be needed in the long run for some of the parties. On the other hand, I think another elegant solution would be to see the number of restrictions here removed, not increased. The more restrictions are placed, the more difficult is to navigate one's editing. GCB mentioned they are planning to appeal their topic ban, which is now past a year-long, and I think it may be a good idea, given that there are now discretionary sanctions in the area which should be sufficient, and nitpicking whether someone did a borderline edit that violated a broad topic ban or not is not conductive to building an encyclopedia (User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_spirit_and_the_letter_of_Wikipedia). Also, keeping restrictions on a user for too long encourages them to radicalize (User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_radicalization_of_users). I'd rather not see more people embrace the dark force (socking, etc.). This topic area does not need any more problematic users. Anyway, thanks for your attempts to look into this mess, it's not an easy task. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

How cool - or am I seeing things?

I just noticed in the reference section of Willa Brown there are tiny graphics depicting a government source, and opinion source. I've not seen that before today...or did I drink too much wine for lunch? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I don't see them. Are they still there for you? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Peter - I uploaded a screen capture so you can see what I'm referring to - wondering now if it might be a feature in our curation tools for NPP, and I somehow missed the discussion? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 08:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It's the meta:Cite Unseen script, which you installed three days ago. ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I did? Oh my...I need supervision. Where the hell did I put my keys? ^{Thanks for solving the brain fart mystery, Iridescent.} ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

When you see weird things happening to what you see, which other people can't replicate, looking at Special:MyPage/common.js to see what's changed is usually a safe bet. ‑ Iridescent 09:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to bother you again..

RexxS, I wish to point out to you what I'm dealing with. François Robere just altered his comment after I already replied to it. [12]. I asked him not to do that [13] because I honestly worry that other people who read my reply might see it now differntly and they might be deceived... or my answer might be even used by FR in some other case against me he might initiate. So I asked him not to do it, especially because he was just asked the same by you.[14] Instead, François Robere removes my plea from the entire conversation [15] with this edits summary: You made it clear that you don't want to address my questions or take part in the discussion, so what are you complaining about? I explained what my problem is when I asked him. This is very frustrating and very stressful for me. I'm dealing with persistent block efforts, denunciations and quate a rude behaviour that I don't think anyone deserves. People want to edit is peace and enjoy being Wikipedians, but ever since Icewhiz and François_Robere appearance it is nothing by hell to me, to the point that I'm seriously thinking of retiring.GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Please note that the alternation is related to my topic ban.[16] A few months from now nobody will remember (including me) that I was answering the questions that didn't have any mention of WW2 in Poland and it might be used agains me. See what I mean? These tricks are too much for me to carry. I'm so tired of it... I hope you understand, and sorry for taking more of your time..GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged here. GCB has been following me around for a while, including to TAs she's not involved in at all (not "marginal", not "peripheral" - at all). She came to my TP claiming I "hounded" her (mind that I filed an AE against her just a few days earlier, so presumably that's part of that). I explained that was not the case, and retorted with seven diffs demonstrating that she's actually been following me since at least August 2018. She made clear that she wasn't going to address any of them, then left. I left it at that until I saw she attached a link to the discussion to her AE case, which prompted me to go through the "Interaction Analyzer" again; I found three more cases where she undoubtedly followed me to new articles, including one in a TA she never touched before. I assumed that because she had made clear that she wasn't interested in discussing any of the diffs, adding three more wouldn't bother her, nor misrepresent her as per WP:TPNO. If I was wrong, my apologies. For the avoidance of doubt I've reverted the edit and added the three diffs in a separate signed comment. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest both of you try harder to avoid each other. Trust me, it's much easier than trying to deal with a 2-way WP:IBAN. @Francois Robere, if you have to edit a comment after it has been responded to, a good practice is to use ~~strikethrough~~ for deletions and underline for additions, and maybe add the word "Edited" and a new time stamp after your old signature. ~Awilley (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Awilley. I have no problem avoiding Francois Robere and I will follow your guidance. François Robere could you please respond...are you willing to embrace this recommendation respectively?GizzyCatBella🍁 05:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I naturally agree with all that Awilley has said. GizzyCatBella, I'd really rather you didn't invite FR to engage in dialogue with you here (or anywhere else). FR has already given assurances on their talk page that they will avoid you and your contributions in future, and it would be best if you disengaged as well.

Just a small point, Awilley, you're right that we should use <del>...</del> for ~~deletions~~, but to help users with screen readers, we use <ins>...</ins> for insertions. Visually, most browsers will render <u> and <ins> the same, but to a screen reader, they are voiced differently because they differ semantically. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, wow, thank you. I didn't know that. ~Awilley (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you RexxS.GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The <del>...</del> and <ins>...</ins> tags are also special in that they may be used to enclose one or more block elements, such as paragraphs, whereas <s>...</s> and <u>...</u> may only be used inline - such as part of a paragraph. See HTML 5.1 spec section 4.6 Edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Simvastatin

Hi RexxS. I'm always happy to review my comments for civility and other behavioral issues, and even for tone to help de-escalate a situation. Just let me know. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: my concern with your posting is that half of your posts contain nothing that helps move the discussion toward consensus. Rather, the repetition multiple times of tangential asides aimed at an editor that you disagree with gives me the impression that they are made solely to provoke a response from that editor. That behaviour fits the classic definition of WP:trolling and I don't find it helps de-escalate. I would strongly recommend that you do review your comments both at WT:MED and Talk:Simvastatin in order to work out how your comments may be received by the editors you have been aiming them at. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It certainly can seem that way, not moving to consensus. But I don't see how we can move to consensus from that starting position. So what to do? Wait it out, then make it clear that it was a complete waste of time? Hope that anything good that is brought up isn't lost? Write up an alternative RfC? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why you mention WT:MED. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: The initial problem was that a specific piece of text was being edit-warred in and out of the article. From the edit summaries, it appeared that one group of editors thought that that text was appropriate and policy-compliant, and another group of editors relied on their interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices to remove it. Where there is a binary option as specific as that, the solution is almost invariably a yes/no RfC on the talk page of the affected article.

Our policy on WP:Consensus states: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines." and despite your contention to the contrary, I believe that in my support !vote I addressed the policies and guidelines of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:DUE. The majority of other editors also took the time to explain their reasoning and the policies they relied on.

I'm willing to post a clear refutation of each of the points made by the oppose !voters, based on WP:LEAD, WP:NOTPRICE, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 84 #Price of medications. However, I don't particularly wish to get involved in the consequential lengthy back-and-forth unless I feel I really have to.

WP:CON goes on to note "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process. There is an implied onus on both sides of these sort of questions to ("suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." I would be content with many alternative formulations and wording which met the goal of accurately summarising in the lead the conclusions of relevant reliable sources as expressed in the body of the article. I would be more than happy to see some wording alluding to simvastatin being placed on the WHO EML because of its cost-effectiveness due to its relatively low cost. Would that be a compromise that the three oppose !voters would accept? But I've yet to see an suggestion from those of you opposed for an alternative solution or compromise that may satisfy all concerned.

Alternatively, once we have established the consensus to include the properly sourced text, there would be an opportunity for those opposed to start a discussion about alternative wording, but I have to say that would give the impression of a "rearguard action". IMHO, it's best to seek compromises at the earliest opportunity.

As for WT:MED, I simply don't find the reiteration "I'd rather just go to ArbCom. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)" to be a constructive comment while an RfC clarifying issues is still ongoing. --RexxS (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

So I've made one comment at WT:MED that you don't like. Fine. I said something similar at ArbCom and at the initial ANI. It's difficult to build consensus when there are behavioral issues that undermine consensus-building. I don't see why you brought it up.

As for the rest, that's an interesting interpretation that I can't agree with, saying one side is siding with the RfC while the other sides with policies. We don't have common ground, clearly. I've made some attempts to move along on the article talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"I've made one comment at WT:MED that you don't like and the same irrelevant comment three times further at Talk:Simvastatin. It's actually difficult to move a discussion forward when there are multiple interjections designed to disrupt the debate. Now you should see why I brought it up. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with your framing, nor much of your point of view. It's absolutely not irrelevant. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand you don't agree with how I view your behaviour, which I find damaging to discussion. Fortunately your own view of yourself is the view that is irrelevant. Others will decide on whether your disruption is sanctionable. --RexxS (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

ICD11 WP

Hi RexxS! I have created my own version of {{ICD11}}, called {{ICD11 WP}}. It links to chapter pages instead of the WHO's website. I hope you like it!

I have also created ICD-11, {{ICD-11 MMS}}, and Chapter 1. It's all still in its infancy, but it's on the right track.

It actually took me a while to get {{ICD11 WP}} to work. I wrote the code in ZeroBrane Studio, and I thought I could just copy-paste it to Wikipedia with little modification. Alas, it refused to work, and it took me about an hour to discover mw.text.trim, which I eventually found by carefully inspecting your code of Module:ICD11. If you want to laugh at my torment, feel free to take a look here. :-)

What I was wondering: is it possible for Wikipedia modules to invoke the functions of other modules? I'm asking because, currently, {{ICD11 WP}} does not check if an ICD code is correct. Maybe it could use the database of your module. We could also create some kind of central module which both our scripts use. Like this:

Module:ICD11 database
- Module:ICD11
- Module:ICD11 WP

I've made a general thread about the ICD-11 at WT:MED (link).

Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Manifestation: Yes, a module's functions can be called from other modules, but I would have to export a function using parameters as well as the one that uses frame (simple to do). Annoyingly, Module:ICD11 is throwing a database error right now, so I can't edit it. I've raised a bug report at phab:T249572

@Manifestation: The database error is fixed now. I see that I had already made the code ready to be exported, so I've just implemented the export,

You can use the functionality in your module by adding a line like:

local code2link = require("Module:ICD11")._code2link

Then you can use something like

local identifier = code2link(icdcode)

To convert from an ICD-11 code to the identifier used in the url on the WHO site for that code. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The database error began at approximately 23:02 (UTC) and affected all pages (on all wikis) that were linked to a WikiData item, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: yes, I followed the progress as it happened at phab:T249565. The table that is responsible for sitelinks was dropped by accident, and it has taken a while to rebuild it. --RexxS (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Done, implemented. - Manifestation (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS and Redrose64: Does any of you know how to invoke Module:Error? I couldn't get it to work. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Manifestation: I believe it works like this:

From wikitext:

{{#invoke:Error|error|message=This is an error message.}} → This is an error message.

From another module:

local err = require("Module:Error").error
local errmsg = err( {message = "This is an error message"} )
-- errmsg now contains the html error message and can be returned to the calling page or whatever

That's off the top of my head, and I haven't checked the last one, so please let me know if I got it wrong. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Manifestation: Edit: the parameter to the error function has to be a table, not a string. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, you're awesome!

Done. Thanks a lot, Manifestation (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

A plate of cookies for you

	Plate of cookies
	This is for your work on {{ICD11}}, your creation of Module:ICD11, and your good help with creating my own little ICD template. Thanks! Manifestation (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Clever young prophet

The IP that changed Uebert Angel's date of birth to 1998 geolocates to Mozambique — a fan, I suppose. What a lot the 22-year-old prophet has achieved in his short life, including founding the Spirit Embassy ministry at the age of nine! Anyway, thanks for still keeping an eye on that pesky article. Bishonen | tålk 21:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC).