User talk:RexxS: Difference between revisions

Hi Doug! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. And talkin' about being amenable, I would be extremely amenable to a beer in a quite little pub I know in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter! So check how many air miles you've got 'cause it's a long way.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Retrieving QID based on query in Wikipedia

Hi Rexx. Is there a way to do the inverse of module:WikidataIB, basically querying wikidata within wikipedia?

{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P496|qid=Q4273363|fetchwikidata=ALL|onlysourced=no}} → "0000-0002-4027-364X"
{{#invoke:QUERY |getQID |P496|value=0000-0002-4027-364X|fetchwikidata=ALL|onlysourced=no}} → "Q4273363"

Any ideas/advice appreciated! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 08:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas: Lua is unsuited to scanning through the Wikidata database to find a particular entry. For that you need a structured query language like that used in the Wikidata Query service (WDQS). Here's a short link to a query that does the job you want:

https://w.wiki/GMX

This is the actual query:

#Whose Orchid ID
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel 
WHERE 
{
  ?item wdt:P496 "0000-0002-4027-364X".
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

You can use Template:Wikidata list inside a Wikipedia page in your userspace to display the results of a WDQS query. The actual page updating is done by running User:ListeriaBot on the page. Have a look at the example in the template documentation for some ideas. Give me a ping if you run into any difficulties. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Thanks - that makes sense. I've had a go with essentially that query via listeriabot (sandbox link). It seems to only format output as a table (usually useful, but I need just the raw QID). Do you know a way to extract the value from a specific table row (#invoke:string or something?). Otherwise I'll contact the user who made the bot to ask if the output can be provided as a list rather than table. Thanks again for all the help! 07:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:SHORTDESC

Template:SHORTDESC has been nominated for merging with Template:Short description. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. DannyS712 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page-move error

Hi RexxS, I see you've reverted the move of Geschwinde, ihr wirbelnden Winde/The Dispute Between Phoebus and Pan. Whichever title is used, the BWV at the end should be BWV 201, but it's now ended up at 20. Could you fix that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS and Nikkimaria - I moved the page to the "201" — Ched (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The talk page still needs to be fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error

This was of course an error: you got the BWV number wrong (you wrote BWV 20 instead of the correct BWV 201). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's all sorted, thanks Ched. I've fixed the talk page now. @Francis: I probably would make less typos if I didn't have to repeatedly revert your contested moves. Have you never read WP:RM? You just need to make the case that sufficient English-language sources use your preferred title; surely that's something you can cope with. --RexxS (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editathon welcome message

I've just asked Catriona if she could ensure we have the usernames of any participants before the event. I will then send out the hastily-constructed welcome message below. (See you later!) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff! Thanks, Nick --RexxS (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, RexxS, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
I noticed you have an interest in editing on LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning-related topics, and I hope today's Editathon will encourage you to participate, and become a regular and valuable contributor. Should you decide to stick around, you might wish to join our LGBT studies project.
Meanwhile, here are some pages you might find helpful:

Useful Wikipedia links:

Links for Wikipedia's LGBT studies Project:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) This automatically inserts your name and the date. If you get stuck, please see our help pages.
If you can't find what you are looking for there, feel free to ask at the Teahouse or at the LGBT Project's Talk Page. Alternatively, contact me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to assist you. Again, welcome! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Thanks for blocking Ψαωεψ. Have you looked into ẞœ? Their edits at Fenn Treasure look suspiciously similar and I was getting ready to request a checkuser. –dlthewave ☎ 02:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: ẞœ was the first I saw to introduce the lawsuit content. I hesitated to ABF about the mistakes at the time because they were correct that a lawsuit was filed. Of course, once Auberginia and later Ψαωεψ showed up to push exactly the same line, then sockpuppetry became obvious (although they could be meatpuppets who share the same off-wiki forum or similar). You could file a WP:SPI, but however it turns out, it won't make much difference to how we proceed even though it would be nice to know with absolute certainty what we're dealing with. Blocking is preventative, so I'd want to see a repeat of the BLP violations before I place any more blocks. In the meantime, I've indefinitely semi-protected the article to see if that eliminates the problem. I intend to lift the semi-protection in a few weeks, depending on how successful it is. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello RexxS,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

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

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12

I think you may have omitted an all-important word in "I have hostility to you personally" in this edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - what a blunder. Is that what they call a "Freudian slip"? Thanks, Phil, I've added the important "no", as I actually don't feel any hostility toward any of the folks, just the POVs. "Hate the sin and not the sinner." - Gandhi. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you were online to fix this quickly, because it seems that some editors think that there's a left/liberal conspiracy against racists on Wikipedia, rather than a simple following of the facts as agreed by those who have studied them dispassionately, and your original wording would have been used to confirm this. If you haven't come across it already I would recommend this Radio 4 series that debunks such nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of an advertisement for partial blocks

So, my first partial block was a success technically but hasn't turned out much of an advertisement for partial blocks, has it? I'm starting to have hostility for the guy personally, and you have convinced me there's no point in letting them edit any part of Wikipedia. I've blocked them indefinitely, and can see a revocation of talkpage access in their future. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Kind-hearted Shonen: it was generous of you to give Sriramadas.mahalingam a chance to edit elsewhere, and I believe that partial blocks will find one valuable use in sorting the SPA from the genuine newbie who fouls up. Of course, they were devised to allow established contributors who just can't be neutral on a particular topic to continue to contribute usefully elsewhere, but they also allow WP:ROPE without leaving an affected topic vulnerable.

In the present case, it was possible that Sriramadas.mahalingam could have taken the time to learn about reliable sources, and then make useful contributions on another topic, so you did the right thing. It's not your fault that they still felt they had to right the great wrong done to their favourite organisation.

Is there something cultural about editors on these topics? They seem to have a sense of entitlement that Wikipedia must reflect their viewpoints, and get angry with anybody that they see standing in the way of that happening. I just spotted this disgraceful outburst by one of the employees of Raheja Developers at User talk:Vishal210891 #February 2020 UPE.

Oh yes, it's curious how often we get that, isn't it?

— As a company employee you're getting paid for editing on behalf of the company. Signed, Protector of Wikipedia.

— No, you're getting paid for maligning my company! Signed, Company PR rep.

Sense of entitlement is right. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

When all else fails, revert to bluster and wild accusations. It works often enough for politicians... · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue on common.js

There is something weird going on with my common.js page - the top menu reads as follows:

User:Atsme/common.js | Cannot install | Manage user scripts | Cannot install | Manage user scripts

^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - I fixed it by doing nothing. 🤓 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to be of assistance.

--RexxS (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maths text books with £sd

That made me laugh but though it best to reply here.

Ah but that was a different kind of culture war: the relative priorities for national expenditure of (a) education (b) MST subjects (c) the West Midlands and maybe even (d) selective/rejective secondaries. Am I right in guessing that back then (decimalisation time) there was a lobby that asserted that a duodecimal system was better for teaching kids fractions and how will they cope with 12 inches in a foot I suppose next they will want to do away with feet and inches, more orders from the Fourth Reich in Brussels! --Red King (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re: English Heritage listed building row/Wikidata

Thanks for starting {{English Heritage listed building row/Wikidata}}. I've mocked up my impression of what I think the finished article should look like including the relevant WD properties and qualifiers at user:Nthep/sandbox8 but I lack the technical understanding of all the # commands to make the slightest attempt at getting it into the template you started. If you could have a look at some time I'd be grateful. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Nthep, for not getting back to the template so far. I usually try to find an extended block of time to do complex coding as it requires me to concentrate. Annoyingly, I've had a dozen distractions competing for my attention over the last week or so, but I hope I'll find a quiet patch this coming week. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I must find myself a primer on coding so I can try this type of work myself. Nthep (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about a big collaborative FA?

Encouraged by the collaboration at Sic Bar, I have been thinking how great it would be if a few of us got together and knocked out a new FA as big collaboration. Might you be interested? Giano (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano: I would indeed, Excellency. I have JSTOR access plus a few others, so I'll start trawling for sources there as a starting point. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, go for it and just edit. We had better start putting “inuse” when necessary I’ve expanded it quite a bit, but am running out of my own knowledge. There’s art, poetry, sciences and FKWE. Giano (talk)

Oldstone James AE appeal

Thanks for closing it. I hope you're good with me tacking on a Creationism topic ban, as well. Best, El_C 22:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you, El C. Creationism is in the Category:Pseudoscience, so there should be no quibbles. As we don't have a decision code nor a sanction log specifically for Creationism, it's easier to apply and keep track of sanctions through the broad topic area, but it can only be helpful to point out the specifics as you did. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I had in mind as well, RexxS — Creationism being covered by ARBPS. I made sure to note it on OldstoneJames' talk page and on AE/AEL. Glad we're in agreement and thanks again. Best, El_C 22:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that was anticlimactic, eh? El_C 01:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Yes, what a pity after all that effort to salvage something for them. Oh well, at least we tried. --RexxS (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello R. You forgot to sign this message. I thought I'd let you know so you can beat sinebot to the punch. I'm getting mesmerized by your rotating cube so I have to go take a nap :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MarnetteD. David re-edited his post and edit conflicted me. I'm trying out the new beta edit-conflict feature, and still trying to get the hang of it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 01:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 243: / Line 243: @@
 So that was anticlimactic, eh? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 01:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
+: {{re|El C}} Yes, what a pity after all that effort to salvage something for them. Oh well, at least we tried. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS#top|talk]]) 02:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 ==FYI==