User talk:RexxS/Archive 62

Ayurveda and blocks
Hi RexxS, when I was looking into the history of Talk:Ayurveda as part of this ARCA, I came across a number of users that I wanted to ask you about. These editors were each blocked per WP:NOTHERE, a determination which you appear to have made based on a single talk page post with which you have expressed disagreement.


 * Risham Muhammad
 * Raghuram Chakravarthy
 * Bullz123
 * Abhipkulk
 * Shanthan J
 * VigneshApthi
 * Divyash Balpande
 * Mokshda thanvi
 * Atriayurvedam
 * Maniam Babu
 * Polospirit
 * Rishiherb
 * Ashish15796
 * Pratibha198i
 * Dksethi123
 * Akhil.rmx
 * Mr.Dinkan CBI

I was wondering if you would be able to comment on these blocks. I'm particularly looking for your perspective on how you were able to make this determination, your perspective on whether you were the right person to make these blocks, and whether there were any mitigating factors or other explanations that I am missing when looking at these. I have some deep concerns about a single administrator possibly being able to affect a consensus decision about controversial topics, and I thought I would start by asking you for comment. Thank you for your time. – bradv  🍁  16:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to help an off-wiki campaign push anti-science in Wikipedia? Since you had the time to investigate the above, perhaps you noticed that the list shows 17 users created within a few days at the end of August, all of whom were obviously recruited to vote on whether Wikipedia should promote Ayurveda. Are you suggesting that RexxS should have spent two hours negotiating with each of them in an attempt to inform them of Wikipedia's values so they could blossom as useful editors? Or that obvious meatpuppets should be free to derail discussions because RexxS might favor the scientific method? Campaigners are the definition of NOTHERE. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This was vandalism of the article talk page. These were, except for two, single edit accounts with a singe purpose that appeared after a Twitter account and subsequent recruitment. Brad. Note that multiple "legitimate" editors on both sides of a debate voted and commented with out a problem. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Add: When multiple, single-edit accounts bombard a talk page in a relatively short period of time, probably faster than any single editor can deal with them, and with a single position, sometimes demanding change, while editors are laboriously slugging through an RfC and discussion, then the talk page has been damaged, and damage equals vandalism. No, not in the traditional sense we use in many places on Wikipedia, but then again I've never seen this kind of concerted effort from this many single edit editors over a short period of time who clearly are not interested in ongoing talk page collaboration. I'm not sure what to call it. Disruption is not descriptive of the situation, I as an editor, saw on that talk page. Nor did I see a traditional way of dealing with it, but then I'm not an admin. Littleolive oil (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Bradv, our processes, including talkpages, are always vulnerable to off-wiki canvassing as well as plain old sockpuppetry. The users you list are obvious meatpuppets, or as John says "obviously recruited to vote on whether Wikipedia should promote Ayurveda". I didn't know there was a Twitter post; are we disallowed from linking to Twitter? If not, perhaps Olive could provide the link. Only one of the listed voters has actually voted (or !voted, whatever) in the RfC "Should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence?", namely Atriayurvedam. I'm not sure if the RfC is the "consensus decision" you're talking about, that RexxS might have affected with his blocks? All the rest on your list have posted to the talkpage generally, several of them in the form of edit requests, with varying competence and civility. A few of them politely, but many on the lines of "Foreigners nothing know about Ayurveda so don't talk about Ayurveda like fool". Perhaps an immediate block of these more reasonable people wasn't strictly necessary. It's a fine point, though, since I don't doubt they came because of the canvassing. Anyway, I agree with you that RexxS was not the ideal admin to take care of this influx, and if I'd been following the Ayurveda issues, I would probably have suggested that to him. Mostly because of the optics, though, and I don't see it as a big deal. Per WP:INVOLVED, "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". This is not a matter of vandalism, except in the odd case, but it's nevertheless straightforward: those users are not here to build an encyclopedia. I would have thought any reasonable administrator would have come to the same conclusion. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC).
 * The link was posted by another editor on the Ayurveda talk page. I don't like to look off-Wikipedia for discussions but eventually did. I don't see that link now. I'll look again later. Littleolive oil (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be gone because it was considered inappropriate to link to Twitter, Olive, so please don't bother, I'm good. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC).


 * Yes, there was an off-wiki organised campaign by some Indian nationalists to edit the Ayurveda article to make it sound like proper medicine (I don't have any links now). And these accounts were clearly all part of it. While policy says might perhaps (it's debatable) suggest best practice would be for a different admin to make the blocks, I think this reasonably falls under the "any reasonable administrator" clause - especially as we had ongoing disruption. I would certainly have made the same blocks myself, and I consequently endorse them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC) (Updated. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC))
 * I'll also add that Wikipedia has been under an especially heavy onslaught from pushers of quackery and pseudoscience since the Covid-19 pandemic hit, and getting rid of such nonsense (and the people who push it) can be literally life-saving. RexxS is one of the few at the forefront of fighting off these dangerous idiots, and he has my personal thanks and appreciation for his invaluable work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I blocked each of those meatpuppets as "not here to build an encyclopedia". If you feel that any of them actually were here to build an encyclopedia, please feel free to unblock them. As for the INVOLVED accusation, you're again failing to distinguish between "dispute" and "disruption". My involvement in Ayurveda is simply in upholding Wikipedia policies and consensus decisions. The community has consistently agreed that Ayurveda is pseudoscience. I uphold that. WP:PSCI states that I have upheld that policy. There is no content dispute about pseudoscience, nor is there any content dispute about the prominence we should give to the scientific viewpoint. If you feel otherwise, you are entitled to start an RfC to change our policy and current consensus. Until you do that, I'll continue to uphold our status quo. It is unfortunate that only a couple of admins have found the time to try to stem the attack on Wikipedia from Opindia's twitter campaign, but now that you're aware of it, perhaps you'd like to join in our efforts to keep Wikipedia free of deliberate attempts at distorting our normal mechanisms for decision-making?
 * For what its worth, I just checked the 17 editors whom I blocked and 15 have not made any comment. One has replied "Thank you for blocking me .....I am not interested to be with fools". I hope you won't take that as an indication that they are here to build an encyclopedia. The other,, has made two attempts at an unblock request. The latter one seems reasonable and I've accepted the request and unblocked them. --RexxS (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing these blocks, and for your explanation. However, WP:PSCI is a content policy, and no part of that policy justifies immediate blocks of those who do not comply with it. Blocks are governed by the blocking policy, and in this case, in my opinion, they did not comply with WP:BEFOREBLOCK or WP:BLOCKNO. While it's certainly possible that these editors were not here in good faith, they should still have been given a chance, or at least a warning, before receiving an indefinite block. Furthermore, as an editor on that article and a prolific contributor to the talk page, you were not in a position to make that determination or to take administrative action. – bradv  🍁  16:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely ignoring that three admins and multiple (if you include me) other users have said these were obviously appropriate thus exempt from involvement as you’re trying to claim RexxS is... I’ve seen RexxS tirelessly attempt to fight against this campaign to abuse Wikipedia. Preventing abuse is not a content dispute and doesn’t even make RexxS involved in my opinion. Maybe instead of trying to find some fault in someone who is invaluable to the accuracy and reliability of the articles on these topics, you step in and help fight such campaigns, not just on Ayurveda but other pseudoscience as well? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you bothered to read anything that any of the rest of us said here? Sticking your oar in where you're clearly clueless because "da roolz" does not paint you as either understanding or helpful. How about you get out of your ivory tower and come and help those of us on the front line dealing with this crap day in and day out, rather than condescendingly scolding the hardest workers?! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Bradv is right. Just because you do not like the rules does not mean you get to ignore them for no good reason. PackMecEng (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's stop the attacks. In any kind of normal situation Brad would be right if I understand involvement, but this wasn't a normal situation in any way. An influx of single edit editors pushing a very distinct POV was overrunning the talk page with out any means to stop them. And not a few editors but many. Rexx asked for help when he went to Arbitration Clarification if I remember. I didn't see another admin come to the page to help him, so he was left to deal with this mess himself. I have zero doubt that these were sock or meat puppets. I was on that page for days. I also have a lot of experience with contentious articles and the kind of socks who show up. This was something  entirely different. I saw and followed a Twitter link from the talk page and realized editors were being recruited to attack the main stream position, which is fine if an editor is in good faith taking part in the discussions, RfCs, all the means we have to include everyone, but most weren't which was clear to anyone on that talk page.  From a bit of research I found that in India right now there is a sharp divide between a prime minister who is advocating Ayurveda and the mainstream medical community. That divide was playing out on these pages. We don't have a means of dealing with this kind of situation, actually. A trip to arbitration clarification didn't  clarify anything. I remember feeling helpless and wondering how this was going to play out since our normal processes didn't work here. In such a situation I feel the admin had to act. There is a time when our policies and guidelines don't actually fit the circumstances. We can stretch them and twist them to try and deal with what is going on but they never quite fit. In such cases we have IAR. I am probably the last person on Wikipedia to support a so-called involved admin sanctioning editors. I've been at the wrong end of that stick when admins manipulated and overstepped their power. This was not that kind of situation. From my vantage point this was a last ditch effort to clear up a big, talk-page problem, and I can't see that in these circumstances anything else could have been done. I don't think attacking anyone here helps anything. Brad is applying the Wikipedia status quo, however we didn't have a situation where that application would or could work as those working on that talk page could attest to. Two sides to the same situation, but I'm afraid only one could work. We might think about crafting some kind of guide to deal with this kind of situation for the future. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of credibility if it doesn't continue to uphold the neutrality of its administrators as sacred. This is even more important when dealing with external attacks, not less. – bradv  🍁  17:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very good explanation of the situation, and some wise words. I'm going to log out now before my frustration leads me to say anything I later regret. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very good explanation of the situation, and some wise words. I'm going to log out now before my frustration leads me to say anything I later regret. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

And three admins other than RexxS have said that these were the correct, neutral actions to take. Stop looking to stir trouble please. There is absolutely no reasonable person that would have any problem with what RexxS did here, aside from someone who is looking to stir drama. I’ll say it again, instead of stirring trouble where there is none, go help write these pseudoscience articles yourself. Honestly here, this unnecessary drama stirring is not doing anything to build the encyclopedia itself, nor is trying to attack one of the few admins who actually does work in building the encyclopedia. The massive disconnect between Brad here and people who are actually building the encyclopedia and so know what goes on is just absurd. You should really, honestly just drop this - what really impacts the credibility of Wikipedia is where some cowboy administrator with no concept of how the encyclopedia building works attacks someone for protecting and building the encyclopedia. Since it’s clear the people like myself aren’t being listened to, and Brad is just ignoring what we are saying, I too will bow out - but will end by reminding everyone that when many people immediately begin saying you’re wrong to do something, it’s time to bow out, apologize, and actually reevaluate whether you have the public opinion and consensus on your side. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, Brad, but Wikipedia doesn't have a have a leg to stand on if exceptional circumstances aren't seen as exceptional. It's important to call into question actions, but it's also important to explain them and understand them as exceptional. To have that kind of flexibility in a single explained situation does not mean we toss out our policies and guidelines. Those policies where crafted by editors who are human after all, and they don't cover every situation. I think it was important for you to ask the questions, and I think it was important to explain them. There was no way of dealing with external attacks in this situation that I could see, that's why I suggest a policy or guideline addendum be drafted to deal with this kind of situation in the future. Had another admin been available then this discussion wouldn't have happened, but the admin in this case asked for help and no one showed up. This wasn't a sneaky back room move, and believe me I've seen some of that too. And it's acceptable in my mind to ask for an explanation. Right or wrong is not the issue and Wikipedia doesn't operate on a right or wrong platform. The issue is why. We have the why; I think it stands up. Perhaps we we move on. Blame isn't necessary for either Brad or Rexx. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

coding, script skills
You wouldn't by any chance have the skills to fix UTRS? What's buggin' me right now is the inability to format our replies. All just run-on sentences. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 16:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can program in most common programming languages and frameworks, but I've studiously avoided doing development work on the MediaWiki software because I've got enough on my plate already. I assume that UTRS is an extension and I suppose I could look at it, but you have to understand that I'm an old and innately lazy dinosaur, so it's unlikely to happen in the near future, --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can program in most common programming languages and frameworks, but I've studiously avoided doing development work on the MediaWiki software because I've got enough on my plate already. I assume that UTRS is an extension and I suppose I could look at it, but you have to understand that I'm an old and innately lazy dinosaur, so it's unlikely to happen in the near future, --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Theft
People are stealing my carousel! (, down a ways.) I don't mind, they may, and I hope you don't mind either. But it made me look at Bishzilla's pocket page, where I zoned out staring at her cake fridge. Mmmmm... yum... yum... yeah. Might you make a cake carousel from the contents of the fridge, that I can use as an alternative, for afternoon tea for the little visitors? At your leisure, of course! I suppose the top half of the gallery would be enough. [Bishonen pictures herself adding more, and more, and more.] Nom nom. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC).
 * | upright=1.0
 * ✅ Here's a demo of the Cakes carousel. I've used the first half and put the rest at the bottom of Module:Carousel/Cakes for you to swap in to taste! --RexxS (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping . --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Cake for the little visitors! (Once I actually wrote about the "little" visitors in an edit notice, and somebody complained and said I sounded condescending. I had to withdraw it and explain I had unfortunately been channeling Bishzilla, who always condescends most magnificently — but Shonen isn't meant to.) Outstanding! Thank you, kind dispenser of delicious high teas, and also thanks for making a carousel for young Fritter. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC).
 * Hmm.. I think I must have meant to say "afternoon teas", not "high teas". Very tricky, all that. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC).

Frank Sinatra editnotice
Hi. Looks like you modified Template:Editnotices/Page/Frank Sinatra & changed the restriction on it. If you intend to keep the restriction, you may want to tag the talk page with a Ds/talk notice (with the restriction), so it's enforceable, and take over the sanction and log it at WP:AELOG, since you've changed it. I feel it's probably an unnecessary restriction now and so it should be deleted instead, but that decision is up to you. Sidenote, not sure how ones edits can "conform to discretionary sanctions" - you may want to remove that part of the restriction if you're taking it over. Thanks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * if you look at the history, I merely enacted the decision of the RfC at Talk:Frank Sinatra which reversed the prior consensus to collapse the infobox. Obviously, the previous discretionary sanction was then inapplicable, but I had no direction from the RfC as to how to proceed with that and I took the simplest action by amending it to fit the new consensus. You're the first editor who has expressed any opinion on whether to retain the notice or not, so I'll take your advice and delete the notice. If anyone objects, it's easy enough to put it back.
 * WP:AC/DS lays out the expectations that editors working on pages subject to discretionary sanctions must conform to. Those are particularly pertinent to the remedies which arose from the "civility in infobox discussions" case, and consequently a much higher standard of behaviour is required. I think you're failing to grasp that DS can often constitute a general regime, not just the individual restrictions that may be applied --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning it up. Re your reply to my sidenote, even if you're right that change is not unique to Sinatra. If it is a problem, grammatical or procedurally, it should be proposed as an in process change to Ds/editnotice, since it'd be a problem on all pages, and not just that one. Using raw restriction and changing the meaning for one page doesn't really seem like a good idea imo - it just adds to confusion at least, plus uniquely kills maintainability since general wording changes would no longer apply. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the reason why we have DS is twofold: it allows admins to react quickly in troublesome areas and it removes the second-mover advantage in most cases. Because it amplifies the power of admins to act, it is only fair to warn editors that behaviour which might only receive a warning on other pages can lead to immediate sanctions if takes place on pages under DS. The set of templates we use to warn of that potential are required for that purpose, and should perform that job as efficiently as possible. All of the minutiae of how that is implemented don't matter as long as we are able to warn editors of (i) the raised expectations in general, (ii) any specific sanctions applied to a single page, and (iii) the inability for any AE sanctions to be reversed on another admin's discretion. I'm reasonably content with the set of templates we have used for some time, but if you think they can be improved in terms of doing the job that we want, then please go ahead and start the discussion. Feel free to ping me to that if you think my input may be useful. --RexxS (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the reason why we have DS is twofold: it allows admins to react quickly in troublesome areas and it removes the second-mover advantage in most cases. Because it amplifies the power of admins to act, it is only fair to warn editors that behaviour which might only receive a warning on other pages can lead to immediate sanctions if takes place on pages under DS. The set of templates we use to warn of that potential are required for that purpose, and should perform that job as efficiently as possible. All of the minutiae of how that is implemented don't matter as long as we are able to warn editors of (i) the raised expectations in general, (ii) any specific sanctions applied to a single page, and (iii) the inability for any AE sanctions to be reversed on another admin's discretion. I'm reasonably content with the set of templates we have used for some time, but if you think they can be improved in terms of doing the job that we want, then please go ahead and start the discussion. Feel free to ping me to that if you think my input may be useful. --RexxS (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Table accessibility proposal
Hello again :)

After ages of table work on Wikipedia, I've realized one big reason that row headers aren't commonly used. In other words, I think I've figured out why many tables have scope="col" for their column headers, but not the corresponding for their row headers. The reason is... (drumroll) - "plainrowheaders" doesn't actually make the row headers plain - meaning that labelling row headers as such currently always changes the look of the row headers. This is likely undesirable in many (most?) data tables on Wikipedia, and may be a primary reason that they are not used more often.

For this reason, I've proposed changes at WP:VPT to hopefully rectify this and strengthen the MOS to require column/row headers in all data tables in articles. I welcome your comment as you're the one who originally pointed me to WP:DTT and its requirements. Thanks -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been here before. The discussion where it was decided to remove bolding and centring but leave the background colour was made at MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 12 . I think it would have been better to review that discussion before trying to change something that has had a lot of thought already put into it. In particular the comment from Edokter "That is because a row header must remain recognizable as a header. If the header background was the same color as any other cell, any distinction between header cells and data cells would be lost, which I think is not desireable." and the ensuing discussion was the nub of the debate. The section MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 12 and the following sections was where the decision was made. --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * doh - I didn't see that, I'll strike out my post. Thanks for finding it for me. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's no problem. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't make a proposal to remove the background colour (after all, the decision is 10 years old and consensus can change), but I wanted you to have a good look at the previous arguments, so that you would be well-informed before deciding on whether to make a proposal. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's no problem. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't make a proposal to remove the background colour (after all, the decision is 10 years old and consensus can change), but I wanted you to have a good look at the previous arguments, so that you would be well-informed before deciding on whether to make a proposal. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Indopaedia
I didn't see a ds notification on their talk page and have added one. Also blocked for their posts on your talk page.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * apologies. I added a ds alert immediately after my warning but forgot to make the second save after checking the log - the tab is still open, unsaved. Thanks for fixing that. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hats are uncollapsible
Hi, RexxS - the strangest thing has happened, and it's the same in all 3 browsers (Safari, Chrome, Firefox). At AE, when I click on [show] it does not uncollapse the discussion. I even tried the toolbar script "Uncollapse all" and it doesn't open them, either. Have I messed up a setting in Preferences, or is one of the recent scripts I added to common.js creating a conflict? Atsme Talk 📧 11:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * it works for me, You can check by logging out and then trying again. I'm pretty sure that will work for you. Make sure it still fails when you log back in. I can't see your preferences so I can't help there. Looking at your User:Atsme/common.js, I can see you've recently installed a bunch of scripts. You can enclose them in /* and */ to comment them out temporarily as a block. Then try the uncollapsing at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement again. If it solves the problem, move the /* and */ to comment out just half of them and continue to test until you've isolated the problem script. HTH --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This issue is really bizarre. Is it possible to send you a screen capture (without having to upload the image) showing that the [show] links are not active? Something must have changed in Wikipedia space. I don't have that issue in namespace or user space. Did the hat template change recently? Atsme  Talk 📧 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, following your instructions, of course. I am now duly reminded why I chose not to become a programmer or write code. Atsme Talk 📧 18:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * well done! We'll make a techie out of you yet. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All I can say at this point is that I admire the hell out of you for being able to do this type of work, and actually knowing what you're doing. It reminds me too much of balancing my checkbook and tax preparation!! Anything goes! 😂 Atsme  Talk 📧 21:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All I can say at this point is that I admire the hell out of you for being able to do this type of work, and actually knowing what you're doing. It reminds me too much of balancing my checkbook and tax preparation!! Anything goes! 😂 Atsme  Talk 📧 21:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Color contrast/sandbox1
Module:Color contrast/sandbox1 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... 02:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted G6 and G7. --RexxS (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted G6 and G7. --RexxS (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Pseudoscience closed and archived
Clarification request: Pseudoscience has been closed and archived. The archived clarification request can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Importing some templates from ca.wiki
Hi, In ca.wiki they are using Infoboxes where all the data is fetched from WD. The infobox looks pretty and i would like to test that in testpage / sandbox. Is it possible to import the template Infotaula persona and related templates here to a test sub page of Template:Infobox person. If it is could you import that here to en.wiki.- ❙❚❚ ❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚ ❙❙ ✉ 04:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the Catalan infobox calls sub-templates/modules and I'm not expert enough in Catalan to track them all down. If I were to import the main template and all its sub-pages to a sub-page of our Template:Infobox person, it would still try to call any sub-pages as if they were in the main Template: namespace, so you would have to rename each of the calls in the code to start from Template:Infobox person/Test. Are you able to do that? Otherwise I could import it straight into Template: space and call it Template:Infotaula persona.
 * Optionally, there is Template:Wikidata infobox that has much of the same functionality here on enwiki if you wanted to experiment, and there is also Template:Infobox person/Wikidata which is used on some articles and might be worth experimenting with (i.e. try out ideas in its sandbox).
 * Let me know what you think. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. In cawiki i have seen they are using 'Infotaula persona' template for all persons which also includes the parameters used in 'Infobox officeholder' here. I have tested in my sandbox page here in enwiki with the templates Template:Wikidata infobox, Template:Infobox person/Wikidata and Template:Infobox_officeholder/Wikidata to recreate a similar one like i tested here in my cawiki sandbox page. But couldn't able to fetch details and show parameters like term_start, term_end, predecessor, successor etc in the Infobox here in enwiki. So i was thinking of testing the functions of 'Infotaula persona' here. I have seen that it depends on are some sub-templates/modules in cawiki and needs to rename the calls while importing here. It is a good idea to import here with the same name, ie 'Template:Infotaula persona'. So it will no affect the current articles and process of rewriting the codes also can be minimized. So i think it will be the best way to import in that name only. :) - ❙❚❚ ❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚ ❙❙ ✉ 15:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just went to Special:Import to do the import for you and found that we don't have the system set up to import from Catalan wiki. The only thing I can suggest is for you to copy-paste the templates from the Catalan Wikipedia to here and include a note in the edit summary stating "imported from https://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plantilla:Infotaula_persona&oldid=25116376" (or whatever is the current version). Sorry. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ya.. I understood the issues with importing. I have also checked with my native wiki (mlwiki). The same issues is also there. Thank you for helping me with this. As you suggested i will try testing by creating a template by copy-paste with a summary note. Since import is not possible for now i will create template and test it mlwiki. Thank you :) - ❙❚❚ ❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚ ❙❙ ✉ 17:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ya.. I understood the issues with importing. I have also checked with my native wiki (mlwiki). The same issues is also there. Thank you for helping me with this. As you suggested i will try testing by creating a template by copy-paste with a summary note. Since import is not possible for now i will create template and test it mlwiki. Thank you :) - ❙❚❚ ❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚ ❙❙ ✉ 17:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:MED Newsletter - October 2020
Ajpolino (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

two templates
Please take a look at Psalm 25. It comes with a bible chapter. Consistent with other psalms, such as Psalm 84, it should have also infobox musical composition. Ideas about combinations? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a musical composition; essentially, it is a poem that was written in Hebrew, translated (via Latin?) to Czech, and only then was part of it set to music - many centuries after it was written. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We know it was sung early, we only don't know how. It were sung - complete - at least from medieval times with reciting tones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WPMed
Rexxs please keep things civil. Its borderline imo, but perhaps advisable you strike the first line of this. Concerns about the post were raised by a new editor at the Teahouse. I know it's a project page you were on, but the kind of environment created by posts like that isn't great anywhere on Wikipedia. I hope you can see what I'm getting at. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He's right, though. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem,, is that Colin has a long history of provoking disputes by making personal attacks. His "baloney" remark was the trigger for what ensued, but I don't see you complaining to him. Why is that? I'm not prepared to sit back and be attacked by a bully and so I'm afraid that you'll just have to accept that I'll vigorously defend myself and the encyclopedia when under attack. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, you're arguing that calling an idea 'baloney' is the same as telling someone they're 'talking out of their backside'? I'm afraid I can't agree, and if you object to an idea being referred to as baloney, then object to it instead of retaliating for it. —valereee (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , being right doesn't mean you get to also be uncivil. Rexxs needs to strike that comment -- which he made not once but twice -- and stop behaving aggressively toward other well-intentioned editors in discussions. —valereee (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't need to strike that comment. My comments were made in direct response to Colin's provocative "baloney" remark that you seem to think is perfectly acceptable. Well, I don't. Go and take your opprobrium off to the editor who started the incivility. Do you think I'm not well-intentioned as well? I'm well aware of your partisan stance. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , what partisan stance is that? —valereee (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * RexxS, I really can't just let go by an accusation like that from an admin. What partisan stance are you accusing me of? —valereee (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Valereee: yes, you really can. "Partisan": adjective, prejudiced in favour of a particular cause. I see you also choose not to answer my question  Do you think I'm not well-intentioned as well? Harassment is the next policy for you to read. --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I think you're very well-intentioned. What particular cause do you think I'm prejudiced in favor of? —valereee (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, your reasoning reminds me of the phrase "they go low, I go lower". Except in this case it's not a bloody fight in a dark alleyway; its a discussion on an online platform that has standards.

We both know this isn't your first rodeo, I've seen the diffs posted at your RfA, so you can understand why I'm not buying into the holier-than-him scenario.

Concerns by a third-party were raised about you, not the other editor. So no I'm not personally targeting you.

I'm just asking that you hold yourself to the standard expected of an admin. That shouldn't be coming as a surprise.

With the greatest respect I have no interest in discussing this further. I've said what I felt necessary, and how you move forwards is of course your own choice. I'm all for a bit of robust rebuking, but for all our sakes just keep it clean. All the best, Zindor (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have no interest in discussion it further, why are you continuing? If you want to attack my responses to provocation, feel free to do so, but please don't expect me to take your objections seriously while you're only addressing one side of an argument. So yes, you are personally targeting just me, and it's pretty poor form to attempt to deny it. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have no interest in discussion it further, why are you continuing? If you want to attack my responses to provocation, feel free to do so, but please don't expect me to take your objections seriously while you're only addressing one side of an argument. So yes, you are personally targeting just me, and it's pretty poor form to attempt to deny it. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Another LUA question: pulling out qualifiers
I've done quite a bit of work on v:Module:WikiJournal and it's almost fully up and running (see example at 10.15347/wjm/2020.002). There's one feature I need a quick assist on: once I've pulled out a value, how do I also pull out a qualifier for it? Within the  function, I've managed to pull the editor's roles (e.g. for Q96317242, the role of the editor 'Eric Youngstrom' is as the 'statistician'). Thanks in advance! T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 02:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the structure of value and qualifiers in the Wikidata database simply stores qualifiers along with each value, so you need to read and store the qualifiers at the time you read and store each value. In Module:WikidataIB. I handle that by passing a qual parameter that can be "ALL" or a list of property-IDs. Most of the handling is around lines 1250 onwards in the module.
 * I've added a rough version of the qualifier functionality to v:Module:WikiJournal/sandbox and demonstrated it at v:Module talk:WikiJournal/sandbox. You can check my additions by examining this diff and then it should be fairly straightforward to amend the output to whatever you want. Give me another shout if you need any help with that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perfect - thank you. Even more flexible that I'd initially thought of but definitely a good implementation. I find learning first principles of a language much easier after doing a bit of copy-paste-edit coding to get a feel for it. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 04:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A follwup question on it: it seems to require the qid to be explicitly set. When the qid is pulled for the current page by, then the quals aren't pulled by  . Any fix ideas? T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 05:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is this: when the call is used without a qid parameter passed, line 19 becomes true and so it fetches args from a parent call. That is there to allow the module function to be called by a template (which becomes the parent) - so you could make a template to get authors called WJA that contains  and just use it like this:.
 * Anyway, when the qid parameter is omitted, the code thinks it's being called from a parent so makes args an empty table, and therefore it never finds the qid parameter you passed directly. The code you copied for lines 18-21 worked in the original setting because it had to have a qid parameter there. I've modified the test in line 19 to simply check whether args is an empty table instead. See if that works for you now. --RexxS (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for all this help! I've managed to get this template to pull most parameters straight from wikidata and pass them to relevant formatting templates for different scernarios (e.g. articles / volume list)! I've put another quick question about finding a page's associated QID from its talkpage ( doesn't work) over at link. Feel free to chime in if there's anything else to add. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 00:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Use the code from inside this demo routine:
 * Always happy to help. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Use the code from inside this demo routine:
 * Always happy to help. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Always happy to help. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Time-bounded qualifiers
Another question for v:Module:WikiJournal's getAuthors function: I want to return employers unless is before  or  after. My aim is to then check the affiliation and affiliation string for the author's employer statement, then its, then the of that territory. Does that sound reasonable? For example, this author of this publication should render as: The main bit I'm struggling with is the date restriction bit. Any assistance appreciated! T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 07:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jae Seok Song: Department of Preventive Medicine & Public Health, Catholic Kwandong University, Gangneung, South Korea; Hanil General Hospital, Seoul, South Korea

Troubled in using inline citations
Hello Rex, I was looking remove cite overkill and replace references styles with SFN citations for peer-reviewed articles of some pages. I'm having a bit of trouble in doing same on Indian Space Research Organisation as the note I created isnt guiding me to bibliography. Help requested to identify error I'm making. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Aman Kumar Goel: Each author needs to be identified by last name and first name in order for the SFN template to work. Don't use  or the software is unable to identify the last names. Use    and so on. I have amended the article as a demonstration for you since RexxS is sick and unlikely to edit for a while. — Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)