User talk:RexxS

Happy holidays!

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)

Outreach Africa editors

Thanks for explaining that. But I've seen some terrible sources and they've never been pointed to Help:Referencing for beginners or if they have I see no evidence of it in the ones I've reverted. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I guess that's not unusual when there's an outreach initiative into areas where there is not a pool of experienced editors who can engage "on the ground". My experience is that explaining how to become discriminative with sourcing is the toughest part of training new editors. But as long as we are welcoming and willing to help – even reverting poor sources is part of the learning process – in the long run Wikipedia benefits. Thanks for engaging with them, Doug. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I despair, I don't know if they are doing more good than bad. Look at [1] and their talk page. This one should be blocked perhaps and all their edits just reverts, unless someone can check them all and get the editor to change their habits. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a tough one, Doug. I think that it's an excusable newbie mistake to mistake a Wikipedia mirror like https://peoplepill.com/people/roger-milla/ for a reliable source. The problem comes if they don't take notice once it's pointed out to them. As for the revert suggestion, look at the source added to Ethnic groups in Ivory Coast: http://countrystudies.us/ivory-coast/20.htm. That's just an amateur site, but the content appears to be taken directly from https://www.loc.gov/item/90005878/, an obviously reliable source. IMHO, we need to explain how to use the best source, not to revert when a substitution would improve the article. I'll drop a note on their talk page. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but I just don't have time to check them all and explain, sorry. Thanks for helping out. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Now another editor has come to my talk page to ask what can be done and say it needs stopping. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've commented at User talk:Kuru##AflibWk_editors, but I accept that if they don't slow down after explanations have been made, there's little alternative but to apply short blocks. It's a shame, but our other volunteers on RCP can only be expected to put up with so much. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Risper Chemutai - another AflibWk editor in need of direction

I just spotted this unreliable source. Glancing at other edits, it looks like Risper is taking time between edits but needs direction on how to identify reliable references. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: I've left them a note with some explanation of "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"from WR:RS. Although I agree about The Famous People, it actually isn't any worse than half of the sources used on Ronald DeWolf. I guess we have to try to fix things one source at a time. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, famousPeople tends to get added where there's lots of work to do, which is why I keep checking for it even after it was removed from use in 2018. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The old Wikidata module

Hey RexxS, hope you're well.

I'm trying to update a whole lotta map dates to use Wikidata rather than local edits on wikis, but I'm having some trouble fighting the old Wikidata module that still exists on some of them (on many, Module:Wd has not yet been ported, and I'm loath to port an entire module just for one use case if I can avoid it). I was wondering if you might be able to help, seeing as it seems you know the dark arts of the module!

I'm calling it like this: {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatements|item=Q95963597|property=P585}}

This works fine, except for one small problem: on several wikis (namely, at least on cs: and el:) the date produced from wikidata:Q95963597#P585, which has day accuracy, is producing to year accuracy. I'm thoroughly confused as to why this would be - I've even tried specifying the |precision= param per the code of formatRawValue over at el:Module:Wikidata/Formatters/time, but to no avail - it still produces the year.

Do you have any ideas why this might be, or how to fix it? Any insights you can offer would be greatly appreciated!

All the best, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: The call you quote gives me script errors on enwiki:

• {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatements|item=Q95963597|property=P585}}

I only wrote the first half of Module:Wikidata; the rest was ported in later to duplicate code from other projects. The problem is that Wikidata modules are not standardised across projects, so you can't expect any particular call to be reproducible on another wiki. I wrote Module:WikidataIB as a standard replacement for the other modules. principally for use in infoboxes, of course. It's implemented on 82 projects including cswiki and elwiki, and is quite well localised "out of the box". You might have more luck using that. Here are some examples:

• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597}} → 20 November 2022
• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597 |df=mdy}} → November 20, 2022
• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597 |df=y}} → 2022
• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597 |lang=cs}} → 20. listopadu 2022
• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597 |lang=el}} → 20 Νοεμβρίου 2022

The date localisation is handled by Module:Complex date. The documentation at Module:WikidataIB/doc is rather lengthy and still not complete, but it should give you most of the functionality you will need. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

[Update]: I just checked and el:Module:WikidataIB hasn't been updated since 2107, and el:Module:Complex date hasn't been updated since 2016. I can update the WikidataIB module without problems of attribution, but I need to ping Jarekt as the maintainer of Complex date to see if he can do an update. Sorry about that.

On elwiki, you can use:

• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |fetchwikidata=ALL |onlysourced=no |P585 |qid=Q95963597}} → 20 November 2022 

but that doesn't localise the date. I'll try to update now. --RexxS (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

[Update redux]: @Naypta and Jarekt: I've updated everything I could find on elwiki and el:Module talk:WikidataIB/testing seems to be giving the results I'd expect. The examples from above now work on elwiki. I'm not sure I've caught every single module that needed updating or creating:

• Module:WikidataIB
• Module:I18n
• Module:Complex date
• Module:I18n/complex date
• Module:ISOdate
• Module:DateI18n
• Module:Ordinal
• Module:LangSwitch
• Module:Roman

Jarekt: can you spot any that I've missed? It would be useful to have a complete list of dependencies for future reference. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I found the following dependencies on Commons, some of them added using lazy loading:

• Module:No globals
• Module:i18n/complex date

• Module:Linguistic

• Module:Delink
• Module:Yesno
• Module:I18n/or

• Module:Roman
• Module:Ordinal

• Module:I18n/ordinal

• Module:ISOdate

• Module:DateI18n

• Module:Formatnum
• Module:Calendar

Which is a lot, I hope to be able to reduce that in the future. Module:I18n/or can be easily moved to tabular data, etc. Some of the modules might be quite different on enWiki and Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS and Jarekt: you're both stars, thank you!

I'm sadly aware of the fragmented state of the modules on the different wikis - so far I have the following different lines, all doing the same thing, on different Wikimedia sites:

{{#invoke:Wikidata|claim|item=Q95963597|property=P585}}

{{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatements|item=Q95963597|property=P585}}

{{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|item=Q95963597|property=P585}}

{{#invoke:Wikidata|getValueFromID|Q95963597|P585|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}

{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597}}

{{Wikidata|property|Q95963597|P585}}

Which is all a bit nuts! But it works, so hey ho :) Thanks so much for getting the modules updated, I can go and continue spreading the merry Wikidata joys now! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hrm, maybe not sorted yet actually :( cs:Wikipedista:Naypta/Pískoviště shows cswiki not working either with WikidataIB - it just returns blank. Any ideas? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: The version of WikidataIB on cswiki is from 2018. It doesn't recognise the parameter set |ps=1, so you have to use the actual parameters fetchwikidata (fwd) and onlysourced (osd). I've left an example at cs:Wikipedista:Naypta/Pískoviště. If Module:Complex date can be imported to cswiki, we can easily update WikidataIB to the latest version. --RexxS (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you! Last thing I'll bug you about for now, sorry - cs:Modul:WikidataIB/i18n is set up, and looks correct to me, but the date still isn't localising. Best as I can see, it's correctly imported in cs:Modul:WikidataIB and should be overriding the i18n defaults - do you have any idea why it's not? No worries if not, you've already been super helpful Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: The WikidataIB/i18n module was originally intended to localise dates as well as error messages, etc. but there were just too many variables in date formats for it to work. That's why I eventually decided to avoid duplicating work by using Jarekt's Complex date module from Commons, where everything has already been localised. If you import that module and its dependencies from Commons, the latest version of WikidataIB will do the localisations for you. I'm sorry there are so many modules to import for Complex date, but they do provide a lot of extra functionality with dates. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
• CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
• Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
• QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I am formally notifying anyone who was originally named as a party in the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you help me with a template issue for Wikiproject COVID-19

Hi

Thanks very much for coming to the workshop on Friday, it was really helpful to have your suggestions for improvements. I feel like I need to find a solution for not getting lost on the page, if you have any ideas do let me know.

One issue I have is as you saw there are some big tables on the pages and a lot of people find VE helpful in editing them (including me). Unfortunately the standard Wikiproject COVID-19 header template has something in it to make the background green which breaks VE on the page (VE opens but just shows boxes of wikicode). So I created a new header template for the new pages which some people didn't like so they nominated it for deletion. Is there a way to make the standard COVID-19 header template not have the green background? Maybe either by just adding a bit of code to the top of the page under the template to 'close' the green background or by having an option in the template to turn off the green?

John Cummings (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I'm always glad to help, but you haven't given me links to the templates you're concerned about and I can't find them from your contributions. If you can let me know where you want me to look, I'll do my best to sort the problems. --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much @RexxS: so the header template they are keen on using is the one on this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19, as you can see the whole background is green which means that VE breaks, I created the header template on this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/Reference_sources which they are not happy with and want to delete. I think what I'm asking is for a way to make the header on Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19 work with VE, I guess there are a few options to do this, whatever works easiest/best. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I'm able to edit Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19 with Visual Editor using this link:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19&veaction=edit

I don't normally use VE, but I'm not seeing where it's breaking on that edit. There doesn't seem to be a problem with the green colour (that seems to be a green herring), but template {{start tab}} is known to cause issues with Visual Editor, and we'll have to wait for that to be fixed if we want tabbed pages to be 100% editable with VE.

The TfD was no consensus, so the template can exist while waiting for a resolution of the VE problem.

Nevertheless, there are multiple problems with your template. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Reference sources on a mobile phone, or follow this link to the mobile version of the page:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/Reference_sources

On the link above you can see that the icons run onto two lines. On my mobile phone, the icons take up five lines. The text is squashed into the right half of the screen because of icons on the left side. As more than half of our pageviews now come from mobile visitors, it's really not a viable layout. Of course the layout on the main project page isn't much better. --RexxS (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking at it, yes I agree the new template is not ideal. I don't feel like I've done a good job of explaining what 'breaking' means. So what I mean is that whilst VE loads on a page with the 'green header template' you can't actually use it to edit things in VE, whatever you click on just brings up boxes of wikicode in a window because it thinks its being transcluded. Its probably easiest to show you,

1. On this page VE works just fine Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/Main_messages.
2. But if I replace the header with the green one User:John_Cummings/Rexxtest and you try and use VE you get a whole load of wikicode boxes which say transclusion.

I hope this makes sense, I'm sorry if I'm not being clear.

John Cummings (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes John, that's clear. When VE tries to edit a page that contains a template, it tries to use the TemplateData for that template to render a popup that can be edited. Otherwise it tells you that a page is being transcluded and creates a popup giving you the content to edit. Unfortunately, Template:Start tab is transcluded and that in turn transcludes the pages that the tabs will link to in an unintuitive manner. That's a bit too much for VE to figure out and it fails to show you the content of the transclusions inside the transclusion. When you try the same with your header, which doesn't transclude anything (it just links to pages, rather than pre-loading them), it works as you would expect. Does that give you a better idea of where VE is hitting a brick wall? --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that's very helpful in understanding what the issue is, I just don't know how to stop it happening, it seems unlikely that the new header I created will continue to exist so there seem to be three broad options:

1. Find some way to add an option to the 'green header' to make it so you can use it with VE (I don't know how to do this)
2. Find some way to add some additional code to the page so the green 'stops' at the top of the page and so VE will work (I don't know how to do this)
3. Make an identical looking version of the 'green header' but with no green (I don't think this would be super popular but might be ok, not sure if I know how to do this, but seems the least technical option)

What do you think is the best option?

John Cummings (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@John: The green isn't anything to do with the problem you have. It would exist no matter what colour was used for the background. The problem is how the current page loads the other pages it references in the tabs. The way to fix it is to use a set of tabs that simply link to other subpages, not transclude them. The page needs a new layout anyway because of the way it renders in mobile view; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 #Mobile view. The best option is 4. Completely redesign the entire page to be mobile-friendly. That should more or less guarantee it works with VE. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I do notice that the COVID-19 pages are missing {{End tab}}, so I've wondered if that might be affecting something. I'll try adding it at the bottom and see if that affects VE or anything. It'll be hard to keep it there, though, since it'll get moved away from the bottom every time someone adds a new section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: The start tab opens a <div> to set background colours, etc. (what John calls the "green" part), so that the editable page content lives inside that div, but of course without the {{end tab}} (which is little more than a glorified </div>), it has to rely on the MediaWiki software to close the opening div when it finishes parsing the page. A lot of fancy user pages rely on that automatic fix to make pretty borders, etc. That may cause hiccups in VE, but I think the real problem is the way VE handles the transclusions inside transclusions. It's certainly worth adding the {{end tab}} and seeing whether that improves matters for VE. If necessary, put a hidden html comment above it saying "All content goes ABOVE this line". It won't help, but it'll make you feel better knowing you've done everything you can. --RexxS (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and just removed the tabs as we now have other nav options. Someone fell free to put up for deletion.--Moxy 🍁 11:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Had removed the tabs ...bur they we added back ...as some point accessibility should be the main concern. Not sure ever seen someone go out of there way to make it hard for readers and editors at every turn.--Moxy 🍁 21:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: I agree that lack of prior consensus isn't a viable reason to revert, but I'm loathe to start edit-warring, as it sets such a bad precedent. I'd advise you to simply stick with the case you've made - accessibility and functionality - on the talk page and wait to see if more opinions are added. We don't win these sort of battles quickly. --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I've added the end tab as a work around to use the standard header, thanks very much for your help. John Cummings (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your block of Citation bot

Hey, I noticed that you blocked this bot with the "block account creation" flag set. Was there a reason for doing so? Just curious is all... It obviously won't affect anyone other than the account, since you didn't enable autoblocking (the correct action in this instance). Just ping me in your response; I have so many pages on my watchlist that I can't keep up with them... ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I just realized that you may have used the "shut off bot" button to do this block. Did you? If so, then there's (most likely) my answer: It has this option enabled by default. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Nevermind; the "emergency shutoff" button doesn't link you to the block page with options; only to a subpage with instructions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I only recall checking the autoblock was off. The "block account creation" flag would have been at whatever the default value was, and I doubt it makes any difference, as I don't expect the bot to log in and start creating new accounts. If it does, we've got a lot more to worry about! --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed! Cool, I was just curious and thought I'd ask. :-) You're right; the flag makes no difference outside the account itself, since you disabled autoblock. Thank you for your time! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

30 days archive

RexxS Im leaving you this note b/c you are involved in WP:MED and are an administrator, [2] in the link you will find an editor has archived several posts before the 30 day archive set for by the top header[3] I would revert them myself or ask Doc James, however due to Doc James absence(who knows for how long) your the best choice , thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Ozzie10aaaa. I really don't think it's something to be worried about. If archived posts need to be reopened, it's quite easy to bring them back from the archive. The number of days to archive was changed from 10 days to 30 days just last week, so I think we need to experiment to find the best compromise. I'll leave a note on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

?

... cube ... forgotten what I was about to post here ... — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

dates in Module:WikidataIB on metawiki

On meta, I've still not managed to get meta:Template:WiR_table_row working. My guess it's something to do with this section of meta:Module:WikidataIB:

if vqualifiers[v1][1].snaktype == "value" then
   qv = mw.wikibase.renderSnak(vqualifiers[v1][1])
   qv = frame:expandTemplate{title="dts", args={qv}}

Any ideas on a fix? Thanks in advance! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 07:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: The problem is that Template:Dts doesn't work on meta. This is what we get here:

• {{dts|June 2010}} → June 2010

and you can see at meta:Template talk:WiR table row that meta:Template:Dts doesn't give a display. I'll now investigate that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

[Update:] Now fixed. On enwiki the template is called Template:Date table sorting and Template:Dts is a redirect. On meta there was only meta:Template:Dts, and the Module:Date table sorting only accepts Template:Date table sorting as a wrapper (for some reason). I've now moved meta:Template:Dts to meta:Template:Date table sorting, leaving a redirect. That fixes it. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Champion - thank you! I find this table very satisfying. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Ratchet & Clank page

Hello @RexxS: Hope you're doing well. I just wanted to bring this issue to your attention. Recently, there is another user with a different IP address that has instigated a pattern of disruptive editing not conducive to the integrity of the Ratchet & Clank page. I have provided a warning to the user on their talk page but they did not heed the advice given. I was hoping to see if you can best assist me on dealing with this issue by semi protecting the aforementioned article. Elainasla (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Scientific article and Primary Sources

Hi. Re edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_drug_development&oldid=962903241

I'm curious, isn't a secondary source (like BBC News) a better fit per WP:PRIMARY? I ask, because the edit specifically points to a primary source now. Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Murtaza.aliakbar: BBC News isn't a WP:MEDRS source for medical purposes. It's just a news source, repeating (and sometimes misinterpreting) a primary source, often a press release. Where we have no independent, expert analysis (the hallmarks of a secondary source), we should surely prefer to use the original primary source, if we must have some content. For me, the part that makes it worthwhile is the commentary by Peter Horby, Martin Landray and Patrick Vallance. Although the first two are not independent and the third is not impartial, at least we have something more than the raw data.

I think it's best to ask yourself "what expert analysis does the BBC news report bring that isn't already there in the primary source?" If you agree "nothing", then it really isn't a secondary source. In that case, let's stick with the most authoritative primary source until we get proper secondary reviews or statements from expert health bodies. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the detailed explanation. Appreciate it. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello RexxS,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:Wrong?

I appreciate protecting the Mustang article, but the status quo ante with the one change agreed to by all is this version. Or, if you want to go back a few hundred edits before the beginning of the drama, this version was stable for quite some time. Montanabw^(talk) 15:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Sure, but I don't get to choose a version (it's always the wrong version) for a content dispute unless there are copyvio or BLP concerns. The article can stay stable (and wrong) for a day or two while the content is thrashed out on talk. I won't allow any further personal attacks, so you should be able to concentrate on getting the right content sorted out on talk. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand. But now, who is the arbiter of “consensus” or at least the “right” version, absent actual agreement from the main involved parties? Will you be monitoring the situation? Montanabw^(talk) 16:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Mustang has been on my watchlist since I adjusted the infobox to display two images, so I will be monitoring. But I can't adjudicate on the content or the behaviour if I take part in that discussion. I'm sure that there are more editors who can add their views if they can be brought into the discussion. You could try pinging any of the contributors from the history and/or dropping a note at WPEQUINE. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Montanabw: If a page is experiencing vandalism, it's often acceptable for an admin to revert to the pre-vandalism version, either before or after protecting the page. But if it's a content dispute, WP:INVOLVED applies: an admin may either take sides and revert; or they may protect the page as it stands and so remain neutral; but not both. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. I rolled back to the wrong version myself and then the article was locked down before I could fix my mistake. So, oh well. We are getting to a consensus over there anyway. We'll see.Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for locking down the Mustang article and making us all reach consensus, and also for unlocking it. Based on the drama and past problems with driveby vandals, plus a huge disambiguation debate from a couple years back, I am wondering if it is appropriate to ask for permanent semi-protection. I could ask this at WP:RPP, but as you are familiar with the issues, perhaps this could be your judgement.

@Montanabw: we don't normally preemptively apply semi-protection, and I can only see a handful of drive-by vandals having edited the article in the last year or so, so I'd recommend just reverting the vandals and warning them. I'll keep an eye out and block any egregious cases (or just ping me), but there's an outbreak of vandalism from multiple editors, I'd be happy to protect on request. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:I18n/date

Module:I18n/date 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...} 22:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: June 2020

Thanks for moving my comments from AE to my talk page. I had no idea about the limit of 500 words and 20 diffs. This was my first responding on a AE report and I put a great effort in detailing the context. Sorry about adding the extra work for you. Now I learn this limit and will try to follow it. May I know where I can find the details of this rule? For example, are 20 diffs only for Wikipedia links? If adding external media source links, will subject to the limit of 20, or not? Regards, Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 02:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: if you read the AE page, in particular the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #Discussion concerning Marvin 2009 where you posted, you should be able to see the text

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

in italics immediately below the heading. You may add 20 diffs, but links are very unlikely to be followed. You could move your full statement to a sub-page in your user space, something like User:Marvin 2009/AE evidence and provide a link to it in your statement at AE, but I doubt that anybody will read through 4,000+ words and follow dozens of links. You should rely on what you write in your statement at AE to defend yourself. --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Mail call

I've sent you an email relating to that IJERA paper. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I've amended the block too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Cause you're good at this...

RexxS, would you kindly create autoarchiving at Talk:Brumby? I realize the talkpage there is endless and has never been archived. You are good at doing the syntax properly so it autoarchives. I think it's wise, as we recently had an editor posting there on threads that have been dead for 10 years. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done probably. I set archive after 90 days, max archive size 150K, with an archive box. Let me know if you want anything changed (or just do it). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool, is there a way you can force the old stuff (prior to this year) archive immediately and not in 90 days? Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The '90 days' is the age of the youngest thread that will be archived, not the frequency of the bot visiting the page in order to archive (that's about once a week). If you can contain your delight at the prospect of a neat, archived page for a few days, you'll find that everything before Talk:Brumby #Scrubber to Brumby will have made its way into Talk:Brumby/Archive 1. If that hasn't happened in the next few days, I'll apologise and fix whatever cock-up I made. --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. I’ll let you be the bird dog on that, then. Montanabw^(talk) 16:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Yay! --RexxS (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Brumby

Hello, reading the wiki Guidlines of how to approach a dispute, going through due process and presenting evidence and asking questions. I am not edditing the page just asking questions and I think having valid arguments to move this page along I am not Shaw how I have a block.

Please explain and answer my questions that I have asked on the talk, what is your experience with key stone and climatic species and how self-sufficiency /sustainability and self regulation does not make them naturalised rather than feral. and how a federal judge agrees that feral is not the best road to travel to stay impartial on this one. I also am not a horse person and would not normally be involved as you. thankyou. 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shenqijing: You can ask me to justify my admin actions per WP:ADMINACCOUNT, but I'm under no obligation to continue to fuel your need to discuss a closed question about content, and I won't. My partial block of you from a single article saved you from an indefinite block from the entire project. You're welcome. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello thankyou, Can you please inform me how to bring this to the table without a block in the future and how to raise a complaint. Thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The procedure would be to spend six months making constructive contributions to other parts of the encyclopedia. That would demonstrate a commitment towards building content while collaborating with other editors. Continuing to spread disruption regarding Brumby will lead to an indefinite block. See the comment that accompanied the partial block notice on your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella

I was just about to write my close when I saw yours already in the edit window. Seems straightforward enough, but GizzyCatBella does edit in the area of Poland quite extensively and intensively, so hopefully, indeed, she'll take those extra steps to avoid future violations. El_C 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I hope so too. She's a net positive, IMHO, who gets just a bit too enmeshed to those topics for her own good. Keep safe --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: FYI, GCB is still following me around despite giving her word to you and Awilley that she won't.[4] She never touched History of Poland before, then within 24 hours of me touching it she makes an edit that is a direct reply to mine.[5][6] François Robere (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: I've just spent fifteen minutes stepping through the edit-warring on History of Poland and the same again reading its talk page. I'm really not impressed by any of the behaviour there. I'd be more inclined to criticise GizzyCatBella replying to your edit if you hadn't then done the same immediately afterwards. It looks like El C has already taken steps to warn some of the players in that train-wreck, and I blocked GizzyCatBella last night as a result of her breaching her topic ban. I'm therefore not minded to take any further action. I must point out to you that if the sort of behaviour I observed at History of Poland doesn't stop soon, there will inevitably be either another EE ArbCom case, or a AE request for a blanket topic ban for all of the current players. You are all going to have to go to talk much sooner – you can ask any of the admins familiar with the issues for an article to be locked down for a few days while consensus is formed on talk. On the talk page, you are all going to have to stop simply reiterating entrenched positions, and start offering concessions to try to establish some common ground that all can live with. --RexxS (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, RexxS, but that's not what that was about. We explicitly talked about following someone's contribs, not about "replying to someone on a page you already watch". You threatened to indef block me for what you called a "pattern of contribution-following" based on just two diffs, and now that I present you with diff #11 you're calling it "time served"?

And please strike your comment on T-bans etc. I did nothing wrong. François Robere (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, François Robere, but that's exactly what I'm talking about. Don't you dare come to my talk page bringing tittle-tattle with unclean hands. You contributed to the disgraceful edit-warring as much as anybody at that article, and that's my concern here. You did quite a bit wrong and I'm not going to be manipulated by you. There will be topic bans coming very soon if you and the rest of warring factions don't amend your behaviour. I've given you advanced warning as an uninvolved administrator, and I will take action against you or any other player in this sad saga who causes further disruption to the project. You're on very thin ice right now. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me for intruding into the discussion, but I must say I am deeply disturbed by your fallacious argument to moderation ("start offering concessions"). I hope the dispute on History of Poland will be resolved in a generally acceptable way, but that need not imply violating policy and guidelines just to appease two or three editors. Notrium (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying I am against any "concession", BTW. Notrium (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to excuse your intrusion, and I take deep offence at your use of the word "fallacious" describing my advice to start offering concessions as a means of finding common ground. I'm going to ask El C, who has just cautioned you whether he thinks that is an appropriate comment to make to me. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, if you want to take the lead with this by escalating warnings all around, I'm with you. You can count on my support. El_C 21:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C. I'm hoping that today's warnings will be enough to damp down the factional warring at History of Poland, which is now on my watchlist. If not, I'll drop a stronger warning on the talk pages of all of the editors involved since 20 June and see if there's any movement to seek a resolution to the content dispute. I'd like to avoid having to file a complaint at AE if persuasion can work, but I'm willing to go that far if things don't improve. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of the Kingdom of Jeypore

There have been recent edits made in the article called Kingdom of Jeypore and that you have locked the page in order to protect it from vandalism. The article is filled with misinformation and confused history of the region with irrelevant additions like the case of Bissam-Cuttack. By writing distorted history the admins are promoting violence in the region. These articles are often taken too seriously by the inhabitants and differences arise in society because of such irrelevant material. So please delete this page because it is a heap of garbage. And locking down the editing of this article and limiting it only to the british users is not only racist but also impartial.

Delete the page. JahangirMo7 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@JahangirMo7: I tried to delete it previously when it was in a much worse state, filled with unsourced hagiography and irrelevant rubbish. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Jeypore. It was deemed to be a notable topic, so the page won't be deleted. Feel free to nominate it for deletion again, but you'll be wasting your time. --RexxS (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Citationbot

In case you didn't get the ping - Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Citation bot. I mention it, because you're being attacked there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - July 2020

Issue 2—July 2020

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

A happy Juneteenth, Canada Day, and July 4th to all. During tumultuous times, at least the newsletter returns. The newsletter remains experimental; if you have ideas, suggestions, or criticisms, please post them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter. With that, here's what is happening this month:

Newly recognized content

Mary Carson Breckinridge nom. JECason, reviewed by 1namesake1 Complete blood count nom. Spicy, reviewed by Tom (LT) Joseph Ray Watkins nom. Doug Coldwell, reviewed by Ajpolino

Nominated for review

Huntington's disease is a Featured article removal candidate DNA repair nom. for FAR; some medical info needs checking Prostate nom. Tom (LT) Niacin nom. David notMD, under review by Ajpolino Willis J. Potts nom. Larry Hockett Pantothenic acid nom. David notMD, under review by HaEr48 Dimple nom. MonkeyStolen234 Atul Gawande nom. Vrrajkum, under review by BennyOnTheLoose Buruli ulcer nom. Ajpolino Louise Bourgeois Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell

News from around the site

• Calling all reviewers! A rush of good article nominations has filled the WP:GAN#MED queue. Anyone can review a nomination against the good article criteria; see the instructions here for details. If you have questions about reviewing or would like some supervision as you get started, feel free to post at WT:GAN or my talk page. Happy reviewing!
• The arbitration committee is hosting a large anti-harrassment RfC. Feedback from a broad swath of the community would be helpful.

Discussions of interest

• A question regarding incorporating machine-readable disease codes into more medical articles is still ongoing at at VPP
• More eyes are needed to review some class-created medical pages; list at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#List.

For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!

Let's hook some new editors

An experienced user (right) entices a new user to contribute productively. The new user remains unaware of the hook embedded within until it's too late.

According to at least one metric (scroll to the bottom of this signpost article for a brief explanation) total edit levels are higher than they've been in a decade. By another metric they've at least substantially spiked over the last few months. The encyclopedia, and of course WikiProject Medicine, can only survive if we continue to rope in new editors to fill in for us as we lose the time, interest, or ability to improve the encyclopedia. We all know that this work can be time-consuming and frustrating, but hopefully we can put aside our frustrations to help guide and recruit the talent that will ensure the project's continued success.

This may be a good time to remind yourself of the Wikipedia introduction pages, which have recently been improved. Help:Introduction provides a streamlined starting point, while Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia provides a more comprehensive reference guide. The Wikipedia:Teahouse remains unnaturally quick at responding to questions, and is always a good place to direct new editors. The classic {{Welcome}} template has recently received a trimming, plus a few WikiProject Medicine-specific welcome templates are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources#Templates. When in doubt, you can always point an unsure user to WT:MED and we can all try to lend a hand. If you come across introductory resources that remain unclear, outdated, or conflicting please post at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee to bring it to the attention of interested editors.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Ajpolino (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)