User talk:RexxS/Archive 32

Wide image template
Hi RexxS, Are you familiar with Wide image? If so, is it OK for accessibility? Do you think it should be used for things like the decompression schedule graphics in Hyperbaric treatment schedules? Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter, yes, I'm familiar with Wide image. It's accessible and quite useful for images bigger than the normal browser width (say 1000px and up). For smaller images it simply moves the horizontal scroll bars from the bottom of the browser window to the image container, so I don't see that offers any advantage of a frameless image. Try narrowing your browser window and see how these three examples behave:
 * Hi Peter, yes, I'm familiar with Wide image. It's accessible and quite useful for images bigger than the normal browser width (say 1000px and up). For smaller images it simply moves the horizontal scroll bars from the bottom of the browser window to the image container, so I don't see that offers any advantage of a frameless image. Try narrowing your browser window and see how these three examples behave:

Thumbnail image
Use: Treatment of decompression sickness where relief is obtained at or less than 66 fsw. -> floats outside the window
 * Obsolete
 * Oxygen is not used
 * Maximum pressure 100 fsw (30 msw)
 * Run time 3 hours 37 minutes

Wide image
Use: Treatment of decompression sickness where relief is obtained at or less than 66 fsw. -> image gets horizontal scroll bars
 * Obsolete
 * Oxygen is not used
 * Maximum pressure 100 fsw (30 msw)
 * Run time 3 hours 37 minutes

Frameless image
Use: Treatment of decompression sickness where relief is obtained at or less than 66 fsw. -> browser window gets horizontal scroll bars
 * Obsolete
 * Oxygen is not used
 * Maximum pressure 100 fsw (30 msw)
 * Run time 3 hours 37 minutes


 * I'm assuming you want to make them big enough to see the text clearly. Those are all using their default attributes. With any of them, you can change the default alignment and add or remove borders, so that's just a question taste. There's a link at the bottom of the page to allow you to see the site in mobile view as well if needed. Please let me know if you want any help with meeting the objections in the GA review. I might have guessed that a lay reader couldn't be expected to see that "Tissues in which an inert gas is more soluble will eventually develop a higher dissolved gas content than tissues where the gas is less soluble." is the definition of solubility! I often rely for general sourcing about deco theory on books such as and  Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was thinking of the middle option as it looks neater to me to not scroll the text. I would also welcome any assistance in sorting out the objections, and I think the review was done without due attention to the criteria. I would value your opinion, and have requested a second opinion on the GA talk page. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm happy to help out, but I don't want to interfere. FWIW, it's simply not worth contesting a GA review. There are not enough GA reviewers and they are all pretty busy, so there's no real mechanism for a second opinion. Can I make a suggestion? Fix up as many extra citations as you can and ask for help if can't find sources. Then resubmit the article. When you re-submit, ping me and I'll ask one of my wiki-friends, Montanabw, (who lives about as far as you can get from the sea and is unlikely to know much about the technical aspects of scuba-diving) to cast a fresh pair of eyes over the article for you. She also happens to be a great copy-editor and has written dozens of GAs, so she can probably give you a quick run-down of any obvious flaws she spots., would you be willing to do that for Peter at some point in the near future? --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm happy to help out, but I don't want to interfere. FWIW, it's simply not worth contesting a GA review. There are not enough GA reviewers and they are all pretty busy, so there's no real mechanism for a second opinion. Can I make a suggestion? Fix up as many extra citations as you can and ask for help if can't find sources. Then resubmit the article. When you re-submit, ping me and I'll ask one of my wiki-friends, Montanabw, (who lives about as far as you can get from the sea and is unlikely to know much about the technical aspects of scuba-diving) to cast a fresh pair of eyes over the article for you. She also happens to be a great copy-editor and has written dozens of GAs, so she can probably give you a quick run-down of any obvious flaws she spots., would you be willing to do that for Peter at some point in the near future? --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm happy to help out, but I don't want to interfere. FWIW, it's simply not worth contesting a GA review. There are not enough GA reviewers and they are all pretty busy, so there's no real mechanism for a second opinion. Can I make a suggestion? Fix up as many extra citations as you can and ask for help if can't find sources. Then resubmit the article. When you re-submit, ping me and I'll ask one of my wiki-friends, Montanabw, (who lives about as far as you can get from the sea and is unlikely to know much about the technical aspects of scuba-diving) to cast a fresh pair of eyes over the article for you. She also happens to be a great copy-editor and has written dozens of GAs, so she can probably give you a quick run-down of any obvious flaws she spots., would you be willing to do that for Peter at some point in the near future? --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest
Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 06:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

mode=mla
If Trappist's mode=ma is fully functional, why don't we resolve this tiff at Jane by adding it to every reference? Discuss at talk page first, of course. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to :D. See demo at Special:Permalink/736061849 (I self-reverted 2 mins later) and Talk:Jane Austen . Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to :D. See demo at Special:Permalink/736061849 (I self-reverted 2 mins later) and Talk:Jane Austen . Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Your nice edits at Jane Austen
Those were nice edits you placed for the Austen images which helped quite a bit. The interest now at the current FA assessment which you added some comments to has now moved to the references and citations format with some comment that they were developed by 6 different editors over the last 7 years including the late Wadewitz. Most all of the references are formatted and serviceable to readers needs, though the formats do vary given the number of editors and years involved. Could you glance at the FA assessment to see if this is a concern. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a concern. FAC reviewers invariably pounce on any inconsistencies - real or perceived - in the formatting of references. I even made a joke alluding that that practice at talk page, if you recall. When 6 or 7 editors work on an article, they inevitably use slightly different styles if the references are done by hand. The only way I've found of ensuring consistency over time with references is by using cite templates, and I'm loathe to do a wholescale change on a stable article without getting some agreement from the main authors. Wadewitz is no longer with us; Simmaren hasn't edited in almost a year;  has only made a few edits this year, but may be able to give an opinion. Otherwise, it's effectively your call.  has volunteered to do the updates, but it's a big job, and they would probably need help in figuring out some of the short notes in the Jane Austen  section. I've left a brief comment at Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive2. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just saw your edit on the Austen Talk page and if you have strong feelings on this issue you might consider running an Rfc on that Talk page to determine if there is consensus for switching over since there are multiple editors supporting you. The original edits using MLA were made long ago from ten years ago, and the original editor who made those early edits is sadly no longer editing for over three years. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Adrianne Wadewitz was a much-respected Wikipedian and died in 2014 from a rock-climbing accident. It's natural therefore for those who worked with her to want to preserve her memory - and her contributions as much as possible. She was the editor who did a lot of the development of Jane Austen from 2007, and she inserted the hidden note "LISTS OF WORKS ARE IN MLA — PLEASE FOLLOW — THANKS" to the Bibliography. That has a lot to do with why there is such strong feeling to use MLA - which unfortunately misses the point that MLA is fine for the long citations, but sadly isn't suitable for the short citations for the reasons I've outlined at Talk:Jane Austen . Sorting out citation styles is an endeavour that I've been beavering away at for years here, and it may be that I'll need to fork the CS1 citations to allow a switch for different presentations of the same material. That may take a little longer, but should not stop any of us working to improve Jane Austen to the best of our abilities in the meantime. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That was quite a nice comment from you about the late Wadewitz. It has just occurred to me last night when you mentioned the Sandbox option on one of the Talk pages that there might be another useful approach to do this whole thing if you could create a Sandbox-version or a Draft-version of the full Austen page on a separate Draft page and then go ahead with the full conversion there as if it were good to go. This would present what I think would be a sea change in the discussion if editors could see that the completely converted article is already there and good to go as soon as there is consensus. I think Prairie would sign-up for this as well (although its up to Prairie to decide) to help, and I would also provide the full citation information on a one-by-one basis if needed. That might be better than backtracking and rehashing old ground. What do you think? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already done,, I made the change on the main article last night and self-reverted, but anybody can look at how MLA-style would appear in the Bibliography by looking at Special:Permalink/736061849 . It's only the books, but I can create the corresponding cite web, cite journal, etc. templates easily. I'll should make a draft in a sandbox so that others could play with the functionality to test it out. --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There appears to be something I missed overnight... you and Ling were about to agree it seems (on the Talk page at Austen) that your own consistent cites version might be acceptable to him and that it would significancly reshape the forwards movement of the discussion if not bring it towards completion. If you can put aside and block out the other baiting targeted at you by other editors, then I think if you concentrate on Ling alone you might have it completed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already done,, I made the change on the main article last night and self-reverted, but anybody can look at how MLA-style would appear in the Bibliography by looking at Special:Permalink/736061849 . It's only the books, but I can create the corresponding cite web, cite journal, etc. templates easily. I'll should make a draft in a sandbox so that others could play with the functionality to test it out. --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There appears to be something I missed overnight... you and Ling were about to agree it seems (on the Talk page at Austen) that your own consistent cites version might be acceptable to him and that it would significancly reshape the forwards movement of the discussion if not bring it towards completion. If you can put aside and block out the other baiting targeted at you by other editors, then I think if you concentrate on Ling alone you might have it completed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There appears to be something I missed overnight... you and Ling were about to agree it seems (on the Talk page at Austen) that your own consistent cites version might be acceptable to him and that it would significancly reshape the forwards movement of the discussion if not bring it towards completion. If you can put aside and block out the other baiting targeted at you by other editors, then I think if you concentrate on Ling alone you might have it completed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata...
Following on from User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus - am I to understand that there is a proposal to "import" in mobile view unverified data from Wikidata? One thing I detest about wikimedia development is that so much of it takes place out of sight of the people who use the software... (visual editor anyone?) Please let me know if there is an easy spot for someone like me to go to protest this. Also, while I'm here - I've been seeing a lot of edits like this from my watchlist - is there a bot going through mindlessly adding the infobox image for an English wikipedia article into the image field on wikidata? Because if there is... it probably should have some exclusion criteria since in that edit (and a lot of similar ones) it's adding an image of a building to the wikidata image entry for a medieval person who we will never have an image of. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a proposal to import the 'description' from Wikidata as a subtitle for mobile view on all Wikipedias. It's at Reading/web/Projects/Wikidata Descriptions. For talk-page watchers, it's this:
 * There's a proposal to import the 'description' from Wikidata as a subtitle for mobile view on all Wikipedias. It's at Reading/web/Projects/Wikidata Descriptions. For talk-page watchers, it's this:


 * The problem, of course, is that the 'description' is wholly unsourced. It's meant as a sort of disambiguation because entity labels are not unique (e.g. lots of places all called Newport). However, when it's a living person and somebody uses a sensitive descriptor like ethnicity, you open up a can of worms. You can make your feelings known at mw:Talk:Reading/web/Projects/Wikidata Descriptions.
 * I don't know of any bot doing the job you describe, but there's no shortage of editors adding images to Wikidata manually., who added the image of the Château de Tancarville, is an experienced editor, so I'm sure he'll understand your concern if you drop him a note. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Been busy most of the weekend (got the druid from 22 to 50) but did want to thank you for this reply. I'll try to drop notes in the next few days. And I was serious about wanting to know about book grants ... if WMUK offers one, I'd love to know details. Or anything else. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm never keen on levelling a druid unless I have a pal to level with (for the variety). Solo, you know you're going to go kitty for speed, so it's just like a slightly under-powered rogue. Anyway, thanks for any input you can make on MediaWiki. As for books, events, etc., grants from Wikimedia UK are outlined at wmuk:Project grants. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm never keen on levelling a druid unless I have a pal to level with (for the variety). Solo, you know you're going to go kitty for speed, so it's just like a slightly under-powered rogue. Anyway, thanks for any input you can make on MediaWiki. As for books, events, etc., grants from Wikimedia UK are outlined at wmuk:Project grants. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Lua on cywiki causing problems
Hi Doug. Usually on cywiki we can copy and paste templates from en / br or de into cy. However, when I attempt to copy cy:Nodyn:Location map template (which basically deletes the old code and inputs Lua) the lower of the two map will not work. I reverted to the old 2014 code. As we have no Lua techies on cywiki, it might be better to revert to a Lua free wiki? The problem I'm trying to solve is twofold and found in this infobox: 1. The coordinates have become elongated (great techie word!) and therefore the infobox is too wide and 2. The wording 'Lleoliad o fewn Brittany' needs to be changed to 'Lleoliad o fewn Llydaw'. If you could spare a minute, I would be very thankful. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . For some reason that I haven't fathomed out yet, the title display is rendering next to the inline display, so you get both. For the moment, I've reset the default for coordinates_display in cy:Nodyn:Infobox French commune to just "inline". That seems to calm things down a bit. I'll look at sorting out the location "Brittany" next. How many French regions have a Welsh translation? --RexxS (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably caused by some missing or incorrect styles - check the CSS. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andy, that is the problem. There's no  defined in the css anywhere on cy-wp. It needs a definition for each skin but I don't have the permissions to fix it. --RexxS (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK - next bit: There's a file called cy:Nodyn:Infobox French commune/regmap which contains a lot of place names in English alphabetical order. You'll need to change each one that has a Welsh equivalent :( The order doesn't actually matter. You'll probably have to purge the pages you're looking at to see the updates (doing an preview in edit mode usually works). Have fun. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merlin and John Dee all rolled into one! Diolch Doug!!! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK - next bit: There's a file called cy:Nodyn:Infobox French commune/regmap which contains a lot of place names in English alphabetical order. You'll need to change each one that has a Welsh equivalent :( The order doesn't actually matter. You'll probably have to purge the pages you're looking at to see the updates (doing an preview in edit mode usually works). Have fun. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merlin and John Dee all rolled into one! Diolch Doug!!! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Quote Boxes.
Hello RexxS. This is just a message to let you know that I have recently initiated a 'support/opposition' section at the RfC discussing the issues surrounding the use of "quote boxes" (here). As you previously expressed a view on this issue over at the MoS talk page several days ago, you may wish to reiterate your opinion in a 'support/oppose' format. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello again
Hello RexxS, I hope you are well; and yours. I do know that you are rather busy on multiple fronts, and hope you don't mind that I ask if you have even more time to give? If so, I'd like your help on a new matter, where an RFC will almost certainly be needed. I understand if you are constrained by time, but if you might have time, I'll shoot you the particulars and await your reply. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happily retired,, so I have time. You know I'll always help if I can, so shoot away! --RexxS (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When I first saw the snippet in notifications: "I'm happily retired", I feared I would see a retirement banner on your talk page. I am glad that is not the case, and that you are willing to look at this with me. Here is what has transpired:
 * An editor recently deviated considerably from the norm on an RFA. Instead of indenting a !vote and striking it, as is the longstanding norm for that page, this editor removed his !vote completely. and then added his new !vote. After a mini edit war, Whereas no one answered the challenge to show policy or guidelines that prohibit removal or require striking, the page was left to archive in the unorthodox state.
 * I started looking and indeed could not find any such policy or guideline.
 * We had always conducted ourselves as if the talk page guidelines were in force on this page but, wp:tpg never presumes to govern conduct anywhere except on "talk pages". The closest it comes is in this section but again, it is "talk page specific".
 * I thought about suggesting changes that would expand the scope of wp:tpg to include project pages as well. I feel that some of our most contentious discussions occur on project pages, but bringing them under wp:tpg seems beyond that guidelines authority. Perhaps these "other pages that host collaborative discourse" ought to opt in or opt out of wp:tpg?
 * Project namespace is the relevant guideline for the bulk of these many discussion pages that are not talk pages and you'll note that they don't address whether or not their discussions are subject to wp:tpg, and perhaps why so many forms of wrong conduct is able to find a survivable niche when they occur on pages that are not talk pages, to engage in discussion.
 * I think that gives you an Idea of what I have curiously seen. I am keen on seeing your opinion regarding this subject. It may be a potential area needing improvement, or it may not. I am confident in the value of your opinion either way.
 * Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK - thanks, I can see why you feel concerned, and I understand your unease at the lack of concrete rules that govern the behaviour. To give you a complete answer to how I see it, I need to make some initial remarks:
 * All guidance on Wikipedia is meant to be a documentation of editors' collective experience and consensus. In other words, policies and guidelines (P&G) are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive,
 * It follows then, that all P&G should arise as a result of issues that occur multiple times. We are unlikely to produce P&G that deal with rare events.
 * When looking to modify other editors' behaviour, we should try to keep in mind the desired outcome, which should correspond to an improvement to the encyclopedia. There's little point (and often huge effort) in trying to enforce rules for rules' sake.
 * The policy Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the related essay The rules are principles have often helped me see more clearly what is the right solution, when the prescribed solution is unclear.
 * Okay, so what does that mean for the scenario where an editor removes his own post from a RfA, rather than striking and indenting it? Well, on the basis that we ought to try to accommodate editors' personal preferences, my initial reaction would be to accept what he did as a reasonable, if unconventional, alternative to striking. Perhaps we can ask the question "was there any harm done?". It helps to consider that the reason for striking as the usual means of retraction is so that the original post is preserved in view in order to avoid confusion or giving a false impression. It's for those reasons that TPG advise you to neither amend nor delete a post when somebody has replied to it. In that sense, RfA has strong similarities to talk page discussions - threaded debate, with point and counter-point being made - so I wouldn't have any qualms in applying the same principles to the posts at RfA, even in the absence of rules.
 * Summary: I don't think we need specific guidelines to govern how a post at RfA may be removed. What we have at TPG gives good advice in the same circumstances at RfA for the same underlying reasons. In this particular case, I saw no reply to Shawn's post and can't see anybody being confused by the absence of Shawn's post once he removed it. Consequently, the reason why striking a post is often preferred to deleting it does not apply and there was no point in anyone trying to re-instate a stricken version of his !vote, because that had no benefit to the encyclopedia, nor to any editor. Now that's just my humble opinion of course, but perhaps it makes some sense to you? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you RexxS; it makes perfect sense. I appreciate the insight you've shared, and the many other selfless things you have done. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Project namespace is the relevant guideline for the bulk of these many discussion pages that are not talk pages and you'll note that they don't address whether or not their discussions are subject to wp:tpg, and perhaps why so many forms of wrong conduct is able to find a survivable niche when they occur on pages that are not talk pages, to engage in discussion.
 * I think that gives you an Idea of what I have curiously seen. I am keen on seeing your opinion regarding this subject. It may be a potential area needing improvement, or it may not. I am confident in the value of your opinion either way.
 * Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK - thanks, I can see why you feel concerned, and I understand your unease at the lack of concrete rules that govern the behaviour. To give you a complete answer to how I see it, I need to make some initial remarks:
 * All guidance on Wikipedia is meant to be a documentation of editors' collective experience and consensus. In other words, policies and guidelines (P&G) are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive,
 * It follows then, that all P&G should arise as a result of issues that occur multiple times. We are unlikely to produce P&G that deal with rare events.
 * When looking to modify other editors' behaviour, we should try to keep in mind the desired outcome, which should correspond to an improvement to the encyclopedia. There's little point (and often huge effort) in trying to enforce rules for rules' sake.
 * The policy Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the related essay The rules are principles have often helped me see more clearly what is the right solution, when the prescribed solution is unclear.
 * Okay, so what does that mean for the scenario where an editor removes his own post from a RfA, rather than striking and indenting it? Well, on the basis that we ought to try to accommodate editors' personal preferences, my initial reaction would be to accept what he did as a reasonable, if unconventional, alternative to striking. Perhaps we can ask the question "was there any harm done?". It helps to consider that the reason for striking as the usual means of retraction is so that the original post is preserved in view in order to avoid confusion or giving a false impression. It's for those reasons that TPG advise you to neither amend nor delete a post when somebody has replied to it. In that sense, RfA has strong similarities to talk page discussions - threaded debate, with point and counter-point being made - so I wouldn't have any qualms in applying the same principles to the posts at RfA, even in the absence of rules.
 * Summary: I don't think we need specific guidelines to govern how a post at RfA may be removed. What we have at TPG gives good advice in the same circumstances at RfA for the same underlying reasons. In this particular case, I saw no reply to Shawn's post and can't see anybody being confused by the absence of Shawn's post once he removed it. Consequently, the reason why striking a post is often preferred to deleting it does not apply and there was no point in anyone trying to re-instate a stricken version of his !vote, because that had no benefit to the encyclopedia, nor to any editor. Now that's just my humble opinion of course, but perhaps it makes some sense to you? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you RexxS; it makes perfect sense. I appreciate the insight you've shared, and the many other selfless things you have done. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All guidance on Wikipedia is meant to be a documentation of editors' collective experience and consensus. In other words, policies and guidelines (P&G) are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive,
 * It follows then, that all P&G should arise as a result of issues that occur multiple times. We are unlikely to produce P&G that deal with rare events.
 * When looking to modify other editors' behaviour, we should try to keep in mind the desired outcome, which should correspond to an improvement to the encyclopedia. There's little point (and often huge effort) in trying to enforce rules for rules' sake.
 * The policy Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the related essay The rules are principles have often helped me see more clearly what is the right solution, when the prescribed solution is unclear.
 * Okay, so what does that mean for the scenario where an editor removes his own post from a RfA, rather than striking and indenting it? Well, on the basis that we ought to try to accommodate editors' personal preferences, my initial reaction would be to accept what he did as a reasonable, if unconventional, alternative to striking. Perhaps we can ask the question "was there any harm done?". It helps to consider that the reason for striking as the usual means of retraction is so that the original post is preserved in view in order to avoid confusion or giving a false impression. It's for those reasons that TPG advise you to neither amend nor delete a post when somebody has replied to it. In that sense, RfA has strong similarities to talk page discussions - threaded debate, with point and counter-point being made - so I wouldn't have any qualms in applying the same principles to the posts at RfA, even in the absence of rules.
 * Summary: I don't think we need specific guidelines to govern how a post at RfA may be removed. What we have at TPG gives good advice in the same circumstances at RfA for the same underlying reasons. In this particular case, I saw no reply to Shawn's post and can't see anybody being confused by the absence of Shawn's post once he removed it. Consequently, the reason why striking a post is often preferred to deleting it does not apply and there was no point in anyone trying to re-instate a stricken version of his !vote, because that had no benefit to the encyclopedia, nor to any editor. Now that's just my humble opinion of course, but perhaps it makes some sense to you? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you RexxS; it makes perfect sense. I appreciate the insight you've shared, and the many other selfless things you have done. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you RexxS; it makes perfect sense. I appreciate the insight you've shared, and the many other selfless things you have done. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration statement redacted
Hi RexxS, at the direction of an arb, I've removed a personal attack incivility in your ARCA statement. More info to follow, thanks, Kevin ( alt of L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi RexxS, apologies on the abrupt message above, I didn't realize how limited my time was a bit earlier when taking the clerk action. The removal was specifically directed by an arbitrator, and may be appealed to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Per Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures, I should inform you that personal attacks incivility may lead to sanctions. Let me know if you have any questions. For the Committee, Kevin ( alt of L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * [EC] Not only was that not a personal attack (nothing even remotely approaching one, in fact), but since when do individual arbs have authority to order such redactions? And since when do we conduct Wikipedia business in mailing lists, rather than on-wiki? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see we edit conflicted as you changed "personal attack" to "incivility". My point stands. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Sandstein throwing around escalating blocks for whatever reasons he sees fit is pretty much exactly a description of how AE currently (dys)functions on Wikipedia. L235, whatever "sanction" you decide applies to RexxS for making this comment feel free to apply it to me as well. &#8209; Iridescent 14:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and to me as well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I have two questions: (1) Who was the Arb that specifically directed you? and (2) Who has made the determination that my comment was a personal attack? If the latter was yourself, and you've since changed your mind, then I'd be grtateful if you'd find the time to amend your comment and edit summary to make clear your reasons. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Currently" is rather a stretch: from a casual look at his block log, since blocking Eric on 25 January 2015, Sandstein seems to have made two AE blocks: one on 31 March 2015 reversed a few minutes later, and one on 1 June 2015.Between GamerGate, Israel/Palestine, and GMOs, I think there's been a fair amount of AE activity since then; justified or not, I'm not convinced that reflections on Sandstein's character throw that much light on AE as now practiced. Choess (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So am I to draw the inference that the quality of blocking at AE has improved markedly in Sandstein's absence? --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if the problem with AE was Sandstein making ill-judged blocks, and he's no longer taking part in AE, then it must logically have improved. Of course, it's quite possible that the administrators now active at AE are making ill-judged blocks as well, but demonstrating that would involve examining *their* blocks, rather than Sandstein's. (Really, if people are determined on a bunfight with the clerks over the limits of permissible comment at Arbitration, it might as well be on a point that's germane to the case at hand.) Choess (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're quite right. Thankfully, I'm not aiming to have a bunfight with clerks (although that won't stop me tweaking Kevin's nose when he pokes it into my talk page). All I wanted was to reinforce my point that sanctions alone won't solve the problem, and that unfettered sanctions (for which Sandstein was merely a convenient metaphor) would be likely to make it worse. I'm pleased that life is more pleasant at AE now. You know I was tempted once to stand for adminship, with the promise that I only wanted to do Arbitration Enforcement in order to bring some common sense to the place. Luckily, I didn't give in to temptation. --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The last time I was there, I met common sense, but it was still miserable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi RexxS. The removal was requested by Callanecc, and the "personal attack" undertone was implied by the remarks being labelled as "incivil". If you'd prefer, though, feel free to treat it as being removed for being irrelevant, and feel free to remove the notice on the ARCA page itself. @Others: General questions and concerns regarding the clerk procedures are welcome at clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My questions were addressed specifically to you. Please answer them here, where I asked them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Individual arbs and clerks (and functionaries since GamerGate) have always been able to remove or refactor statements on arbitration pages, and even to issue sanctions for conduct on them, acting alone. For example, on every case/talk page, there is a "Behaviour on this page" section that says (link to an arbitrary case to demonstrate point, the original version is at Template:Casenav) Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. clerks-l has been used since November 2006, and most clerk coordination occurs there. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the history lesson,, but Andy's been editing since 2003 and I've been here since 2008. Both of us participated at ArbCom before you even registered an account. Something about Grandma and egg-sucking comes to mind. For reference, here's the initial page for the first ArbCom case in which I took part: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (dated Jan 2009) - you'll note that there's no box resembling what you've suggested. I do accept, however, that times change. Let me assure you that I have no problem with Clerks and Arbs refactoring content on their own case pages; I just don't accept any implication that they may do it arbitrarily. --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, neither RexxS nor I are clerks; nor do we coordinate such. So I ask again: since when do we conduct Wikipedia business in mailing lists, rather than on-wiki? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of raising the specific issue at Kevin's talk page and received what I felt was a fulsome response. Perhaps his response there will go some way to alleviating your concern? --RexxS (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It doesn't, but I no longer consider this worth the candle. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It doesn't, but I no longer consider this worth the candle. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikidata
I started WikiProject Wikidata. You'd be welcome to join. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You can call me "Number 3". --RexxS (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramid and pseudoscience
You posted a whole thing on my page about this (and the related arbitration), and I just wanted to question what I'm allowed and not allowed to say. Only because my entire collection of actions and edits (there and elsewhere) have been to give balance and both sides to biased articles that push a particular point of view, and I'm pretty sick of people overriding my reasonable corrections for often petty reasons. Thanks Guy.shrimpton (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Guy.shrimpton (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * you need to have a read of WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. The claims that the structures at Visoko are man-made have been rejected by all of the independent mainstream sources, and you're going to have to accept that you can't "balance" that by presenting Osmanagić's own writings as if they were of equal validity. He already has two sources cited that give some understanding of what his position is, and frankly I don't believe that it would be due weight to do more than that. is the other editor who has been keeping an eye on the article and I doubt that he will see things any differently, but you can ask. Upholding Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and content should not be dismissed as "petty reasons", and I think that you're going to have to accept that in a collaborative project, you're not the sole arbiter of what are "reasonable corrections". I'm sorry I can't be any more help than that. --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'd give pretty much the same answer. The Wikipedia article needs to reflect the balance of reliable sources (and that's peer-reviewed academic sources when it comes to archaeological claims), not give each side equal weight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'd give pretty much the same answer. The Wikipedia article needs to reflect the balance of reliable sources (and that's peer-reviewed academic sources when it comes to archaeological claims), not give each side equal weight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox content not in article body
Hi RexxS, I was interested in your statement here about things appearing in infoboxes that aren't present in the article body. I don't think that's the place to debate such matters, but I have to say that thought has occurred to me several times. What I can never get past is our propensity for overcitation. If something is in the infobox that isn't in the article body, it needs to be cited (especially if it's a BLP), and I really dislike the appearance of footnotes in infobox fields. Do you have any thoughts on solving that? -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Like you, I guess, I'm no fan of large and cluttered infoboxes, but the tolerance for them seems to have evolved differently in different corners of the encyclopedia, and I wouldn't spend my time trying to alter that. My suggestion would be that it's fine to allow information in an infobox that not found elsewhere when the information is "dry". By that I mean, it's very uncontroversial or self-referencing info like the ICD-10 value for a medical condition, which links to its own definition. You can see that in Myocardial infarction, for example. Similarly the chemical structure or "ball and stick model" of aspirin is derivable from its chemical formula by someone who knows how to construct such things, and the push-pin map for Sydney Opera House is derivable from its coordinates. All of those seem to satisfy WP:V without a direct cite, in that somebody - if not necessarily anybody - could verify the accuracy of the information. In the humanities, things are often more nuanced, of course, and items that need a textual citation, IMHO, don't belong in an infobox unless they are discussed and cited in the body proper of the article anyway. To me, all of that makes sense, but I'd hate to try to codify it into a set of 'rules' that could be universally applied. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My view aligns with yours. Non-controversial and easily verified facts that benefit from being picked up by data scrapers (like the ICD-10 value) shouldn't need to be cited or written about in the article body. My mind naturally goes to infobox fields that are frequently the subject of disputes, like music or film genres. Editors will rightly insist they are discussed and cited in the article as a prerequisite for being in the infobox. Another much-debated field is "religion" in BLPs; see Elvis Presley for a good exemplar. Well-meaning editors come by and think, "Of course he was Pentecostal. He went to church!" and add it to the infobox, even though that topic wasn't even discussed in his article until recently. Thanks for your input. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My view aligns with yours. Non-controversial and easily verified facts that benefit from being picked up by data scrapers (like the ICD-10 value) shouldn't need to be cited or written about in the article body. My mind naturally goes to infobox fields that are frequently the subject of disputes, like music or film genres. Editors will rightly insist they are discussed and cited in the article as a prerequisite for being in the infobox. Another much-debated field is "religion" in BLPs; see Elvis Presley for a good exemplar. Well-meaning editors come by and think, "Of course he was Pentecostal. He went to church!" and add it to the infobox, even though that topic wasn't even discussed in his article until recently. Thanks for your input. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Supervisor635
Hi RexxS. I've just reverted a bunch of date removals by socks of User:Supervisor635. It looks like they've been active in the last couple of weeks. Be grateful if you kept an eye out if possible. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, . I'm away for a couple of weeks diving, so will be afk. But I'll keep my eyes on the usual places as soon as I'm back. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, . I'm away for a couple of weeks diving, so will be afk. But I'll keep my eyes on the usual places as soon as I'm back. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

École française de Rome
Hello RexxS,

There exists an article French School at Athens whose title seemed bizarre to me (I would have expected "French School in Athens" or "French school of Athens" if not even keeping the original École française d'Athènes but I was told it was ok. Now, I'd like to create the "École française de Rome" (and the category listing its members) but it instantly redirects to Roman Historical Institutes which is a more global page.

What do you suggest I should do to bypass the redirection? And should it be "French School at Rome"? "French School of Rome"? "French School in Rome"? I'm lost here. Thanks in advance for your help; LouisAlain (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "French School in Rome" seems most popular - 45K ghits, vs 6,880 ghits for "at", though not all are relevant. You edit the redirect page to change the redirect to the new article. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me new things in references
Thank you for all the teaching you did in the long discussion at Jane Austen. I just tried out the mode=mla, with /new after cite book, on one reference in the article about the novel Mansfield Park. The person who wrote the text did a nice reference but forgot isbn, which I was checking in the article, along with url and any missing info from references. There is still missing info from one or two, and the first ref should be a note, but let that go by. Mode=mla worked, the ref looks just the ones beneath it in the article, except it has the isbn included. I also used your guidance on quoting text from another article and leaving notice on the talk page. The Literary reception section began at 1970 or so, forgetting the book's initial reception. I took two fine and well sourced sentences exactly to the point from Jane Austen to fill that gap. I am sure it will all be changed sometime down the road, and I do not have anything Jane Austen on my watchlist. But I am reading that novel again, so I looked at the article and saw some small things within my scope. I never have edited where there was worry whether person X would approve of correctly-formatted references, but now i know better. Anyway, thanks, and you can of course take a look at my one small effort if you have the time. I did not like all that arguing, but I was pleased to meet, encounter you and Jonesey, for all your skills in referencing formats with a solution to every problem I have encountered so far. I hope my thank you does not clutter your page too much. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, . Space on my page is cheap and you're always welcome to post here, especially if there is anything I can help you with. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, . Space on my page is cheap and you're always welcome to post here, especially if there is anything I can help you with. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Question
Hellos. Why wiki-speaking, it is easier to create articles, they are more easily admissible, there is virtually no problem with directors? And wiki-en the opposite, there is always something that will displease. (There is all the same good admins but they are a minority). Is it a question of different culture, when you look at users, they are well on the articles FR, but to go directly to English version because there are more things over, more interesting. I like to have your view on it please. Cordially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:B854:9C74:3C1F:E26D (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia has far more articles and rather more editors than any other Wikipedia. That means that there are fewer notable topics left to write articles about in English, and editors here have become accustomed to unsuitable articles being written - and then deleted. In addition, the greater number of editors means there will be a greater range of opinions among the editors, which tends to lead to more debate (and dissent) about whether any particular article is notable. In the case of N.F.-Board, it is very much a niche topic and authoritative sources are hard to find. There is a difference in culture that can be seen by looking at the French article, fr:NF-Board, which is almost entirely unsourced. That wouldn't survive on English Wikipedia with so much of its content unable to be verified. I'm not sure I can offer any reasons for such a disparity in how articles are treated, but I'm afraid that's something we just have to accept. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia has far more articles and rather more editors than any other Wikipedia. That means that there are fewer notable topics left to write articles about in English, and editors here have become accustomed to unsuitable articles being written - and then deleted. In addition, the greater number of editors means there will be a greater range of opinions among the editors, which tends to lead to more debate (and dissent) about whether any particular article is notable. In the case of N.F.-Board, it is very much a niche topic and authoritative sources are hard to find. There is a difference in culture that can be seen by looking at the French article, fr:NF-Board, which is almost entirely unsourced. That wouldn't survive on English Wikipedia with so much of its content unable to be verified. I'm not sure I can offer any reasons for such a disparity in how articles are treated, but I'm afraid that's something we just have to accept. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Module:WikidataCheck
Hey RexxS. Will this edit correctly make it so that the module doesn't categorize when there ins't a local value? —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sorry, I've been away on holiday and I'm just catching up. Hopefully, you've already solved the issue, but as you probably know, there is a difference in Lua between nil and an empty string. So there's a difference between (for example) id and the absence of, when that is passed to  . Usually we want to treat both of those identically, and the simplest way is to use something like   which will set   to "" when it's passed as nil. In that case, I'm pretty sure that your code will always return nil when   hasn't anything passed to it (which should represent the absence of a local value). Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks RexxS. I don't really know anything about Lua. I thought there was probably a difference.  is easier then having to check against empty string and nil. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks RexxS. I don't really know anything about Lua. I thought there was probably a difference.  is easier then having to check against empty string and nil. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)