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)

Raul Catinas

Hello,

I asked revision for this to RHaworth, and it was he the last admin who deleted it. I re-created the page of this top kickboxer, he is clearly passing Kickboxing because he was 2-time K-1 Final 16 finalist. K-1 organisation reunited the best 16 heavyweights in the world. At the older times, I suppose Catinas was not passing Kickboxing rules (when the article was deleted). The things changed. The article must be reinstated and please also change the name of the page into Raul Cătinaș - with Romanian diacritics! K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 Final#K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 Tournament bracket, take a look please because he is the only finalist without a page alongside an American! Also he participated in this, being the youngstest ever participant at the finals after prodigy Badr Hari: K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 in Seoul Final 16. The only participant on the last article without a page! —.karellian-24 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@.karellian-24: As RHaworth indicated that the article could be refunded on request, I'll honour that. I've therefore placed a copy of the last version of the deleted article into draft space at Draft:Raul Cătinaș on the understanding that you will work on it in the immediate future in order to show notability by the addition of substantial coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. If you fail to do that, it will be deleted again. Please use the AfC process to have it reviewed when you are ready. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I am working on it these hours and I will announce you when my work is finished. —.karellian-24 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Done, bro. —.karellian-24 (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You can review whenever you can and want, Rex! —.karellian-24 (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

CM Punk

Thank you-- I asked the Coords for that weeks ago! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry, I only just spotted it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It took some in-depth reading to be able to spot that. Well, that article was looking like its star could be saved, but a new editor has it moving backwards, so I'm going to quit working on it and see how things evolve. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikisource and italic in Infobox Bible translation

Hello. I noticed you were trying to fix the problems of italics in ---. Thanksagain for that. However, Template:Infobox Bible translation has a problem of the same type: the title in the "wikisource" parameter is always in italic. You can see examples of it here: Gustav II Adolf Bible, Charles XII Bible, Jakub Wujek Bible. Could you also try to fix the Bible translation infobox? Veverve (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Look out, a train! (splat)

Things that float? Such as fish? (Dead fish..?) Anyway, fine fix, thank you! Cool collection of userboxes, haven't I? darwin^fish 22:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

Infobox scientist

Hello RexxS,

I'm Gia from the Hebrew wikipedia. Sorry to bother you about this this but maybe you can assist me. In Hebrew wikipedia we have discussion regarding the question: the way we should use P106 (occupation) from wikidata in Template:Infobox scientist. Import it automtically or not etc. The template already importing P101 (field of work). I have noticed that you have also Template:Infobox scientist/Wikidata. So how it's works? When you use regular scientist and when you use Infobox scientist/Wikidata? Can you give me a link to a discussion about it.

Again, sorry for bothering you. --geagea^Talk 23:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Gia, it's no bother, but I'm not sure how much help I can be. The template was mainly developed by D Wells and I just provided some technical help to solve problems. Looking at the Template:Infobox scientist, it seems that it shouldn't import occupation (P106), as a scientist's occupation should surely be "scientist". To ensure that, you can add 'occupation' to the suppressfields list: | suppressfields = {{#if:{{{suppressfields|}}}|{{{suppressfields|}}}, employer, occupation|employer, occupation}}

Because of the difficulty in gaining acceptance of Wikidata-aware infoboxes (i.e. ones that import data from Wikidata) on the English Wikipedia, the convention I usually use is that a Wikidata-aware template is created at a subpage of the main template using the /Wikidata suffix. That allows editors to choose to use the template on articles where they can get consensus for it. I don't know of any discussion that distinguishes between using the plain infobox or the Wikidata-aware infobox. I can tell you that {{Infobox scientist}} is used in 34,130 articles, and {{Infobox scientist/Wikidata}} is used in 74 articles. That should give you some idea of the degree of acceptance here. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is much helpful. --geagea^Talk 01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hey Doug, long time no see. I just spotted the JSTOR thread on Giano's talk page and wondered if you had access to this? I used to but I'm having trouble getting into my JSTOR account! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Harry. YGM. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! You have a reply; looks like I missed a digit! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

use of the singular they as an epicene pronoun

Hello, RexxS. Thanks for your input on my arbitration enforcement appeal. I have to disagree with your continued usage of the pronoun "they" to refer to me, even after I told you that it was not the correct pronoun. This is the exact sort of grammatical error that I typically like to fix on the pages which I read. If you had read further down on the singular they article which you referred to, you would have known that it was an error to continue using that pronoun to refer to me. You may consider this as just another "quibble," but my contributions in this area are helping Wikipedia to be the best possible version of itself. People have been having a hard time with grammar ever since there was language, which has been for a lot longer than 600 years. It's not anyone's fault, because we're all only human, but this is no excuse for wilfully degrading the English language. Doing so reflects poorly on the serious Wikipedia editor.Sotuman (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sotuman: You have not set your gender at Preferences. Consider: {{heshe|Sotuman}} → he but {{heshe|RexxS}} → he. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sotuman: If you want editors to refer to you as he/him, set your preferences as Redrose64 as suggested. I don't know you and I'm simply too old to remember the gender of every drive-by editor that crosses my path. I know perfectly well how to use the English language and don't need any lectures from you based on what you think you read in a Wikipedia article. "Quibbles" make up the vast majority of your contributions and do nothing to build our encyclopedia. Your attitude toward other editors is appalling, and that in itself is enough to make your presence here a net negative. If I never cross paths with you again, I'll be quite content, so kindly remove yourself from this page and try your hardest not to turn up here again. --RexxS (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sotuman, can we get back to writing an encyclopaedia rather than fussing over whether the unintentional use of a particular gender pronoun was right or wrong? Walk away, fix your preferences, and then review a GAN. I assure you, you'll find the latter far more satisfying. Cassianto^Talk 15:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Bv

@Redrose64 and Xeno: Just to clear up any confusion, on the Portuguese wiki, pt:Predefinição:Bem-vindo(a) (i.e. template:Bv) is a welcome template - Bem-vindo = welcome! Unfortunately on enwiki, {{bv}} is a shortcut for Template:Uw-vandalism4im, for some inexplicable reason. As you can see below, Sturm is an esteemed colleague from Brazil and his welcoming message was somewhat lost in translation. No harm done. --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This sounds exactly like something a vandal would say! –xeno^talk 22:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Busted! --RexxS (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like it means "blatant vandal". It all demonstrates the importance of WP:PREVIEW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Comunicado do Wiki Movimento Brasil sobre atividades no primeiro semestre

O Grupo de Usuários Wiki Movimento Brasil entra em contato com seus integrantes e parceiros, e toda a comunidade, sobre o impacto da pandemia de COVID-19 em nossas atividades. Seguimos a orientação da Fundação Wikimedia, que indica o cancelamento de todos os eventos presenciais, e buscamos quando possível transformar nossos eventos presenciais em atividades on-line. Essas mudanças foram realizadas em acordo com entidades parceiras com as quais as atividades abaixo estavam sendo organizadas.

Atividades que serão on-line

• USCS Wiki Mulher+Memória+Grande ABC 2020, 24 de março, das 14h às 18h
• Mulher, Arte e História I, 27 de março, das 10h às 16h.
• Wikidata Lab XXI, 4 de abril, das 10h às 17h.

Atividades adiadas

• IMS Artes Feminismos II: nova data será anunciada assim que possível.
• Mulher e Mídia V: nova data será anunciada assim que possível.
• Veterinária II: nova data será anunciada assim que possível.
• Seminário Tecnologias Digitais e Cultura Livre: nova data será anunciada assim que possível.
• LUA Training Workshop: nova data será anunciada assim que possível.

Entendemos que esse tipo de situação, que nos leva a tomar as decisões acima descritas, pode gerar frustração e estresse. Se você estava inscrito em uma dessas atividades, deve receber em breve uma comunicação nossa, se já não lhe chegou.

A prioridade é obviamente o bem-estar de nossa comunidade e da população no geral. Agradeço aos membros do Grupo de Usuários Wiki Movimento Brasil o empenho na organização desses eventos, que realizaremos ou de outro modo ou mais tarde.

Aproveito para lembrar a todas e todos que um importante meio para conter a pandemia é exatamente o que nos une aqui, neste espaço: informação de qualidade. Convidamos os wikimedistas lusófonos a participarem ainda mais ativamente da criação e melhoria de conteúdos sobre o COVID-19. Boas edições. Em nome do Grupo de Usuários Wiki Movimento Brasil, -- Sturm (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Sturm. I am truly disappointed not to be with you all for the Lua Training Workshop, but I am working on helping to train some folks in Brazil remotely for the moment, and I look forward to the time when we can reinstate all the events that we will be postponing for now. Keep safe, and my best wishes to everyone in Grupo de Usuários Wiki Movimento Brasil. --RexxS (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Hey RexxS, thanks for rewriting the RFC! I see you removed the RfC template because the RfC was malformed. Now that it is neutrally worded, can I add an RfC template? Best, MrClog (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: You can indeed (just check with the list at WP:RFCST so that you don't forget anything). And if you want to improve my question wording and/or replace my signature with your own, you have my blessing to do so. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Monmouthshire

Morning RexxS - I hope you are keeping well in these troubling times. I've currently got Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire up at FLC here, as the companion piece to the list for Grade Is. A reviewer has queried the accessibility of the list; "Not seeing clear evidence of MOS:ACCESS i.e. row scopes". If you had time, I'd really appreciate your taking a look and advising on any accessibility issues. Obviously, I'd like it to be as accessible as possible for all readers. I'm very willing to make any necessary changes to the text but, as you may recall at the time of the discussion on Grade Is, we can't really change the structure/format of the table itself, as it's used across all 40 Welsh listed building lists. Very many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation bot

See my talk page, AManWithNoPlan; I had a similar go-round yesterday. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I, too, have had issues with this bot; where it has removed access-staus indicators (example revert). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to learn what a bot is, and the difference between that and a user script. The bot is responsible for ALL edits that it makes. It has its own account and its own credentials. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantic, the bot is a program written by a user in a scripting language. That satisfies the letter of that warning. More importantly, the spirit of the warning is that editors cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for the actions of a bot that they activate. You must take responsibility for your actions. --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

the policy does not apply and this has actually been decided. In fact I tried to change the bot so that it would list the user who activated it as responsible and we got in soooo much trouble it was insane. It was made very clearly that user are not responsible for the bots edits. The BS warning on the bot page that falsely claims users have some responsibility is largely my doing. The reason I get so annoyed when people try to blame me is that I wanted it the other way. Secondly, 99% of the people running the bot have no ability to change it. The bot is driven by concensious (sic). I would be very happy to figure out bugs and fix them on the bot page. I am not the bot operator either, but I do out of kindness fix bugs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The policy does apply and I will enforce it if necessary. You have compounded your disruptive editing with a gross insult to the other editors here, for which I see no contrition, so don't expect anyone to cut you any slack while you treat the visitors to my page in that manner. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I do apologize for overreacting out of anger after you threatened me. And I am sorry for that. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

And do forgive me for issuing you with a warning after you brushed off my initial polite request not to mark edits that need review as "minor" --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

in these trying times (COVID-19) I think we all need to be kinder (as the joke goes: love like Jesus, wash your hands like Pontius Pilate). I appreciate your forgiveness and forgive your, although I blew up Way too much. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

[EC] You need to mind your manners. As you've removed it from your talk page, I'll repost this here: Right at the top of User:Citation bot, in a prominent box, is the text "Editors who activate this bot should carefully check the results to make sure that they are as expected." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

that is a false statement put there to encourage people to be careful. Secondly, I do check a lot of the edits manually, but not all. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I started a talk on the Bot page about ALL bot edits being flagged as minor. Not sure what that have been the case for over a decade. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

ironically, I have wondered about that several times and never submitted a pull request or discussion request for it. Your are spot on, this Bot ain’t minor. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sigh - The bot is now edit-warring: [2]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And either I am obtuse of AMan is, but I have been unable to get an answer to my direct question (that if he would remove the articles from his sandbox, the bot would stop operating on them, no?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Bots should not be reinstating edits that have been reverted by human editors. For that alone I'm tempted to block the bot, but I'll be offline for most of the afternoon so not in a position to deal with the fallout, and I feel blocking might be a bit of a sledgehammer approach if we're only concerned about one set of edits. @Pigsonthewing and SandyGeorgia: I suggest starting a discussion at AN or ANI about the bot and the editor activating it, and letting the bot's operator know about the edit warring. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

blocking the bot when no one complained on the bot talk page would be ridiculous. I had to forcibly move the discussion there by tagging people. And yes, I did answer Sandy’s questions: she did not understand them. I am now removing this page from my watch list, so please discuss your issues on the bot page. One last point, this is a bot, not a script so remember that the person making a request of the bot is not responsible for its edits as Wikipedia uses the word responsibile although they should use the bot wisely and carefully. Since the articles in question violate the CS1/CS2 style guides, they should take action to let the bot know that on the page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Once again: Right at the top of User:Citation bot, in a prominent box, is the text "Editors who activate this bot should carefully check the results to make sure that they are as expected." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

once again that line is a suggestion put there mostly by me to encourage people to be observant. It is not policy, it is not binding. Also, all the edits I did went as expected, how was I or the bot to know that some editors do not follow the CS1/CS2 style guides while using CS1/CS2 templates. Also, the bot only includes who is activating the bot as a conscience, it is not required to do that, because only the bot is responsible for the edits. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Now at WP:ANI#AManWithNoPlan and Citation bot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop it

Stop it.

If you again remove both indents and para breaks from my post, it's ANI time.

You are way out of line. This is your final warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@BrownHairedGirl: Policy is clearly in my favour: see MOS:INDENTMIX and WP:TPO 'Fixing format errors'. . See you at ANI. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

this is ridicuolous. 'Fixing format errors' dos not mean removing a para breaks and indents.

You are clearly trolling. see you at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I quote from WP:TPO:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance) ...

Do you see the last sentence? Do you see the link to MOS:LISTGAP? Do you see the phrase "avoid disruption of screen readers"? That is precisely what I have been doing.

The only thing that is ridiculous is your unwillingness to read the guidelines designed to protect the visually impaired from your thoughtless formatting errors. --RexxS (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You quote it, but apparently didn't read the words you quote. They say: restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible.

However, you twice removed my whole post, and now five or six times you have removed all indentation and removed the paragraph breaks from my post. TPO does not permit that.

It seems that your anger and your bullying, threatening, abusive desire to weaponise this minor style issue against me (and note the selectivity: it's against me only) has blinded you to what the guidance actually says.

I look forward to your explanation at ANI of why you misrepresent TPO, why you make personal insults ... and above all why you choose to pursue this issue only with an editor with whom you are engaged in a debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I read it. It does allow me to fix formatting errors. I did that consistently despite your deliberate provocation. You know very well how you should indent posts to meet the needs of screen readers and yet you deliberately cause them problems. That's disgraceful behaviour.

In every case, I have removed indentation that was causing problems for screen readers, as TPO allows. None of your posts contained paragraph breaks, so I could not possibly have removed them.

Has your anger blinded you to the falseness of what you are writing? I fixed the indentation of you, Oculi, Marcocapelle in the very thread of my oppose. Anybody can see the diffs and see you are lying. The only difference between them and you is that you repeated your behaviour after having it pointed out to you, and repeated it, and repeated it ..

Your wilful disregard of the seriousness of what you have repeatedly done, despite my every effort to educate you about the effects of you actions indicates to me that you should not be editing Wikipedia in that state. Please take a break, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Lists and Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks at your leisure, and try to show some condideration for those less fortunate than yourself in future. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• At the grave risk of offending both of you, neither of which I intend, I believe this is what this arcane feature of Wikicode requires. RexxS, if you understand INDENTMIX yourself then you should have done this, which I believe would have been acceptable (unlike, say, flowing several of BHG's paragraphs together by deleting all indents, or deleting the paragraphs altogether in edit conflicts). – Fayenatic London 08:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london: Thank you fix fixing that thread. However I think you're missing the context. Just as you did, I fixed her indentation the first five times she broke the thread, and asked her to observe INDENTMIX. But by the time she had repeated the problem for the sixth time, I was in no mood to carry on sorting out her mess, so I simply removed the faulty indention (thereby removing the disruption for screen readers), in the hope she would finally learn how to fix it herself. If she can rely on everyone else to clean up after her, there is no incentive for her to improve her posting habits, wouldn't you agree? Incidentally, if she had used paragraph breaks ({{pb}} as recommended) in her posts in the first place, instead of relying on list elements giving the visual appearance of paragraph breaks, removing the faulty indentation would have still left proper paragraphs. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  It appears that you are in denial here and at User talk:Floquenbeam ("to remove or amend her errors, which is all that I have been doing" [3]) about removing BHG's reply twice on a CFD page ([4] and [5]). At first glance I thought you had misposted due to edit conflicts, but it appears that your deletion of BHG's replies was intentional, in which case it behoves you to fess up. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london: Let's be straight then. I don't have any need to deny anything that is true. The first removal was the fifth time in succession that I'd fixed BHG's thoughtless indenting, and it was actually an error, which I think was due to an edit conflict with Nyttend. That much is clear because I appear to be replying to a post that was not there, and you can see from the indent level that I was indenting two levels from my prior post with nothing in between. Did you notice that BHG then removed my post and restored her own? My subsequent reversion was indeed retaliation for her removing my post and I should not have sunk to that level, but I was restoring my own post and a quick click on the undo button was just too tempting at that point. You will also observe that BHG then removed my post for a second time immediately afterwards.

  You don't seem to be getting so upset about her removing my posts twice, nor about her breaking the thread for screen readers ten times, nor about the dozen clear personal attacks she made on me. Why is that? I ask you again, what incentive is there for BHG to clean up her act if folks tidy up the mess that she causes and never acknowledges? --RexxS (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Goodness. I happened upon this and further verbiage at ANI and see that I am implicated. It may seem that little progress has been made but I now see how to indent properly and also how to
    start a new para neatly. So it is an ill wind etc. Oculi (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    Picking one cfd at random hardly anyone (all long-term editors) is indenting properly. I don't recall the matter being raised before. Oculi (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I think at this point, it's best to bring this discussion to a natural end. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

    It would be a shame, Liz, if after all that argument, everybody carried on causing problems for screen readers, as if the issues didn't exist. It's true that a lot of editors aren't aware of the problems they cause, and who could blame them because they only ever see our pages and never hear what it sounds like through a screen reader? Before I retired, I used to have to do a fair amount of testing of professional websites for accessibility issues, so I experienced screen readers first-hand. On Wikipedia, it's hard enough with a screen reader to work through a discussion that's properly formatted, without all the extra effort of working out who is talking to whom when responses are being made in different lists from that of the original post. As it happens, the overhead is small when you only have a couple of levels of indentation, but it rapidly gets out of hand as the thread gets longer and the number of levels of nested lists grows.

    The only good side is that if you explain to editors how they can avoid causing problems for the disadvantaged, whether it's list and table formatting, text size, unreadable colour combinations, etc., the vast majority are sympathetic and are willing to learn how to avoid the problems. Some fixes are easy, like MOS:INDENTMIX or MOS:TEXTSIZE; others take more work, like MOS:COLOUR or WP:DTT. But none are beyond the capabilities of almost any editor who takes the time to understand the problems and how we can fix them. --RexxS (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion concerning you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:RexxS. . -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent deaths

At present, I feel flooded by people dying, with no articles or in bad shape, and try to improve for decency. To come Krzysztof Penderecki, which makes me shudder ... too much to do, and in the end he will still be without infobox again ... Perhaps I better write again on a composition, or improve Polish Requiem ... - Before: Thomas Schäfer, prematurely on the Main page - what do we know? - and already vandalized within minutes. Can you please keep an eye on it, and protect if it gets worse? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, Gerda, although the problem of vandalism seems low-level so far. It would be easy to put semi-protection on if it flares up, but we never do that preemptively. --RexxS (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you, (borrowing her smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda: Now semi-protected for 24 hours. Let's see if it can manage after the initial news effect has worn off; otherwise I'll try a week. --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

IP vandalism is back, didn't check if same IP. revdel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda: I already blocked the offending IP for a month. They were reverted by another IP, so I'm loathe to reintroduce semi-protection when I can block an IP. The BLP vios are revdel'd now. --RexxS (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, all I asked ;) - I added his successor, - another red link, sigh. - Another IP just added an infobox to Penderecki, - o dear! Reverted, of course, but I asked the reverter about the edit summary. We should assume good faith, no? Of course good faith can never be applied when it concerns infoboxes ;) - I never added one to Penderecki, but others did in the past, and I liked it. Did you know that I am editor No. 6 for the article, by number of edits? I had no idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to bother you again..

RexxS, I wish to point out to you what I'm dealing with. François Robere just altered his comment after I already replied to it. [6]. I asked him not to do that [7] because I honestly worry that other people who read my reply might see it now differntly and they might be deceived... or my answer might be even used by FR in some other case against me he might initiate. So I asked him not to do it, especially because he was just asked the same by you.[8] Instead, François Robere removes my plea from the entire conversation [9] with this edits summary: You made it clear that you don't want to address my questions or take part in the discussion, so what are you complaining about? I explained what my problem is when I asked him. This is very frustrating and very stressful for me. I'm dealing with persistent block efforts, denunciations and quate a rude behaviour that I don't think anyone deserves. People want to edit is peace and enjoy being Wikipedians, but ever since Icewhiz and François_Robere appearance it is nothing by hell to me, to the point that I'm seriously thinking of retiring.GizzyCatBella🍁 22:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Please note that the alternation is related to my topic ban.[10] A few months from now nobody will remember (including me) that I was answering the questions that didn't have any mention of WW2 in Poland and it might be used agains me. See what I mean? These tricks are too much for me to carry. I'm so tired of it... I hope you understand, and sorry for taking more of your time..GizzyCatBella🍁 22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged here. GCB has been following me around for a while, including to TAs she's not involved in at all (not "marginal", not "peripheral" - at all). She came to my TP claiming I "hounded" her (mind that I filed an AE against her just a few days earlier, so presumably that's part of that). I explained that was not the case, and retorted with seven diffs demonstrating that she's actually been following me since at least August 2018. She made clear that she wasn't going to address any of them, then left. I left it at that until I saw she attached a link to the discussion to her AE case, which prompted me to go through the "Interaction Analyzer" again; I found three more cases where she undoubtedly followed me to new articles, including one in a TA she never touched before. I assumed that because she had made clear that she wasn't interested in discussing any of the diffs, adding three more wouldn't bother her, nor misrepresent her as per WP:TPNO. If I was wrong, my apologies. For the avoidance of doubt I've reverted the edit and added the three diffs in a separate signed comment. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest both of you try harder to avoid each other. Trust me, it's much easier than trying to deal with a 2-way WP:IBAN. @Francois Robere, if you have to edit a comment after it has been responded to, a good practice is to use strikethrough for deletions and underline for additions, and maybe add the word "Edited" and a new time stamp after your old signature. ~Awilley (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Awilley. I have no problem avoiding Francois Robere and I will follow your guidance. François Robere could you please respond...are willing to embrace this recommendation respectively?GizzyCatBella🍁 05:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

My comment removed from FR's page

FR removed this comment from his talk page. It's his talk page, so that's fine. Except, if he is actively discussing me I feel I have a right to respond, hence this notification. Note this is a different comment then the one you already referenced.

Removed comment Volunteer Marek 01:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm only discussing you because you came to my TP. Three times. With WP:ASPERSIONS. And now you're complaining I deleted your comment? You've got some nerve.

If checking two edits of an editor who's active in one of your areas of interest is "hounding", how do you call stalking someone's TP for the sole purpose of WP:PERSONALATTACKS? And we barely even interacted since he was T-banned, so this was completely uncalled for. But hell, not the first time.[11] François Robere (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to your insinuation, before today you’ve never asked me not to post to your talk page. Today, you asked me to do so after my second comment. I was happy to oblige but then you proceeded to make accusations against me there, *after* removing my original comment, which was a bit surreal. Hence my response.

I did not make any personal attacks against you. I summarized what was obvious to everyone, including apparently to you, since you freely admitted following GCB and MMA around and “correcting” their edits. On the other hand, you falsely claiming that I “hate your guts” IS a personal attack (sorry to disappoint you, but I really don’t. You’re either pretending or assuming based ... well, apparently on the fact that your friend threatened me and my family ... ok, I can see where you could expect or assume that to be the case, but still, that’s not based on anything I’ve done. You’re confusing musings of your own guilty conscience with reality. Volunteer Marek 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why but my comments where removed from FR's page as well: [12], [13]. As such, I think it is impossible to have a discussion in that venue. I am not sure if RexxS will appreciate us coming over here, but I don't know what other place would be better. AN(I) are... not known for being the most friendly places to work such things out. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Because they were uncalled for, Piotrus. I filed an AE against one editor, and I find myself having to deal with four: one who came back from a month long hiatus straight to the AE; another who I barely interact with but somehow found his way to my TP just for this; a third who's the actual subject of the AE; and now you. And your comments really don't track with what you usually say.[14] I took notice of them, but there are enough distractions around so I removed them from the thread. I'm trying to resolve this with RexxS, and none of the other comments is helping. Thanks for you concern. François Robere (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@François_Robere A few days ago I asked Piotrus for supervision and guidance[15] that's why he is expressing interest in the whole thing. Accusing Piotrus of acting in a bad faith[16] is unfair to him..GizzyCatBella🍁 11:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC) (I’m so sorry RexxS for posting here but François_Robere asked me not to post on his talk page anymore)GizzyCatBella🍁 11:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, François Robere, Piotrus, and GizzyCatBella: If I'm pinged (as I was) in a comment that was deleted before I checked on the notification, I just work through the diffs to see what was said. I've followed the back-and-forth on User talk:François Robere via the diffs for the last few days, so I'm aware of what everybody said. I naturally respect FR's right to remove posts from their talk page, but nothing is lost on Wikipedia. I would urge all of you to disengage and try to find ways to de-escalate. As a veteran of the date-delinking wars and the infobox wars, as well as editing extensively in all the areas of controversial medical topics, I really do get it that both sides are convinced they are right. But I promise you that you'll only find relief from the stress of continual conflict when you make a positive effort to step back from it. Fanning the flames at AE won't help anybody.

Please feel free to talk to me here whenever you wish, but please don't think that I'm prepared to take sides in any dispute. As an uninvolved admin, my overriding concern is with upholding the policies and guidelines we have established to make editing here a good experience for all contributors. Please do your best to work with me on that. --RexxS (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW, both GCB and VM are in violation of their T-bans. Since both T-bans are from the same TA ("WWII history of Poland"),[17][18] they're prohibited from discussing each other's ban. GCB discussed VM's here, and he's been discussing her's basically everywhere. François Robere (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You just can't let this go, can you? And you're shamelessly making completely false accusations here. What I've discussed is you following GCB and MMA around to various articles. These articles have nothing to do with anyone's T-BAN. You've followed both of them to articles that DO NOT having anything to do with "WWII history of Poland" (like 13th century Polish/German villages!). That is the whole point here - you're WP:STALKing other users in OTHER topics areas, ones you've never showed any interest in before. You're purposefully GRIEFING them and trying to annoy them to the point of driving them off of Wiki. Your behavior is atrocious and your comments simply dishonest. This is why this has been an ongoing problem for so long - you're utterly unwilling to change your behavior and you keep attacking people you perceive as your enemies. Instead of just dropping it.

By all means. Keep digging your hole. But enough is enough. This has to stop and this last comment from you just illustrates that your promises "oh I'll stop stalking them for a month or so" are both disingenuous and bad faithed. Volunteer Marek 17:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And just to show explicitly how you're being dishonest - you say "He (Volunteer Marek) been discussing her (GZB's topic ban) basically everywhere". Funny how you don't provide a SINGLE example, only make a general unsupported blanket statement. I have NOT discussed GZB's topic ban anywhere. I have discussed you following her around. I mean, IF I had been "discussing it everywhere" I'm sure you could come up with dozens of diff. But you don't. Not one. Instead you make a completely false claim. And you do so in order to try to get me in trouble and deflect attention from your own misbehavior. Shameful. How can anyone trust anything you say? Volunteer Marek 17:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Think hard, François about whether any further attempt at escalation is likely to be productive. There are any number of uninvolved admins who may not reach the same conclusions as I about your involvement in the dispute. At this point you really need to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND. I do not agree that GCB is in violation of her topic ban, other than arguably her edit to Alfred Rosenberg, which certainly does look like an attempt to revert vandalism. But you already know my opinion on that.

It may also be worth considering what VM's topic ban was linked to:

The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed".

Both that definition and the wording of Wikipedia:broadly construed are clear that the purpose of a topic ban is to remove disruption of that topic, and related topics, from the encyclopedia. I seriously doubt whether it was intended to prevent an editor saying anything about topic bans in general or in a given case. It would be quite difficult for an editor under a sanction to ever come back from that if they were forbidden from discussing the sanction itself. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Should this be summarized at AE?

Regarding the recent discussions you've had with FR and others, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to summarize them, briefly, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GizzyCatBella. Or at least mention that the parties are talking to one another. Errr, if talking is really what is happening here. I don't envy you trying to deal with this. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I'm happy to have the opportunity to try to help other editors find ways of resolving conflict. I don't think it would be productive for any of the involved editors at that AE to comment further. I will make a brief note, though, about my interchange with FR. Thank you for the positive efforts you've made to help. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. I am not without bias here, but I do have some firm opinions about how stuff should work (User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#When_to_use_the_banhammer_-_and_when_not_to:_a_simple_math and such). I think you are right that no blocks are needed here, through I do wonder a bit if something like a topic ban from AE or interaction bans might be needed in the long run for some of the parties. On the other hand, I think another elegant solution would be to see the number of restrictions here removed, not increased. The more restrictions are placed, the more difficult is to navigate one's editing. GCB mentioned they are planning to appeal their topic ban, which is now past a year-long, and I think it may be a good idea, given that there are now discretionary sanctions in the area which should be sufficient, and nitpicking whether someone did a borderline edit that violated a broad topic ban or not is not conductive to building an encyclopedia (User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_spirit_and_the_letter_of_Wikipedia). Also, keeping restrictions on a user for too long encourages them to radicalize (User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_radicalization_of_users). I'd rather not see more people embrace the dark force (socking, etc.). This topic area does not need any more problematic users. Anyway, thanks for your attempts to look into this mess, it's not an easy task. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

How cool - or am I seeing things?

I just noticed in the reference section of Willa Brown there are tiny graphics depicting a government source, and opinion source. I've not seen that before today...or did I drink too much wine for lunch? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I don't see them. Are they still there for you? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)