User talk:RexxS/Archive 60

Please see discussion at Help talk:Table
Link to discussion: --Timeshifter (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Help talk:Table
 * Learn how to use the WP:Notifications system. I don't need a talk page message every time anybody replies to me on a thread.
 * See the prior discussion: Help talk:Table.
 * --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See the prior discussion: Help talk:Table.
 * --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking for an easy way
Hi, RexxS - hope all is well on your end, and that you have managed to avoid cabin fever, or worse - boredom, which can get an editor in deep poopoo if they're not careful. I was hoping you might have a magic wand that can fix a relatively minor but time consuming issue; i.e., reorganizing table entries in chronological order. See Jeffrey Richards (producer). It would be such a time saver if we could just reverse it with a single command, like reversing chronological or alphabetical order in an MS Word doc. Atsme Talk 📧 19:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * all is good here and I'm keeping busy. Hope you are too. I only have means of sorting tables if there are no rowspans, so I've removed them and reverse sorted the table offline then pasted it back in. See if that is what you want, or feel free to revert if not. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * DAY-EM, you're good, RexxS! GIANT hugs for sparing me a major time sink! Thank you very much! Atsme Talk 📧 23:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm too tired to think up a suitable section header.
I've just seen http://www.metropolis2.co.uk/StRexx/. It raised a chuckle. JBW (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was at an AfD where a contributor was insisting that all secondary schools were notable, so the sourcing wouldn't be an issue. I was trying to make the point that you had to have sources to prove it existed first. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Somebody showed me that website in the pub once. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Raul Cătinaș
Hello, RexxS,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Raul Cătinaș, for deletion, because a consensus decision previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion] but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Onel 5969  TT me 14:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've declined the speedy deletion request, as WP:G4 is only applicable if the new version is "sufficiently identical" to the deleted original version, which it isn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude! You've been templated! -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 15:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Twice! I've left an appropriate bollocking on his talk page. Shitty Page Curation tool. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I will to try avoid giving a bollocking of my own here but no promises. Onel is, in my mind, an incredibly valuable Wikipedian; not perfect but who is? He does important work in several areas and was responsible for some ridiculous percentage of New Page Patrols over a more than 2 year period. He felt discouraged after some of his work had been deleted - see the LOADS of templated messages on his talk page - and had retired. I am guessing you might have seen the retired banner at the top of his user talk. Fortunately, like many editors, he just needed some time away. I am appreciative of the work that he does for however long he decides to stay with us - I hope it will be a long time and would hope that important members of the community like yourself would help create that desire.Having just returned in the last few days, perhaps he didn't deserve a bollocking because of mistakes made when an administrator incorrectly restored deleted material. Perhaps, there could have been another way of expressing your point; as I read it bradv didn't give you any bollocking and you've understood his point. Perhaps you could have taken your clear outrage and used it to improve community endorsed practices rather than laser beaming on one editor. Just some thoughts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right,, and I've apologised to him. That particular automated tool is sub-optimal for that job and it's not Onel's fault. Another NP Patroller gave him the advice to use Twinkle for the notifications, which looks a sensible improvement. Turns out that the article in question had been created and deleted as two separate articles, one with diacritics and one without, so Bradv was able to merge their histories. Looks like we fortuitously managed an improvement after all, despite my ill-temper with the templates. --RexxS (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rexx for doing that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right,, and I've apologised to him. That particular automated tool is sub-optimal for that job and it's not Onel's fault. Another NP Patroller gave him the advice to use Twinkle for the notifications, which looks a sensible improvement. Turns out that the article in question had been created and deleted as two separate articles, one with diacritics and one without, so Bradv was able to merge their histories. Looks like we fortuitously managed an improvement after all, despite my ill-temper with the templates. --RexxS (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rexx for doing that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Short description with empty Wikidata description
This category seems to be containing articles which have no wikidata description, rather than an "empty" description. If I'm right, I think it should be renamed for clarity. SD0001 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what was intended. The point was that for entities that had no description or an empty one (which is almost certainly the same thing on Wikidata), there would be a potential to export the enwiki short description to Wikidata as an obvious improvement. We could rename the category, but is the effort worth it? --RexxS (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what was intended. The point was that for entities that had no description or an empty one (which is almost certainly the same thing on Wikidata), there would be a potential to export the enwiki short description to Wikidata as an obvious improvement. We could rename the category, but is the effort worth it? --RexxS (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Outdated security on a certain site related to "Russian vaccine"
''@Александр Мотин: that site uses an outdated security configuration. That's normally a red flag for anything we want to use as a reliable source (no pun intended). --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)''

Erm... sorry to disturb you --- I wanted to ask what exactly is outdated. If you warned Motin, you probably saw what is actually wrong with the site.

Reason: не ну а чо, я им напишу, errr, well, i will write them about it, so they will patch it out.

Or even better, I will tell them they need to "ask" their admin to patch things up. Uchyotka (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * when I attempted to follow the link to https://grls.rosminzdrav.ru/Grls_View_v2.aspx?routingGuid=d494c688-0bc6-4c30-9e81-23f043ceb43e&t= Chrome immediately warned me I can't recommend anybody to follow a link that is insecure. I can see that the domain is registered to the "Russian Federation ministry of public health", but even so, using an obsolete version of SSL is an astonishing mistake for a state-owned institution. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * China has recently banned connections using TLS 1.3 for censorship and/or snooping reasons; I would not be surprised if the Russians had a similar regime or distaste for private traffic or disinterest in encouraging their users to use secure connections. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Referencing style






Both of those link with the doi version being a more stable link that give the abstract and a full version link. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow. So much for WP:CIVIL. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 21:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not blind. If you have a browser capable of rendering an embedded pdf, then you see the full text immediately without having to follow another link if you use the link I supplied. If readers don't have Acrobat or similar addon, they can still download the pdf just as they would do from your preferred link. As it is preferable to give readers direct access to the full text if possible, I am going to ask you politely to leave that link from the citation title. Thanks. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not blind. If you have a browser capable of rendering an embedded pdf, then you see the full text immediately without having to follow another link if you use the link I supplied. If readers don't have Acrobat or similar addon, they can still download the pdf just as they would do from your preferred link. As it is preferable to give readers direct access to the full text if possible, I am going to ask you politely to leave that link from the citation title. Thanks. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking back at this interaction, I have to apologize for my outburst. I was frustrated, and your edit summaries were frustratingly unclear and made them look like straight reverts when they were not, but I should have kept my cool regardless. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that. I'm really sorry that my edit summaries were unclear, and I promise I'll try my hardest to do better in future. It was never my intention to cause you frustration.
 * To be honest, I appreciate the work you do for Wikipedia, especially with citations. Despite our differences at times, I know that your intent is always only to improve the encyclopedia, and I should remind myself of that more often. Regards --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit
Actually, I disagree with you on experienced user being poorly defined. It's actually defined right here. If you'd like I can change my wording from "Experienced Editor " to "Senior Editor". Making this a sysop only edit violates assume good faith, so this would need to be changed to comply. W.K.W.W.K... Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty  11:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The "service awards" are a joke. It's ludicrous to claim that someone who reaches their 6,000th edit and 18 months of editing is then transformed into someone with the judgement needed to close a discussion where "the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial." It's complete bollocks to try to claim it violates good faith, and assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. We have sysops for a reason – and that reason includes the community's confirmation that the sysop's judgement is trusted sufficiently to do those tough closes. There is a process to go through to meet that bar, and "experienced editors" (whatever they may be) haven't been through it.
 * Now understand that arguments about what you may or may not disagree with are off-topic for my talk page, so I'll thank you to take them somewhere else where they will be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw this a little while ago, wrote a comment, then forgot to publish it and just left it here. Anway, RexxS has answered now, but why let my words go to waste? The Service Awards things are just a social/amusing aside, with names and statuses that are totally made up just for fun - notice at the top it says "displaying the right [award] does not indicate authority or competence". There is nothing "official" or consensus-based behind them, and Wikipedia simply does not define those levels of users. So those made-up titles like "Experienced Editor", "Senior Editor", "Grandmaster Editor" etc have no meaning whatsoever in the wider Wikipedia community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well....yes and no. Yes, they might be made up, but, no the edits aren't nor are the years. For a person to remain active on Wikipedia for that number of years with that many edits indicates this person has some kind of competence with Wikipedia, otherwise they'd be blocked, banned or indeffed. So I see them as a guideline, so to speak. Also, it's pretty well documented that being a sysop is WP:NOBIGDEAL so I tend to disagree with you. I guess the best way to state my position is this, if a user closes, say , an AFD with "Delete", that would need to be reversed because the closer wasn't a sysop, because a user can't delete anything. However, a user closing a discussion in good faith shouldn't have his close reversed unless there's something wrong with the close other than "the user isn't a sysop". That's absurd and is an automatic assumption of bad faith to the user, even if it is a close call. So I agree to disagree with you on that. W.K.W.W.K...  Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty  14:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You can disagree all you like, but you're wrong. The Service Awards titles define *only the names of the awards* and not anything meaningful about the editor. It says it plain and clearly: "Please remember that neither the number of edits nor the length of time from when an account was created is a good indicator of the quality of an editor's contributions or diplomatic ability. Hence, service awards do not indicate any level of authority whatsoever; "master" editors are not bestowed with more authority through this award than "novice" editors". We do not, and are not going to, base any recognition of editor ability on those awards. I strongly suggest you honour RexxS's request and drop this, at least from here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well....yes and no. Yes, they might be made up, but, no the edits aren't nor are the years. For a person to remain active on Wikipedia for that number of years with that many edits indicates this person has some kind of competence with Wikipedia, otherwise they'd be blocked, banned or indeffed. So I see them as a guideline, so to speak. Also, it's pretty well documented that being a sysop is WP:NOBIGDEAL so I tend to disagree with you. I guess the best way to state my position is this, if a user closes, say , an AFD with "Delete", that would need to be reversed because the closer wasn't a sysop, because a user can't delete anything. However, a user closing a discussion in good faith shouldn't have his close reversed unless there's something wrong with the close other than "the user isn't a sysop". That's absurd and is an automatic assumption of bad faith to the user, even if it is a close call. So I agree to disagree with you on that. W.K.W.W.K...  Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty  14:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You can disagree all you like, but you're wrong. The Service Awards titles define *only the names of the awards* and not anything meaningful about the editor. It says it plain and clearly: "Please remember that neither the number of edits nor the length of time from when an account was created is a good indicator of the quality of an editor's contributions or diplomatic ability. Hence, service awards do not indicate any level of authority whatsoever; "master" editors are not bestowed with more authority through this award than "novice" editors". We do not, and are not going to, base any recognition of editor ability on those awards. I strongly suggest you honour RexxS's request and drop this, at least from here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

LUA stuff
You know more about "Lua module coding" than I ever will. Would you have any comment or advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites relating to list articles which now exceed Template limits, which is all getting a bit technical for me?&mdash; Rod talk 18:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I've looked at the discussion and the solutions offered seem to be taking care of part of the problem for the moment. The bit about Lua is a red-herring, because nobody is going to spend the time transforming Vcite into a Lua module. It's just not used enough to be worth it. It looks like all of its uses have been converted to Cite web and its siblings anyway.
 * Looking at the Scheduled monuments in West Somerset article, I can see that it exceeds the "Post-expand include size" so you won't see the references beyond about #209. I've made an example of what you get if you substitute the "EH listed" templates. That reduces the templates enough to see all of the references and brings the Post-expand include size down to about 1.8 MB (the limit is about 2 MB). Unfortunately, it increases the text size from about 250 kB to 440 kB and it's messy to work with, because the main templates have gone. It also takes 6 seconds to render a preview, so I think the only real solution is to reduce the size of the list by splitting the article into two. I suggest something like Scheduled monuments in West Somerset (A–G) and Scheduled monuments in West Somerset (H–Z) would be a nearly equal divide. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying (several others have also been attempting fixes). Doing an alphabetical split may be possible but a complication since I wrote this (and similar lists) is that the West Somerset council has since combined with Taunton Deane to create Somerset West and Taunton so the scheduled monuments list should really be combined with List of scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane. Having moved from Somerset I really don't feel up to this fairly massive bit of work (along with the lists of listed buildings etc) at the moment.&mdash; Rod talk 13:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * that's an easy one. You split Scheduled monuments in West Somerset as I suggested. Then move most of the intro to a new article Scheduled monuments in Somerset West and Taunton, explaining that up till these were divided into West Somerset and Taunton Deane. Then provide the links to the three lists in Scheduled monuments in West Somerset (A–G), Scheduled monuments in West Somerset (H–Z) and List of scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane. Make sure each article has links to the others and to the short parent article.
 * How does that sound? --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to go for it that sounds fine to me (I'm now working on Gloucestershire). The ws 1 April 2019.&mdash; Rod talk 16:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A similar process without the splits could also be done for :
 * Grade I listed buildings in Taunton Deane & Grade I listed buildings in West Somerset & Grade I listed buildings in Somerset updated
 * Grade II* listed buildings in Taunton Deane & Grade II* listed buildings in West Somerset & Grade II* listed buildings in Somerset updated&mdash; Rod talk 16:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * it was a bit more work than I predicted. We now have:
 * Scheduled monuments in Somerset West and Taunton – brief introductory article
 * Scheduled monuments in West Somerset – overview of scheduled monuments in West Somerset
 * Scheduled monuments in West Somerset (A–G) – list of scheduled monuments in West Somerset (A–G)
 * Scheduled monuments in West Somerset (H–Z) – list of scheduled monuments in West Somerset (H–Z)
 * Scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane – overview and list of scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane
 * Maybe they could be consolidated, but that will need somebody more familiar with the area than I. At least they all preview in no more than 3 seconds and none of them come past around half of the Post-expand include size limit. All the references are now visible. Somebody probably needs to drop a line at WT:FL, I guess. --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, has this come up again? q.v. User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 19 and User talk:RexxS/Archive 38. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, thanks for the reminder of that. Last time I "applied some sticking-plaster"; this time I took an axe to it. It might prove a longer-lasting fix. By the way, when are we going to have the next Oxford meetup (virtual or in meatspace)? --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't do virtual, lack of suitable hardware. Wetherspoons are discouraging gatherings but even so, after the debacle in March I want to get firm assurances from at least three people before I call another. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What hardware do you need? I can give you a pc (windows/linux, but slightly older spec), a screen and a webcam if that would help? Maybe we can arrange a 'select' meetup in Oxford for that. I might be able to get my bridge camera back from Marielle at the same time :) --RexxS (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Query request
Hello, can you write a query on quarry.wmflabs.org/ for "all (file) uploads by User:Titodutta before 6 August 2020 and after 1 February 2019 on Wikimedia Commons? It'll help me to identify a series of files which require re-upload for quality issue. The upload log is not helpful, because I need only the file names (see help request at c:Commons:Help_desk). Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly familiar with the database layout on Commons and the documentation is a little concise, to say the least. I've found the complete table of edits and the user tables (pretty much the same as enwiki), but I'm struggling to find a table of uploads. In the meantime, I've created a quarry query that shows page names for the 5336 edits you made to Commons between 2019-02-01 and 2020-08-06, but that would need manipulation to filter the uploads you're interested in. You can check it at https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/47652 and download the data if it's any use to you. I'll try and work my way through https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Database_layout to see if I can work out how they store file uploads and get back to you when I figure that out. --RexxS (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * [update:] I think the image table has the data we need. I've created a new query at https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/47655 which is showing 4268 filenames. Would you check to see if it is what you want, please? If not, I'll have to search further for the correct table. --RexxS (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazing. That's the thing I wanted. Just the names of the files. It will be very helpful to list and re-upload from this list. --Titodutta (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazing. That's the thing I wanted. Just the names of the files. It will be very helpful to list and re-upload from this list. --Titodutta (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your open clarification request
Hello. Could you drop by your clarification request at WP:ARCA to advise if you need further clarification. Thanks and for the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry I've been too busy playing Whack-a-mole with a disruptive bunch of newly-minted SPAs at Talk:Ayurveda to catch up with the request. Fortuitously, I've just left my replies, expressing my continuing concerns. Thanks for the reminder, though. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry I've been too busy playing Whack-a-mole with a disruptive bunch of newly-minted SPAs at Talk:Ayurveda to catch up with the request. Fortuitously, I've just left my replies, expressing my continuing concerns. Thanks for the reminder, though. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Another Ayurveda SPI
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of "whacking" -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 20:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both. Sorry I still haven't created enough waking time to get round to the IMA and AYUSH pages. I'm seriously going to need a wiki-break soon. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am thinking that we need a central place to report and discuss the ongoing disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am thinking that we need a central place to report and discuss the ongoing disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

range block request
Could you take a look at ? This IP range was previously blocked for 3 months basically for spamming an article with a bunch of infoboxes. The IP has now done it again a few days ago. I belive this would be a preventative measure to do so.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Same modus operandi, adding a completely inappropriate infobox to an article. That's obviously the same oddball, so I've re-blocked. They've already had 1 month and 3 month blocks so far, so I've set 12 months this time. It's not usually a big deal for an IPv6 as the range is very unlikely to be allocated to anybody else, but the very slim chance means that it's best not to indef. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Same modus operandi, adding a completely inappropriate infobox to an article. That's obviously the same oddball, so I've re-blocked. They've already had 1 month and 3 month blocks so far, so I've set 12 months this time. It's not usually a big deal for an IPv6 as the range is very unlikely to be allocated to anybody else, but the very slim chance means that it's best not to indef. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

August
A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you fixing where I was blind! - MP 24 August has one of "my places" (click on August) pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, Le Sacre du printemps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)