Jump to content

User talk:RexxS/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60→Archive 65

dates in Module:WikidataIB on metawiki

On meta, I've still not managed to get meta:Template:WiR_table_row working. My guess it's something to do with this section of meta:Module:WikidataIB: 

if vqualifiers[v1][1].snaktype == "value" then
   qv = mw.wikibase.renderSnak(vqualifiers[v1][1])
   qv = frame:expandTemplate{title="dts", args={qv}}

Any ideas on a fix? Thanks in advance! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: The problem is that Template:Dts doesn't work on meta. This is what we get here:
  • {{dts|June 2010}} → June 2010
and you can see at meta:Template talk:WiR table row that meta:Template:Dts doesn't give a display. I'll now investigate that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
[Update:] Now fixed. On enwiki the template is called Template:Date table sorting and Template:Dts is a redirect. On meta there was only meta:Template:Dts, and the Module:Date table sorting only accepts Template:Date table sorting as a wrapper (for some reason). I've now moved meta:Template:Dts to meta:Template:Date table sorting, leaving a redirect. That fixes it. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Champion - thank you! I find this table very satisfying. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Scientific article and Primary Sources

Hi. Re edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_drug_development&oldid=962903241

I'm curious, isn't a secondary source (like BBC News) a better fit per WP:PRIMARY? I ask, because the edit specifically points to a primary source now. Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Murtaza.aliakbar: BBC News isn't a WP:MEDRS source for medical purposes. It's just a news source, repeating (and sometimes misinterpreting) a primary source, often a press release. Where we have no independent, expert analysis (the hallmarks of a secondary source), we should surely prefer to use the original primary source, if we must have some content. For me, the part that makes it worthwhile is the commentary by Peter Horby, Martin Landray and Patrick Vallance. Although the first two are not independent and the third is not impartial, at least we have something more than the raw data.
I think it's best to ask yourself "what expert analysis does the BBC news report bring that isn't already there in the primary source?" If you agree "nothing", then it really isn't a secondary source. In that case, let's stick with the most authoritative primary source until we get proper secondary reviews or statements from expert health bodies. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the detailed explanation. Appreciate it. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello RexxS,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:Wrong?

I appreciate protecting the Mustang article, but the status quo ante with the one change agreed to by all is this version. Or, if you want to go back a few hundred edits before the beginning of the drama, this version was stable for quite some time. Montanabw(talk) 15:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Sure, but I don't get to choose a version (it's always the wrong version) for a content dispute unless there are copyvio or BLP concerns. The article can stay stable (and wrong) for a day or two while the content is thrashed out on talk. I won't allow any further personal attacks, so you should be able to concentrate on getting the right content sorted out on talk. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand. But now, who is the arbiter of “consensus” or at least the “right” version, absent actual agreement from the main involved parties? Will you be monitoring the situation? Montanabw(talk) 16:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Montanabw: Mustang has been on my watchlist since I adjusted the infobox to display two images, so I will be monitoring. But I can't adjudicate on the content or the behaviour if I take part in that discussion. I'm sure that there are more editors who can add their views if they can be brought into the discussion. You could try pinging any of the contributors from the history and/or dropping a note at WPEQUINE. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Montanabw: If a page is experiencing vandalism, it's often acceptable for an admin to revert to the pre-vandalism version, either before or after protecting the page. But if it's a content dispute, WP:INVOLVED applies: an admin may either take sides and revert; or they may protect the page as it stands and so remain neutral; but not both. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I get it. I rolled back to the wrong version myself and then the article was locked down before I could fix my mistake. So, oh well. We are getting to a consensus over there anyway. We'll see.Montanabw(talk) 02:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for locking down the Mustang article and making us all reach consensus, and also for unlocking it. Based on the drama and past problems with driveby vandals, plus a huge disambiguation debate from a couple years back, I am wondering if it is appropriate to ask for permanent semi-protection. I could ask this at WP:RPP, but as you are familiar with the issues, perhaps this could be your judgement.

@Montanabw: we don't normally preemptively apply semi-protection, and I can only see a handful of drive-by vandals having edited the article in the last year or so, so I'd recommend just reverting the vandals and warning them. I'll keep an eye out and block any egregious cases (or just ping me), but there's an outbreak of vandalism from multiple editors, I'd be happy to protect on request. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:I18n/date

Module:I18n/date has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: June 2020

Thanks for moving my comments from AE to my talk page. I had no idea about the limit of 500 words and 20 diffs. This was my first responding on a AE report and I put a great effort in detailing the context. Sorry about adding the extra work for you. Now I learn this limit and will try to follow it. May I know where I can find the details of this rule? For example, are 20 diffs only for Wikipedia links? If adding external media source links, will subject to the limit of 20, or not? Regards, Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 02:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: if you read the AE page, in particular the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #Discussion concerning Marvin 2009 where you posted, you should be able to see the text

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

in italics immediately below the heading. You may add 20 diffs, but links are very unlikely to be followed. You could move your full statement to a sub-page in your user space, something like User:Marvin 2009/AE evidence and provide a link to it in your statement at AE, but I doubt that anybody will read through 4,000+ words and follow dozens of links. You should rely on what you write in your statement at AE to defend yourself. --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Mail call

I've sent you an email relating to that IJERA paper. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I've amended the block too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Brumby

Hello, reading the wiki Guidlines of how to approach a dispute, going through due process and presenting evidence and asking questions. I am not edditing the page just asking questions and I think having valid arguments to move this page along I am not Shaw how I have a block.

Please explain and answer my questions that I have asked on the talk, what is your experience with key stone and climatic species and how self-sufficiency /sustainability and self regulation does not make them naturalised rather than feral. and how a federal judge agrees that feral is not the best road to travel to stay impartial on this one. I also am not a horse person and would not normally be involved as you. thankyou. 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shenqijing: You can ask me to justify my admin actions per WP:ADMINACCOUNT, but I'm under no obligation to continue to fuel your need to discuss a closed question about content, and I won't. My partial block of you from a single article saved you from an indefinite block from the entire project. You're welcome. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello thankyou, Can you please inform me how to bring this to the table without a block in the future and how to raise a complaint. Thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The procedure would be to spend six months making constructive contributions to other parts of the encyclopedia. That would demonstrate a commitment towards building content while collaborating with other editors. Continuing to spread disruption regarding Brumby will lead to an indefinite block. See the comment that accompanied the partial block notice on your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Cause you're good at this...

RexxS, would you kindly create autoarchiving at Talk:Brumby? I realize the talkpage there is endless and has never been archived. You are good at doing the syntax properly so it autoarchives. I think it's wise, as we recently had an editor posting there on threads that have been dead for 10 years. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done probably. I set archive after 90 days, max archive size 150K, with an archive box. Let me know if you want anything changed (or just do it). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Cool, is there a way you can force the old stuff (prior to this year) archive immediately and not in 90 days? Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The '90 days' is the age of the youngest thread that will be archived, not the frequency of the bot visiting the page in order to archive (that's about once a week). If you can contain your delight at the prospect of a neat, archived page for a few days, you'll find that everything before Talk:Brumby #Scrubber to Brumby will have made its way into Talk:Brumby/Archive 1. If that hasn't happened in the next few days, I'll apologise and fix whatever cock-up I made. --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Awesome. I’ll let you be the bird dog on that, then. Montanabw(talk) 16:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Montanabw: Yay! --RexxS (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Citationbot

In case you didn't get the ping - Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Citation bot. I mention it, because you're being attacked there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella

I was just about to write my close when I saw yours already in the edit window. Seems straightforward enough, but GizzyCatBella does edit in the area of Poland quite extensively and intensively, so hopefully, indeed, she'll take those extra steps to avoid future violations. El_C 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I hope so too. She's a net positive, IMHO, who gets just a bit too enmeshed to those topics for her own good. Keep safe --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: FYI, GCB is still following me around despite giving her word to you and Awilley that she won't.[1] She never touched History of Poland before, then within 24 hours of me touching it she makes an edit that is a direct reply to mine.[2][3] François Robere (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@François Robere: I've just spent fifteen minutes stepping through the edit-warring on History of Poland and the same again reading its talk page. I'm really not impressed by any of the behaviour there. I'd be more inclined to criticise GizzyCatBella replying to your edit if you hadn't then done the same immediately afterwards. It looks like El C has already taken steps to warn some of the players in that train-wreck, and I blocked GizzyCatBella last night as a result of her breaching her topic ban. I'm therefore not minded to take any further action. I must point out to you that if the sort of behaviour I observed at History of Poland doesn't stop soon, there will inevitably be either another EE ArbCom case, or a AE request for a blanket topic ban for all of the current players. You are all going to have to go to talk much sooner – you can ask any of the admins familiar with the issues for an article to be locked down for a few days while consensus is formed on talk. On the talk page, you are all going to have to stop simply reiterating entrenched positions, and start offering concessions to try to establish some common ground that all can live with. --RexxS (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, RexxS, but that's not what that was about. We explicitly talked about following someone's contribs, not about "replying to someone on a page you already watch". You threatened to indef block me for what you called a "pattern of contribution-following" based on just two diffs, and now that I present you with diff #11 you're calling it "time served"?
And please strike your comment on T-bans etc. I did nothing wrong. François Robere (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, François Robere, but that's exactly what I'm talking about. Don't you dare come to my talk page bringing tittle-tattle with unclean hands. You contributed to the disgraceful edit-warring as much as anybody at that article, and that's my concern here. You did quite a bit wrong and I'm not going to be manipulated by you. There will be topic bans coming very soon if you and the rest of warring factions don't amend your behaviour. I've given you advanced warning as an uninvolved administrator, and I will take action against you or any other player in this sad saga who causes further disruption to the project. You're on very thin ice right now. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me for intruding into the discussion, but I must say I am deeply disturbed by your fallacious argument to moderation ("start offering concessions"). I hope the dispute on History of Poland will be resolved in a generally acceptable way, but that need not imply violating policy and guidelines just to appease two or three editors. Notrium (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying I am against any "concession", BTW. Notrium (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not prepared to excuse your intrusion, and I take deep offence at your use of the word "fallacious" describing my advice to start offering concessions as a means of finding common ground. I'm going to ask El C, who has just cautioned you whether he thinks that is an appropriate comment to make to me. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, if you want to take the lead with this by escalating warnings all around, I'm with you. You can count on my support. El_C 21:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, El_C. I'm hoping that today's warnings will be enough to damp down the factional warring at History of Poland, which is now on my watchlist. If not, I'll drop a stronger warning on the talk pages of all of the editors involved since 20 June and see if there's any movement to seek a resolution to the content dispute. I'd like to avoid having to file a complaint at AE if persuasion can work, but I'm willing to go that far if things don't improve. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - July 2020

Issue 2—July 2020


WikiProject Medicine Newsletter


A happy Juneteenth, Canada Day, and July 4th to all. During tumultuous times, at least the newsletter returns. The newsletter remains experimental; if you have ideas, suggestions, or criticisms, please post them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter. With that, here's what is happening this month:

Newly recognized content

Mary Carson Breckinridge nom. JECason, reviewed by 1namesake1
Complete blood count nom. Spicy, reviewed by Tom (LT)
Joseph Ray Watkins nom. Doug Coldwell, reviewed by Ajpolino







Nominated for review

Huntington's disease is a Featured article removal candidate
DNA repair nom. for FAR; some medical info needs checking
Prostate nom. Tom (LT)
Niacin nom. David notMD, under review by Ajpolino
Willis J. Potts nom. Larry Hockett
Pantothenic acid nom. David notMD, under review by HaEr48
Dimple nom. MonkeyStolen234
Atul Gawande nom. Vrrajkum, under review by BennyOnTheLoose
Buruli ulcer nom. Ajpolino
Louise Bourgeois Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell

News from around the site

Discussions of interest

  • A question regarding incorporating machine-readable disease codes into more medical articles is still ongoing at at VPP
  • More eyes are needed to review some class-created medical pages; list at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#List.

For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!

Let's hook some new editors

An experienced user (right) entices a new user to contribute productively. The new user remains unaware of the hook embedded within until it's too late.

According to at least one metric (scroll to the bottom of this signpost article for a brief explanation) total edit levels are higher than they've been in a decade. By another metric they've at least substantially spiked over the last few months. The encyclopedia, and of course WikiProject Medicine, can only survive if we continue to rope in new editors to fill in for us as we lose the time, interest, or ability to improve the encyclopedia. We all know that this work can be time-consuming and frustrating, but hopefully we can put aside our frustrations to help guide and recruit the talent that will ensure the project's continued success.

This may be a good time to remind yourself of the Wikipedia introduction pages, which have recently been improved. Help:Introduction provides a streamlined starting point, while Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia provides a more comprehensive reference guide. The Wikipedia:Teahouse remains unnaturally quick at responding to questions, and is always a good place to direct new editors. The classic {{Welcome}} template has recently received a trimming, plus a few WikiProject Medicine-specific welcome templates are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources#Templates. When in doubt, you can always point an unsure user to WT:MED and we can all try to lend a hand. If you come across introductory resources that remain unclear, outdated, or conflicting please post at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee to bring it to the attention of interested editors.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Ajpolino (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC decision

The second point says it "...annexed by Jordan in 1950"enjoys widespread support" There is no easter eggs in removed phrase So I don't understand could you explain. --Shrike (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shrike: I am astonished that you don't understand that the easter egg was [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|Jordanian rule]]. Surely you can read the diff as well as I can. Are you really telling me that you don't see S Marshall's point #1 in their close was "It is not normal Wikipedian practice to include easter-egg links from relatively bland phrases like "Came under Jordanian rule" to our nuanced articles Jordanian annexation of the West Bank"? Is it still your contention that SelfstudierSelfstudier's edit was not a removal of the exact easter-egg link that the RfC discourages? --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't contend anything I just want to understand.The phrase "It was annexed by Jordan in 1950." didn't contain any links easter or otherwise.So point 1 of the RFC imo has nothing to do with removal of this phrase I have no problem with removal of easter egg.Also my complain is not about removal of easter egg but about removal of phrase that didn't contain any links --Shrike (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
We can agree to disagree but what I did was in good faith that all.I will not comment further on this case --Shrike (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You know, you really aren't coming over well here. Selfstudier's first edit changed:
  • Aqraba came under [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|Jordanian rule]]. It was annexed by Jordan in 1950.
to:
  • Aqraba came under Jordanian rule.
Selfstudier's second edit changed:
  • Aqraba came under [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|Jordanian rule]]. It was annexed by Jordan in 1950.
to:
  • Aqraba was included in the [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank]].
The RfC had a close that specifically warned against using the easter-egg link[[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|Jordanian rule]].
Both of Selfstudier's edit removed that easter egg in line with the findings of the RfC. Are you really saying you still don't see the removal of the link after it's been pointed out to you multiple times? How on earth can you hold the opinion that "point 1 of the RFC imo has nothing to do with removal"? I have no intention of agreeing to disagree about that and we're now well into BOOMERANG territory. --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok I see you point.Thank you for your explanations. Shrike (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of the Kingdom of Jeypore

There have been recent edits made in the article called Kingdom of Jeypore and that you have locked the page in order to protect it from vandalism. The article is filled with misinformation and confused history of the region with irrelevant additions like the case of Bissam-Cuttack. By writing distorted history the admins are promoting violence in the region. These articles are often taken too seriously by the inhabitants and differences arise in society because of such irrelevant material. So please delete this page because it is a heap of garbage. And locking down the editing of this article and limiting it only to the british users is not only racist but also impartial.

Delete the page. JahangirMo7 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@JahangirMo7: I tried to delete it previously when it was in a much worse state, filled with unsourced hagiography and irrelevant rubbish. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Jeypore. It was deemed to be a notable topic, so the page won't be deleted. Feel free to nominate it for deletion again, but you'll be wasting your time. --RexxS (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS If you cannot delete then remove the edit lock from the page because we all have the right to edit wikipedia and fix our articles with correct information. Don't make it a white privilege, we already had enough of that in past. You and your bunch of intellects found all kinds of flaws on this page, you removed the name of the kings which was mentioned in Hindi while the Mughal Emperors wiki page has all the names written in Arabic/Hindi , why dont you remove that ? Vengasingh (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No. You have exactly two rights on Wikipedia: the right to fork and the right to leave. I'm going to help you with the second option right now. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

dyslexia

RexxS since your an administrator could you help me at Dyslexia and talk page I have a very disruptive editor Sandy Georgia which has turned the talk page upside down, Ive asked for an interaction ban and am waiting for a reply however in the mean time Id rather not interact with this person, she drove Doc James away and I might leave too, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I do think it would be preferable if you asked an uninvolved administrator about that.—S Marshall T/C 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    ok who would be a good choice?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Ozzie10aaaa: As someone who has worked with both you and Sandy in the medical arena, I'm really far too involved to be able to act or advise dispassionately in any quarrel you may have. A good choice would depend on what you were expecting an uninvolved admin to do. I can make some suggestions of folks who come to mind: Boing! said Zebedee has a good understanding of medical issues, but is not involved in the personalities; Dennis Brown is a respected mediator who is always willing to help; and TonyBallioni has a broad overview of many aspects of the project, but is relatively free of any "baggage" in the medical field. I've just pinged them to this thread, and perhaps one of them will be willing to chime in. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    RexxS thank you, as you can see the individual has followed me to this page to Barkeepers page, and on and on...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    No, I have long followed and participated on RexxS's and Barkeep's talk, as Barkeep already explained to you. Your posts popped on my watchlist. I'm sorry you feel harassed, but this is normal editing. Again, I welcome you to talk with me at my talk should you be interested. Since Barkeep did already explain this to you, I'd be most grateful if you stopped making this claim; you can find someone's participation at any page by using the WMFlabs tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    They will find all the info they need by examining the article and talk page history, and this. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


  • RexxS again thanks Ill be waiting for the Admins you pinged you may be interested in the fact this person was blocked before for personal attacks....
Hi Sandy, I've just blocked you for this edit. Accusing others of sockpuppetry without providing evidence is a personal attack. You have been warned not to do this in the past on multiple occasions ([4][5]). If you wish to retract the allegation or provide evidence, I will be happy to life the block. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC) [6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've just had a read of Talk:Dyslexia, and I have to say I'm seeing nothing wrong in any comments made by SandyGeorgia there. Venturing into content a little, I do agree that the image in the infobox is problematic. It's a photo of a typewriter, with the caption "Wilson suffered from dyslexia, and did not learn to read until he was 10 years old. He taught himself shorthand as a means of compensating" - and there's no mention of anyone called "Wilson" anywhere in the article. What on earth are readers supposed to make of that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
well the image can be changed if you so think--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The image is totally absurd - it needs to be removed lest readers think we're stupid. I should just add, Ozzie10aaaa, that your claim that SandyGeorgia "turned the talk page upside down" doesn't really mean a lot. You would need to be specific about what you claim SandyGeorgia has actually done or said - give us diffs, with explanations of why each one is problematic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the image and caption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
well you took that out, about what I posted below, her past block and the diffs from other editors ??--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Digging up an editor's past is not a valid way to justify assertions about their recent actions. Do you see above where I said "You would need to be specific about what you claim SandyGeorgia has actually done or said - give us diffs, with explanations of why each one is problematic"? That. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
this individual has been blocked, has several diffs below showing incivility towards others and today has followed me to two adminis talk page, should she continue Ill take her to ANI, thank you for your kind time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, you've made accusations here without substantiating them. If you try the same approach at ANI, I'd really not see it turning out well for you. Anyway, I've given you my opinion and my advice now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see it that way(this individual has been blocked, has several diffs below showing incivility towards others and today has followed me to two adminis talk page) and again ANI is an option.... Boing! said Zebedee thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry you got to host this chat, RexxS; this is why I have suggested many times it should be at my talk (but perhaps Ozzie wouldn't mind if it resumed at his talk).
Ozzie, both Barkeep and RexxS have mentioned frequently working with me, Barkeep explained I did not follow you there, and I explained same regarding here. Yet you repeat the claim that you are followed and harassed. This is casting of aspersions; you have already been told it is not true. You've presented no diff of anything I have done. And please study up on that block you keep repeating everywhere, as you will find that it was soundly rejected by everyone as a bad block. It would also be helpful if you would not alter posts of other people at the talk page at dyslexia, removing and refactoring other people's posts to the point of making the page indecipherable. (All of that is diffed at Talk:Dyslexia.) I understand that you maintain a unique talk page style at your own user talk page, and that is your prerogative, but Talk:Dyslexia is a community page (not "owned" by any one editor), and there are guidelines governing it.
It would be nice to be able to talk to you, Ozzie, so I again encourage you to take this to your page or mine, where I hope we can talk calmly. I am noticing that you are spreading this dispute to many pages, which is not a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Im beginning to understand why Doc James hasn't been active at WP MED for 1 monthSpecial:Contributions/Doc_James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • past block shown above and below.....?
1.you could communicate without continually belittling the existence of other views....per Blue Rasberry[7]
2.I was castigated by SandyGeorgia...per CFCF[8]
3.During this dispute SandyGeorgia made repeated accusations of COI, adding tags to RfC responses by me and other members of WPMED....per CFCF *[9][10][11]
4. Sandy, however, assumed bad faith about my notice and directed some accusatory comments at me until I set her straight...per Tryptofish [12]
5.After being brought to ANI and being threatened with a block they backed down. SandyGeorgia was the first one to respond and did not appear to have any concerns with their behavior. They have continued on the pinging tradition with 6 pings on March 30th, all to bring my attention to a single discussion I was obviously watching...per Doc James[13][14][15][16][17][18]

…...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


Looking at edits like "article went thru two reviews for GA and was published so...your point is not logical if its been reviewed twice for GA, thank you (please in the future do not make edits without consensus, as this page is semi protected, also I would prefer not to take this to an administrator)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)" as well as "Thjarkur Ill continue this conversation with you on your talk, as I'm considering an interaction ban w/ the Sandy Georgia who twice now had edit conflict ( said individual just came out of an Arbcom )with the individual who just posted below you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)" makes me think Sandy isn't the problem. Now, I don't know you Ozzie10aaaa, and I know of Sandy, but have never worked on article with her that I can remember. Looking at the Talk:Dyslexia page, I just don't see anything that justifies an iban, for sure, but more importantly, your attitude towards others editing and throwing mud about Sandy coming out of Arb (I have no idea what that is about) bothers me more than anything that Sandy said on the page. Don't get me wrong, I totally get being a little possessive over a page, as long as it doesn't run into WP:OWN issues (we aren't there yet) but you do seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder when it comes to Sandy, and there really isn't any justification that I can see.

In a nutshell, I think you are overreacting, Ozzie, and seeing problems where there are none. If anyone's behavior is suboptimal on that talk page, I'm sad to say it would be yours, Ozzie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

answered at Dyslexia talk page and above ….I don't see it that way(this individual has been blocked, has several diffs below showing incivility towards others and today has followed me to two adminis talk page) and again ANI is an option--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • If you aren't getting my point, I'm not sure how to explain it further. ANI is always an option, but everyone's behavior is examined and nothing is off the table, so I wouldn't recommend it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
again as I mentioned above I can see why Doc James took a very long vacation(your opinion is appreciated anyway, thanks)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind hosting any discussion, as it's sort of "neutral ground", and sometimes having a place to air one's thoughts may be all that's needed. It also has a number of page watchers who may be able to add perspective. It seems that the number of yellow bars that I'm seeing has diminished, so perhaps it's possibly time to draw a line under this?

If it's any help, I've just spent the best part of the last hour profitably, taking an axe to Hinokitiol, which was riddled with primary sources, animal studies and speculation from in vitro experiments. It needs someone with some pharmaceutical expertise to find the good secondary sources and re-build the article as there's not much left. Any takers? --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

RexxS thank you(Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decisionmay answer any lingering questions some have brought up)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes it is best to try to solve issues at the lowest level. I appreciate. My page has hosted a lot in the past as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I took a quick look and didn't find anything. Unless English-language sources normally use a different name, then there isn't much, especially if you don't read Japanese. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Are you any good at sorting out talk page archiving? I am probably the worst person, so anyone else is an improvement. I've worked out that the deactivation of MiszaBot hasn't stopped archiving from happening because lowercase sigmabot has taken over without any need to change existing templates. I've also worked out that the new bot doesn't handle searching and indexing of archive pages, which MiszaBot did.

Talk:Gurjar is an example of a page that has MiszaBot templates and is still archiving but now has no archivebox at its head even though the underlying archive pages are there. Really could do with a walk-through of how to get those archive pages displayed again ... and the documentation at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page is beyond me. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: I can do a walk-through if you want, but simply placing the following near the top of a talk page will do the whole thing for you from scratch:
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot III|age=90}} <!-- make this the same as the number in |algo below -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = {{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
}}
{{Archives}}
That's more or less the minimum I find useful for it to work. I've added the missing {{auto archiving notice}} and {{Archives}} to Talk:Gurjar, and moved them to the bottom of the notice-boxes so they show up just before the TOC. Let me know if you want me to walk you through another. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this and I'll have a go next time I spot a page - IIRC, there are loads of caste talk pages where it once worked and now doesn't. I thought that since code similar to the above was in place, it must be because of User:MiszaBot III not working, as that page says, and the replacement requiring an additional bot for indexing, as this says. No wonder I was confused. - Sitush (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Celtic Knot Conference

With 20 billion page views every month, Wikipedia is often the first stop when people are searching for information. It is a cornerstone of the digital age, but the information within it is not evenly represented across languages.

The Celtic Knot Wikimedia Language Conference aims to bring people together to share their experiences of working on sharing information in minority languages. We aim to help people learn how to direct the flow of information across language barriers and support their communities. As in previous years we will have a strong focus on Wikidata and its potential to support languages.

Wikimedia UK and local partners organized the first Celtic Knot Wikimedia Language Conference in 2017 in Edinburgh (focusing on Scottish Gaelic), followed by the 2018 Celtic Knot Wikimedia Language Conference in Aberystwyth (focusing on Welsh) and the 2019 Celtic Knot Wikimedia Language Conference in Falmouth (focusing on Cornish). In 2020, due to the ongoing COVID-19 health crisis, the conference will take place remotely. We will maintain the previously planned focus on Irish and developing its Wikimedia community - whilst making sure that we can share and support other languages in the Celtic Knot and beyond. The event is organized by Wikimedia UK and Wikimedia Community Ireland in partnership with Hunt Museum (Limerick) and with the support of various other stakeholders and community members from the Wikimedia Movement.

From: m:Celtic Knot Conference 2020 #About

The Conference starts its main programme online tomorrow m:Celtic Knot Conference 2020/Live program.

There are several satellite events taking place online as well m:Celtic Knot Conference 2020/Satellite events.

More information is at m:Celtic Knot Conference 2020, and all are welcome. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RexxS/Archive_58&oldid=971437237"