User talk:RexxS/Archive 64

Table accessibility
Hello! I am looking into submitting Ted Kaczynski at FAC, and it was recommended in speaking with my mentor and SandyGeorgia that you be consulted on accessibility in the table of bombings on the page. If you could look into this and let me know if any changes could be make I would appreciate it. I understand that you are facing some medical trouble, so please take your time on this and let me know if you're not up to it. Best wishes for a fast recovery! AviationFreak 💬 22:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Thanks for being concerned about accessibility. I thought it was easiest just to do the edits I would normally recommend to improve accessibility for a table. I've done them one at a time to act as an example for you for future use: caption; column headers; row headers. It doesn't take me long and I'm always happy to help out. You're in good hands with Gog and Sandy, so good luck with your FA! --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! AviationFreak 💬 23:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! AviationFreak 💬 23:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed
The PubMed link in Wikidata is fixed; see. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Gentile vs blunt
RexxS, I'm sorry that you feel I may be wasting the time of others. You are welcome to offer a friendly nudge in that direction on my talk page. Posting it on the project talk page comes off as a threat and suggests that editors shouldn't ask questions. Perhaps that wasn't your intention but that is how it came across. Please forgive the intrusion. Springee (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * your persistent pushing of insufficiently-sourced content into multiple articles is wasting other editors' time. Arguing the toss at WT:MED with six posts is bludgeoning the debate. When you do that, you are quite right to take my response as a threat, as it is intended to discourage your unwelcome style of sealioning. It does nothing to discourage the asking of a question by someone who actually takes notice of the reply.
 * Now, I do resent your intrusion and your flagrant attempt to play the victim card here. Your previous behaviours are a matter of record and I'm not going to play games with you. If you continue to behave like that, I won't hesitate to sanction you for it. Your choice. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All it took was WhatAmIDoing to discuss the matter vs dismiss it as if the answer were obvious. Also, I added this content to zero articles.  I disagreed with the specific reason for removal and Alexbrn's reply which had little more depth than "because".  Please remember that may of us are smart people who have worked in science and research.  I asked because the original answers were insufficient not because I was edit warring to get content in.  Threats from Alexbrn rather than a good explanation is part of why I continued to press for a better answer.  Regardless, WhatAmIDoing gave a thoughtful answer and I will drop it.  Springee (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, had to waste her time explaining to you why that primary source would not support the claim you were making. All it should have taken was for you to read WP:MEDRS and WP:REDFLAG. She should not have to analyse the deficiencies in a particular primary source for you to get the general principle that we don't use those sort of sources for that sort of content. That much is certainly obvious. You are not a child and should not need it explained to you how a general policy or guideline applies to a particular source. --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, had to waste her time explaining to you why that primary source would not support the claim you were making. All it should have taken was for you to read WP:MEDRS and WP:REDFLAG. She should not have to analyse the deficiencies in a particular primary source for you to get the general principle that we don't use those sort of sources for that sort of content. That much is certainly obvious. You are not a child and should not need it explained to you how a general policy or guideline applies to a particular source. --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - this discussion doesn't live up to the intriguing header! Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven 250 years
The birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . But it's really his baptismal day tomorrow – we're only guessing about his birthday! Keep safe. --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We had longish discussions about that, DYK? I suggested to spread them out over several sets, - you see how successful that was. Google will tell us tomorrow that its his 250th birthday, sigh. I feel like Cassandre. - The major German paper had 6 pages devoted to Beethoven, today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We had longish discussions about that, DYK? I suggested to spread them out over several sets, - you see how successful that was. Google will tell us tomorrow that its his 250th birthday, sigh. I feel like Cassandre. - The major German paper had 6 pages devoted to Beethoven, today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019

 * Hi, should this also not be reverted in article if its a primary source?
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20200226041548if_/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext
 * The above as well as the below are both primary sources with secondary references, but you only asked for removal of the below. I understand hesitancy for having pre-print, but then shouldn't it apply to all articles under COVID-19?
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0300891620974755
 * Thanks Albertaont (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * should this also not be reverted in article if its a primary source? – yes, if it were a primary source, but many would see it as a review, albeit a pretty limited one. That's the sort of thing that ought to be discussed at the article talk page.
 * I understand hesitancy for having pre-print, but then shouldn't it apply to all articles under COVID-19? – yes, in fact it ought to apply to all articles. Preprints fail WP:RS as well as MEDRS, and you can see the disclaimer at https://www.medrxiv.org/ that clearly shows how unsuitable preprints are for general use like Wikipedia. They are only suitable to inform other researchers who are capable of assessing the data.
 * Thank you for your understanding. I hope you'll feel free to ask me if you are uncertain; and more importantly, to engage early on the talk page as that will bring more eyes to bear on issues as they arise. --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand hesitancy for having pre-print, but then shouldn't it apply to all articles under COVID-19? – yes, in fact it ought to apply to all articles. Preprints fail WP:RS as well as MEDRS, and you can see the disclaimer at https://www.medrxiv.org/ that clearly shows how unsuitable preprints are for general use like Wikipedia. They are only suitable to inform other researchers who are capable of assessing the data.
 * Thank you for your understanding. I hope you'll feel free to ask me if you are uncertain; and more importantly, to engage early on the talk page as that will bring more eyes to bear on issues as they arise. --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Tozinameran
I wrote a tongue-in-cheek sentence to try to lighten the mood a bit. It was obviously sarcastic, I explicitly indicated so. If you really resent it I will delete it, but I would prefer not to. Vpab15 (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem - it's the usual issues of text not being capable of transmitting nuance very well. There's no need to delete anything; it's all part of the rough-and-tumble of robust debate. --RexxS (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem - it's the usual issues of text not being capable of transmitting nuance very well. There's no need to delete anything; it's all part of the rough-and-tumble of robust debate. --RexxS (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

White House
Now that's interesting. I have it on good authority that its elevation is 59 feet. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 03:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tozinameran copyvio followup
... here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was having a bit of a rest today, but I'm pleased that MER-C has acted decisively. I'll keep it on my radar in case anything else is needed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was having a bit of a rest today, but I'm pleased that MER-C has acted decisively. I'll keep it on my radar in case anything else is needed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

False ban
Hi, I filed a request for unban as pre-arbitration step here. It will be great if you can speak out there, since you were the initiator.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Attracting incompetent edits
Very much inclined to agree with you here (I think that's the second time I've had to undo a new editor's "heat transfers very well into the water"), but it seems wrong to resolve the issue by saying that the article actually doesn't need copyediting after all.

Has there been a change to Wikipedia signup process recently where new users are guided towards articles tagged as needing copyediting, even if English isn't their first language? Or has it always been like this? I've only really noticed it in the past couple of months or so, and it is frustrating. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have only about 700 articles on my watchlist, mostly scuba-related, and Drowning has popped up with aberrant "grammar" edits more than a dozen times in the last few months and it sticks out like a sore thumb. I suspect that one or the other of those templates are the root cause of that as they were placed in September, but I have no idea of the precise mechanism. My guess is that somebody is pointing new editors to the cleanup categories, but I can't find any evidence of that in the affected user talk pages.
 * What is clear, though, is that the continual barrage of poor and ungrammatical edits are not improving the article, but rather compounding the concerns expressed in the templates. Removing them won't help fix the problem, but with any luck it will stop the article getting worse. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What is clear, though, is that the continual barrage of poor and ungrammatical edits are not improving the article, but rather compounding the concerns expressed in the templates. Removing them won't help fix the problem, but with any luck it will stop the article getting worse. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've seen it on a few articles where I've added a copyedit template and new users have soon started appearing making well-meaning but often flawed corrections. I figure there must be a welcome page or student guidebook somewhere that's somehow suggesting checking out Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, and users are clicking on a recent month and picking an article from it. I'll do some more detective work and ask around. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That editor was clearly using an automated grammar checker tool, without sufficient competence in English to do it right. I've just spent longer than I really wanted to, reviewing them all and reverting most - there were some good corrections amid the bad, but I just didn't have the time to re-apply those. I've told them to stop. If anyone can do a quick check on what they're doing from time to time, that would be very helpful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Ya'll are probably looking for mw:Growth/Personalized first day/Newcomer tasks. --Izno (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it certainly feels like it, but as far as I can see, it only seems to be being trialled on the Arabic, Vietnamese, Czech, and Korean Wikipedias. Is there any way of finding out whether that project applies to enwiki? I don't engage with MediaWiki, so asking there isn't an option for me. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look enabled here indeed, so maybe it is just innocent users. Special:Version says mw:Extension:GettingStarted is installed here, but maybe it is configured off? might be able to verify. --Izno (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I never get that right. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can request that the Growth team consider enabling (some or all of) it. I hear that they've gotten some good results recently, but I don't know whether they've been posted yet.  Apparently newcomers are more likely to keep editing and less likely to need reverting if they have these services. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I started Template:Welcome training almost five years ago and still use it for some goodfaith newbies, and while that doesn't include the copy editing category, there have been quite a few other variants and discussions about steering newbies to uncontentious but useful things to do over the years. So it could be a U3A class or some other training exercise approach out there. But it wouldn't surprise me if this is people who are native Arabic, Vietnamese, Czech or Korean speakers who then come to the more complete English Wikipedia as so many others do.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Passenger data representation
Hey RexxS,

Wonder if I can get your thoughts on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways? Is there a way to represent this data nicely in Wikidata? Example article: Manchester Piccadilly station, the stuff under the "Passengers" header on the infobox (specifically, the year, the number of passengers for that year, and the number of interchange passengers for that year). I suspect maybe "passengers" needs to be a label, and things like passengers/interchange passengers as qualifiers, or something? Alternatively, we could use data templates (one for each year)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have the figures on Wikidata, but I don't see a suitable property to hold the values. I'll ping to see if he knows of any suitable properties.
 * It's quite analogous to properties like, and places like have a large number of values with the point in time as a qualifier. Interestingly, that item illustrates an alternative means of holding the data in a central location by use of  and you can see the data on Commons at c:Data:Taipei Population.tab, where it can be manipulated as JSON data. I think that eventually that is the best place to hold the data, but we would have to write a module to retrieve the data and format it for display on Wikipedia. The idea would be to use a bot to scrape an external database ource and automatically update the data table.
 * In the meantime, using a data template is probably the only sensible option (although you could optionally hold it in a Lua data module as a more flexible means of working with the data). I'll try to make some Commons data tables for stations and knock up a demo to see what the snags are. That might take me a few days (or longer if the tools to do the job don't exist yet). --RexxS (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There appears to be no explicit property for this; the best I can come up with is, qualified with a number and date, thus. It needs a ciattion. Perhaps it's worth proposing a property?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * --Izno (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! That definitely fits the bill. So we could store the data on Wikidata quite cleanly. I could certainly pull that in automatically from Wikidata. I'll have a look at that.--RexxS (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikidata is messy when trying to specify time periods. I've added the values for to.
 * See how the labels for the qualifiers switch from hyphen to ndash? Yuk. I'd have to write a custom module to get a decent output, but that's easy enough. --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See how the labels for the qualifiers switch from hyphen to ndash? Yuk. I'd have to write a custom module to get a decent output, but that's easy enough. --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See how the labels for the qualifiers switch from hyphen to ndash? Yuk. I'd have to write a custom module to get a decent output, but that's easy enough. --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I made a quick demo of a table at c:Data:Sandbox/RexxS/Piccadilly.tab. Creating the page is a clunky process that doesn't work as advertised since JSON doesn't actually support comments and it doesn't like the last item in a list being terminated with a comma. However, adding data afterwards is simple and altering labels is a doddle. There is a module already written to read such tables at Module:Tabular data and it can be used to explore the data on Commons. gives:

It's easy enough to write a bespoke module for displaying the table data as multiple rows in an infobox as I did for Module:Infobox power station. As there's no automatic association between a Commons data table and a Wikipedia article, the name of the data table would have to be passed each time unless the name of the Commons page matched the Wikipedia article title, when we could pass that, but if other wikis wanted to use the code, it would fail because of the localisation of the article title. Let me know if you want me to help experiment further. --RexxS (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is very neat, and thanks for getting around to it so quickly! Some initial questions:
 * Rail pass box usually asks for a percentage change (YOY) and then does the increase/decrease calculation automatically based on that. You can see an example at Union Station (Los Angeles). UK railway stations didn't use Rail pass box pre-merge, so we carried over the increase/decrease method. I still have to discuss this as a matter of content at WT:UKRAIL, but if they decide to show % change is it possible to calculate this auto (based on previous year's figures) or would it need to be manually added to each row in the tabular data?
 * Are the Commons Data and Wikidata in sync or separate? As in when the yearly update of passenger numbers is done, would the bot/script run on Wikidata or Commons or both?
 * UK stations only show the most recent 5 years of data, so that when 2020-2021 data is added, the 2015-2016 should automatically hide in the infobox. I'm guessing it's possible to add some logic in to do this?
 * ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it's an interesting problem and it piqued my interest.
 * Because there would have to be a Lua module that reads the data, it is trivial to calculate the percentage increase/decrease for each year (except the first year for which we have data, of course). I would anticipate having the module read the entire data set for the station and calculate percentages - that's a very quick operation. I only put the Inc/Dec column in the tabular data for demonstration.
 * The data held on Commons are completely separate from those on Wikidata, sadly. I would choose one method or the other. It is quite possible that someone might write a bot to scan the Commons data and replicate the changes on Wikidata, or a bot/script could update both at the same time.
 * The logic to show only the last n years is pretty simple. The data would be held as a sequence in the module (i.e. a table indexed from 1 to the number of entries) and it's easy to loop through the last n of those when running the display routine. It would mean passing n to the module, but that would then be hard-coded into the invocation in each infobox definition, and editors would not have to concern themselves with it for each article (although it could be a parameter with a default value of n, if per-article variance was desirable).
 * Please feel free to get back to me if you want some more-tailored demos to use when discussing the possibilities at the WikiProject. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is still on my list, by the way, just very slowly getting through it :). All the above seems good to me. Do you have any preference for Commons vs Wikidata for this? The automatic link with Wikidata appears like it may be helpful, with regards to localisation? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * there are pros and cons of each method: the Commons one is a simple table and possibly easier to maintain; the Wikidata one is easier to use in an article and would be more portable across projects. My slight preference would be for Wikidata, but I have a bias toward solutions that are easier for others to use in different languages (although I know not everybody on enwiki shares my enthusiasm). --RexxS (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - January 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 20th Birthday
Wikimedia UK is having a #WikiLovesCakes competition to celebrate Wikipedia's 20th birthday:

https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1349666254076973058?s=20

You can join in by baking and posting a picture of your cake.

For the less culinary gifted, like myself, you can always give your visitors virtual cake by copying my editnotice User talk:RexxS/Editnotice to your own talkpage editnotice. --RexxS (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy 20th Birthday, Wikipedia!

Archive gone rouge
Hi, RexxS - that cake looks awfully good - made me pause for some cookies (and that punishing extra pound of fat-flesh). On a more serious note, I can't figure out what I've done wrong with One-click archiver. See User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 1, which worked fine when I first began. I tried to archive the most recent training, and it ended up at User talk:Atsme archive 1 instead of User talk: Atsme/NPP training/Archive 1. I removed the talk header template, and added the MitzaBot info, an archive box and TOC. When I clicked on Archive, it created NPP training/Archive 1 - egads! What am I forgetting to do, or doing that I shouldn't be doing?  Atsme 💬 📧 12:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the problem may have been due to a typo - check this change I made. I don't use One-click, so I can't be certain what the possible snags might be, but I can usually fix MitzaBot issues. If it doesn't solve you problem, let me know. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thank you so much, RexxS. Pipe to forward slash - SMirC-crazy.svg.  Atsme 💬 📧 17:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thank you so much, RexxS. Pipe to forward slash - SMirC-crazy.svg.  Atsme 💬 📧 17:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wuhan Institute of Virology
Hi RexxS, I'm not aware of a current 1RR restriction at the above article, so I'm wondering why you just warned one of the parties in the recent edit war. The 'unwarned' party also wrote derogatory edit summaries. Arcturus (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is currently no 1RR on the article, but that is not a licence to editwar. If the edit warring does not stop, I will impose an explicit 1RR restriction, but the absence of that in no way inhibits my ability to use my discretion to impose community-authorised general sanctions at any time where I believe it to be necessary. The editor I warned initiated the problem by reinserting content that had been challenged by reversion in this edit. Had they been aware of the general sanctions they would have been blocked at that point. I was under the impression that the editor reverting those changes was aware of the general sanctions, but having checked, I've now left an alert on their talk page. Thank you for prompting me to check. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's a very difficult article in many respects. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's a very difficult article in many respects. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Stay well
I don't know much about what's going on these days since I retired, but I'm relieved to know that you survived that virus. We have been very lucky here in Thailand, but case are now appearing due to it being brought over recently by a bunch of illegal immigrants crossing a jungle border from Burma, and domestic travel here is at a standstill. Now that my last surviving close relative (my Mum) passed away a couple of weeks ago, I have no reason to visit Malvern again, and I doubt that I shall ever return to the UK any time soon. Stay well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I survived but it took quite a time to get back to anything like normal. I'm very sorry to hear about your mom, but you know you always have your friends here to meet up with if you do visit the UK at some future time. Keep safe and keep in touch. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I met you at London Wikimania, and you came to an Oxford meetup once or twice. You'll be welcome back there again, once we get meetups going again. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I met you at London Wikimania, and you came to an Oxford meetup once or twice. You'll be welcome back there again, once we get meetups going again. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

CoVID-19 and urgent BLP issue
I have an urgent request about an article that has been created about a private individual (i.e., not a public figure) who has been targeted by a conspiracy theory on Chinese social media. I'm wary of even linking to the article directly, but if you look at my recent contribution history, you'll see it quickly. This individual is only known to the public because of this conspiracy theory, there is no evidence grounding the theory, and there is very little secondary coverage of the conspiracy theory - it mostly exists on social media. Those factors mean that this individual falls under WP:BLP1E. The closest American equivalent to this would be if QAnon conspiracy theorists were to make wild claims about a private individual, and then some Wikipedia user were to write an entire article about that individual, detailing the claims made by the conspiracy theorists. I think the article should ideally be oversighted, but at the very least, it should be deleted without bringing further attention to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the article can't be speedy deleted. declined the G10 and  deleted and then restored the article. I've had to involve myself by taking the article to AfD at Articles for deletion/Huang Yanling. It is unfortunate that it prolongs the problem and brings more attention, but that's the only course left open. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the article can't be speedy deleted. declined the G10 and  deleted and then restored the article. I've had to involve myself by taking the article to AfD at Articles for deletion/Huang Yanling. It is unfortunate that it prolongs the problem and brings more attention, but that's the only course left open. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Help with wikidata error correction please
An error has been identified on wikidata (copied into various language wikipedia articles) and I don't know how to fix it. On there is a link to  (St. Joseph's Seminary (Mangalore)) but there are several institutions with the name St. Joseph Seminary & this is the wrong one for Patrick W. Skehan. This came to light when I disambiguated a link on the en:wp article to be the same as the infobox (it has since been fixed in the article text). Any help fixing the problem on wikidata appreciated, as I don't know how.&mdash; Rod talk 09:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you know which is the correct St. Joseph Seminary? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Found it and fixed for you &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, !
 * we'll have to have a session at one of the virtual meetups on how to fix these sort of errors. Hopefully, Wikidata Bridge will make the job easier when it gets implemented, but in the meantime, it's starting to look like an essential skill for regular editors. --RexxS (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martin. I have never learned any coding (apart from basic html) & the complexity of the interface on wikidata means it obstructs the purpose of creating an encyclopedia rather than aiding it for me at present. Maybe wikidata bridge will help but I will not hold my breath.&mdash; Rod talk 10:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martin. I have never learned any coding (apart from basic html) & the complexity of the interface on wikidata means it obstructs the purpose of creating an encyclopedia rather than aiding it for me at present. Maybe wikidata bridge will help but I will not hold my breath.&mdash; Rod talk 10:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

2021
I tried to give 2021 a good start by updating the QAI project topics, and one item mentions your essay on indenting. Please check and correct, - not a member, but an old friend! - For moar private "happy new year" see here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how WPEUR10k leaves a blank line afterwards, and it shouldn't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There were extra newlines in the template's definition. I've removed them now. You may have to purge the article where the template is used to see the change. --RexxS (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see some magic fixie dust! That'll come in handy! [Darwinbish fills her pockets and absconds.] darwin&thinsp;bish 13:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
 * Thank you, I thought it was that because I was sure I saw it without before a 31 Dec change. I just couldn't change the template. It's not for articles but a project claim on (thousands of) talk pages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Next: I am blind for why, in the structure table in BWV 1, the last line for movement 6 looks different from the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a blank line before the table end. That appeared in the final cell of the last row, which caused the disturbance. I've sprinkled more magic fixie dust; let's hope doesn't take all of it. --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and for the chocolate cake for WP's 20th! I am proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a different cake today! I think of Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a different cake today! I think of Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Natalia Tena revert
Wanted to apologize for my mistake. I straight up glossed over the description of the tag and assumed it was referring to her being a musician, so I thought it was an easy solve. Thank you for catching me! Sock  ( tock talk)  21:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for reaching out. I do agree about her main notability is as an actress judging from the sources, so I've tried to put back that part of your edit. Hope that looks alright now. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for reaching out. I do agree about her main notability is as an actress judging from the sources, so I've tried to put back that part of your edit. Hope that looks alright now. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - February 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience/hypothesis
Thanks for your help with the infobox! Just one problem -- the infobox is captioned with "Pseudoscientific concepts", which can't be removed from the template with my current understanding of template editing (see it on the article itself), and this still applies to the Template:Infobox hypothesis redirect. How would one fix that issue? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added another parameter note to the infobox; the parameter defaults to . As a demo, I've used it to create a link to Hypothesis at the bottom of the infobox in Imprinted brain hypothesis. Obviously, you can change it if you have a better target or wording. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added another parameter note to the infobox; the parameter defaults to . As a demo, I've used it to create a link to Hypothesis at the bottom of the infobox in Imprinted brain hypothesis. Obviously, you can change it if you have a better target or wording. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Shortcut
You must have a template that you substitute to get &lt;code>&lt;nowiki> &lt;/nowiki>&lt;/code> →  because there is no way you type that every time! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah, somebody created a template to do that, but I can't remember its name, so I can't use it. Please excuse me refactoring your markup, but it screws up my syntax-highlighting if you allow the parser to see an opening angle bracket.
 * Anyway, before I compose a reply, I use the edit-box to test the code I'm calling. I use an old editing interface that allows me to insert &lt;code>&lt;nowiki>&lt;/nowiki>&lt;/code> with the cursor positioned in the centre, so I just cut the code, insert the code-nowiki; paste the code; add → at the end; and then paste the code again.
 * If I had a better memory, I could subst a template, but sadly, my powers are declining as my seventh decade approaches. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Was it tl? Vexations (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * nope, sorry. It would have to have content something like  →  I know it's out there somewhere. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While looking at some changes at Template:Val/doc, I noticed Module:DemoTemplate. I have never used it and I don't think RexxS or I will change our ways, but anyone compiling a list might like to start with that. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I can't get it to work quite right when there's an invoke inside a parameter. Compare:
 * &rarr;
 * The first one just uses  as the  parameters to CiteQ; the second one actually has an invoke of WikidataIB, but you don't see it; the third one uses  . but the module sticks an extra   into it. Close, though. --RexxS (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * &rarr;
 * The first one just uses  as the  parameters to CiteQ; the second one actually has an invoke of WikidataIB, but you don't see it; the third one uses  . but the module sticks an extra   into it. Close, though. --RexxS (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The first one just uses  as the  parameters to CiteQ; the second one actually has an invoke of WikidataIB, but you don't see it; the third one uses  . but the module sticks an extra   into it. Close, though. --RexxS (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I nearest thing I found was Template:Codenowiki, but it doesn't do the arrow and the evaluation &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Zongqi
Hello. User:Zongqi who you unblocked the other day is repeating inappropriate editing. In Shikigami page, which has nothing to do with traditional Chinese medicine, he used sources that have nothing to do with shikigami to promote traditional Chinese medicine. His edits was also confirmed in the Ikigai from October to December 2020, and his behavior did not change before and after he was blocked. His edits have also been criticized by IP users in the summary section of Ikigai. I am concerned that he keeps writing incorrect information to promote traditional Chinese medicine and philosophy, using irrelevant or inaccurate sources on various wikipedia pages.--Green cigarette (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please look at the talk:Ikigai. Talking with him is very difficult because of his irrational beliefs about traditional Chinese medicine and his extraordinary zeal.--Green cigarette (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with it. But please remember WP:Vandalism defines "vandalism" as "editing (or other behavior) ". I know it's galling to be accused of vandalism, but it is never appropriate to reply in kind. It doesn't matter how inaccurate or inappropriate another editor's contributions may be, unless they are irrefutably editing with a clear intent to damage the encyclopedia, you can't accuse them of vandalism, or you may find yourself in trouble for personal attacks. I hope you will consider this advice in the spirit in which it is intended. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with it. But please remember WP:Vandalism defines "vandalism" as "editing (or other behavior) ". I know it's galling to be accused of vandalism, but it is never appropriate to reply in kind. It doesn't matter how inaccurate or inappropriate another editor's contributions may be, unless they are irrefutably editing with a clear intent to damage the encyclopedia, you can't accuse them of vandalism, or you may find yourself in trouble for personal attacks. I hope you will consider this advice in the spirit in which it is intended. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I understood your advice. Thank you.--Green cigarette (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Zongqi
Hello, RexxS. Is there any insight you can give me? Requesting unblock at. Quotes: I've seen your extensive AGFness on their talk page. Thanks, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 10:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, RexxS, ! Sorry to butt in, I happened to see this. Isn't it likely that this is another sock of Shenqijing, who RexxS already knows? I haven't looked deeply, but the timing looks right (account created a few days after the Sntmichael sock was created and blocked), they both claim to be Dharma teachers, and there seems to be a good deal of overlap in edits. Regards to you both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not familiar with that SM, but I was wondering if they were someone's sock. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 15:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Without seeing the UTRS ticket, I obviously can't comment on the request as a whole, but Zongqi seems to concentrate only on other people's behaviour and rarely addresses their own. I looked through their contributions before taking action and there is a catalogue of attempting to link Wuxing (Chinese philosophy) to a wide range of "fringey" topic areas despite regular objections from editors on the affected articles. You only need look at Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 18 for an example of how difficult it is to communicate with them, and their seeming inability to understand other editors. I removed my initial block on the grounds that they might keep away from conflict, but they simply went back to their previous modus operandi, sadly.
 * As for the quotes you gave above, I believe the first was when another editor removed Zongqi's addition of Wuxing to an article (a Japanese article, I think) on the grounds of Wuxing being unrelated, Zongqi simply dismissed that as 'unreasonable' and proceeded to label the reverts as vandalism.
 * I have no idea what "a very lucrative publishing purpose" is intended to mean in relation to a Wikipedia article.
 * Zongqi has no idea that page histories exist, and so believes that any edit they make should remain until other editors can judge it. I believe that is an untenable situation.
 * Zongqi has clearly been quick to level evidence-free accusations of sockpuppetry against editors who disagree with them, which unfortunately I no longer find surprising.
 * Sorry I can't be of more assistance, but I've reached the end of my tether with Zongqi, and I think we're firmly in WP:standard offer territory now. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I can't be of more assistance, but I've reached the end of my tether with Zongqi, and I think we're firmly in WP:standard offer territory now. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)