User talk:RexxS/Archive 21

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

MOOC

Following our conversation in Liverpool, you may be interested to see Meta:Grants:IEG/Wikipedia Massive Open Online Courses, which I spotted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Massive Open Online Course(s) about Wikipedia. Yaris678 (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Yaris. Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented at Meta:Grants talk:IEG/Wikipedia Massive Open Online Courses #Similarity to the VLE project. --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan Leno

Hi RexxS, I remember you offering some excellent comments on Songs, sketches and monologues of Dan Leno back in July 2012. Well, I have now compiled another list called Theatre productions of Dan Leno, and wondered if you could review this too. The article is only short, but obviously there is no problem if your a bit pushed for time. All the best! -- Cassianto ^Talk 13:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added comments and support at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Theatre productions of Dan Leno/archive1. Nice work! --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

FL for Hawaii and questions

Hey RexxS- As you seem to have the eye for table take a look here. Specifically, Honolulu does NOT want to be linked, despte the fact that there is an article. This is also happening with Alaska. Can you tell me why??? My new far out are you serious Wiki goal ios to get all US Counties up to FL and then of course have a featured cat or type...Sure, why not. Thanks again for any help you can giveCoal town guy (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Request at Spine manipulation

Hey RexxS, good to 'see' you again :) Thanks for contributing at spine manipulation. A question - Would it be possible to move the sources you presented into the 'dissenting' list that was started at the top of the RFC, so that things can stay organized. This will likely be a long-drawn discussion (although DVMt is now blocked, so maybe it will move quicker), so I don't want it to get too disorganized too quickly. Also, one of the sources you posted is purely to do with safety, not effectiveness for back pain, would you be willing to remove that altogether so we stay on topic? If so, you can also simply remove my response to that specific source - to avoid clutter. What do you think? Please feel free to reject, or further discuss, this request if you take any issue with it.Puhlaa (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Puhlaa. I'm glad you're still involved - it's editors like you and Ocaasi that have kept the field of chiropractic sane on Wikipedia. To be honest, I was 'stung' into commenting at WT:MED because of DVMt's continual baiting (as I saw it) of Doc James, and all of those sources were simply lifted from a 2011 version of the Chiropractic article - coincidentally you're the editor of the last diff there! I was merely making a point about looking at the reputation and quality of the journals, rather than the author (which we only do for self-published sources), and I chose them to demonstrate a range of slightly different conclusions from Ernst. Please feel free to critique my choice: it was not meant to be representative of the whole field of the literature. As for the RfC, I'm pretty certain that folks will agree that there is a spectrum of opinion on chiropractic - and that is what we need to say in our articles, since not all of the reviews reach the same conclusions. I see a steady shift over time to an acknowledgement of areas where evidence-based medicine can be seen to demonstrate effectiveness of chiropractic techniques, so you're trying to pin down a constantly moving target - good luck with that! Regards, --RexxS (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

For this! Sometimes it feels like I'm surrounded by wolves, and altho I'm brave I am, after all, a very small puppy. It is good to hear words of encouragement in dark places. Killer Chihuahua 18:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The vast (and often too silent) majority of editors are only too pleased to have brave hounds such as yourself doing the jobs that they couldn't stand to do themselves. I should know - I'm one of them. The least I can do is to make sure that folks understand that they owe you gratitude - I've just said the same thing to ArbCom. So, it's really a case of my thanks to you, Puppy - the dino has spoken! --T-RexxS (rawr) 18:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Dinos are the nicest people! :-) Thanks again. Killer Chihuahua 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Uploading training material

Hi RexxS, thanks for helping to arrange the recent Train the Trainer session - it was very worthwhile. You said that we should upload any material that we've produced. I have a Powerpoint presentation (which could be saved as a pdf) and an Excel file. Where's the best place for them to go? Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it, and I hope it will be useful to you. I'd go for User:Bazonka/TtT materials as a start point for any text and to contain links to uploaded files. You can upload PDFs to Wikipedia using the "Upload file" link, but not PPTs or XLSs, although I can provide webspace to host those online for you if you want? If so, let me know and I'll email you ftp details for some space on one of my servers (or just mail the PPT and XLS files to me and I'll sort it for you). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Conference 2013

Hi. Can I point you to m:Talk:WikiProject Med#Chapters Meeting 2013? Two places at this year's conference have been offered to WikiProject Med board members. Ocaasi has applied for a scholarship. Registration closes on 10 March, and I think the board should discuss attendance, and decide who should represent us before then. Could you please add your thoughts to the above-linked discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

2012 in spaceflight

Hello,

I could need your help in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2012 in spaceflight/archive1 :). Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, those templates are complicated. Trying to look at the source of 2012 in spaceflight crashed my Firefox, so I'll need to unpick those templates to see how good they are. That's a job for tomorrow. --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I finally managed to get an idea of what is being produced and I've left a couple of comments at the FLC page. There's almost certainly too much effort invested in those templates to make it an easy job changing them in a major way. The list is pretty good in many other ways and you've improved it as much as you could without large-scale restructuring, so I'd be content at this point. There are many other places where easy changes can improve accessibility dramatically, and I've concluded that we get far more improvement by spending our time there than by trying to make massive alterations to well-used templates. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Another (maybe the 50th?) ACCESS favour

Hi RexxS, hope things are good with you? If you have a moment, could you have a look at {{OrbitboxPlanet}} and its friends, and for instance, its use in Kepler-37? It's not an FLC or anything, just another wikiproject template which probably isn't needed, which may or may not (in individual implementations) meet ACCESS...... As ever, thanks in advance, even for taking the time to read this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey TRM, things are a long way from good, but I will have a moment or two tomorrow to have a look at those templates for you, as soon as I've examined the templates for Tomcat7 (see above!). I'll report back ... --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, disregard my trivial request, I hope to hear from you when you feel able. My best to you. The Rambling Man (talk)

Hi TRM, I got there in the end. I had a look at Alpha Centauri#Planets to see how it's used and if you subst the templates, you get the following wiki-text:

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"
|+ The Alpha Centauri B system
|-
! align=center style="background:#a0b0ff;"| Companion<br><small>(in order from star)</small>
! align=center style="background:#a0b0ff;"| [[Mass]]
! align=center style="background:#a0b0ff;"| [[Semimajor axis]]<br><small>([[Astronomical unit|AU]])</small>
! align=center style="background:#a0b0ff;"| [[Orbital period]]<br><small>([[day]]s)</small>
! align=center style="background:#a0b0ff;"| [[Orbital eccentricity|Eccentricity]]
! align=center style="background:#a0b0ff;"| [[Radius]]

|-
| '''[[Alpha Centauri Bb|b]]'''
| {{#if:1.13 ± 0.09|{{#if:|— [[Jupiter mass|''M''<sub>J</sub>]]}}{{#if:1.13 ± 0.09|1.13 ± 0.09 [[Earth mass|''M''<sub>⊕</sub>]]}}|—}}
| {{#if:0.04|0.04|—}}
| {{#if:3.2357 ± 0.0008|3.2357 ± 0.0008|—}}
| {{#if:||—}}
| {{#if:|{{#if:|— [[Jupiter radius|''R''<sub>J</sub>]]}}{{#if:|— [[Earth radius|''R''<sub>⊕</sub>]]}}|—}}

|}

This is how it renders:

The Alpha Centauri B planetary system
Companion (in order from star)	Mass	Semimajor axis (AU)	Orbital period (days)	Eccentricity	Inclination	Radius
b	1.13 ± 0.09 $M$ _🜨	0.04	3.2357 ± 0.0008	—	—	—

It is lacking column scope on the headers and has no row headers - even though the contents of the first field are artificially bolded as if they were a heading. Also the blue background (#a0b0ff) fails WCAG AAA colour contrast with hyperlinked text.

There's no need for the 'align=center' in the headers and 'background-color' is the preferred CSS when changing only the background colour. Obviously the extraneous bold violates MOS:BOLD, since the exception is for headings - in which case it should be marked up as a heading with row scope (which will make it bold anyway).

It shouldn't be difficult to overcome those limitations (although you might get some resistance to changing the background colour - to #CAD4FF as a minimum). Let me know if you need help with that. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hi RexxS. I replied to you at my talk page. I don't know what the correct format is for doing this, I just wanted to let you know I responded to your query. We can have the conversation at my talk page. Just giving you a heads up. Cheers, DVMt (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of us keep pages where we comment on our watchlists (at least for a week or so), so your talk page will be on my watchlist for a while and you can guarantee that I'll spot your responses, so there's no need to notify me here, but there's no harm done. You can also use a {{talkback}} template to notify editors that you've responded somewhere, but it's best to assume that they will see the conversation via their watchlists and only 'ping' them if you get no response after a day or so. --RexxS (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I feel bad for all the drama. I think it would be good idea to get a handful of MED editors I deal with (Zad68, WhatamIdoing, yourself, Doc James, Fiachara Byrne) so I can explain where I'm coming from and you can all direct questions to me. All I've ever wanted is transparency but I've been labelled a white-washer so now I'm a black sheep with no credibility. That's not my intent at all. I am approaching this from a scientific perspective regarding CAM. Perhaps a committee at MED on CAM would be good to deal with the issues that arise at CAM articles. Anything to get some kind of dialogue going. DVMt (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 4

Thank you for attending the third Oxford Meetup, and it was a pleasure meeting you. We hope to keep this as a regular event, every two months, on the first Sunday of the month (in order not to clash with London [second Sunday]). A page has been created about the fourth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetup is London, 10 March 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The moment you've been waiting for...

Research update on manual and manipulative therapy! Always interested in hearing your feedback. If you want to go down the rabbit hole...[1] Regards, DVMt (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

RfA

Hi RexxS, have you considered running for adminship? You have clearly demonstrated an understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and always speak in a nice manner as far as I'm concerned. TB randley ^(review) 03:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi TBrandley, you've obviously not seen me when I'm angry! Seriously, it's very flattering that you would have such confidence in me, and I appreciate the kind words. However, I find that I can't even convince myself that I have a need for the admin tools, so I doubt that I'd have any chance of convincing the regulars at RfA. There's quite an amusing exchange I had in March 2010 on the same subject at User talk:RexxS/Archive 4 #Adminship? that you might enjoy. I have of course branched out since then into the technical aspects of Wikipedia, as well as accessibility issues and helping at Featured Lists, but none of it needed me to be an admin! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Moodle Access

Hi RexxS

I have been notified by Charles Matthews that you are the WMUK member in charge of the MMoodle effort. I have recently joined WMIL and have learned that in their last general assembly that they have recently made significant headway with the ministry of education to bring Wikipedia into the classroom. Having researched and possibly improved some of WP mentoring system I am very much interested in your progress with the Moodle system. I was told by Charles that he has produced an extensive course and that could provide me with access to your new Moodle system. I will be glad to review it and provide you with any comments I may have. BO | Talk 17:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Oren, I ought to say that I'm not in charge of anything, despite what Charles would have you believe. The VLE is very much a collaborative effort building on Charles' initiative, but I do have the ability to create new accounts for the Moodle part and I'd be happy to create one for you. Unfortunately to do that, I need to supply the software with some personal information from you: your city and country of residence and an email address. If you're happy to supply that (or make something up - I can't tell the difference), then please don't post it on-wiki, but use the "E-mail this user" link on this page to send it.

Thank you for your offer to provide us with feedback - that is much appreciated. I hope you'll find the VLE project useful to you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary on MMT / Consensus?

Hi RexxS,

If you coud comment here [2]; I have a few questions. The sources aren't being questioned, nor is the language but it can't be inserted because a lack of consensus as Doc James describes it to me despite we both agree it's better than the current version. Thoughts? DVMt (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Tut, tut. ;-)

Following a comment you made at that tedious discussion about collapsed infoboxes I took a look at Nitrogen narcosis, and I came across this: "What became known as the 'Meyer-Overton Hypothesis' is illustrated in the diagram to the right." But what the accessibility guidelines say is "Avoid referring to images as being on the left or right. Image placement is different for viewers of the mobile version of Wikipedia, and is meaningless to people having pages read to them by assistive software." We should all have to eat our own dog food as they say.

More generally, I lost count of the number of times the article says that the way to deal with narcosis is to ascend to shallower water, and I'm left with a vague feeling that in places it's written a little too much like a diving manual. I think it would need quite a bit of work before it's ready for the lions at FAC, but it's informative and a good read nevertheless. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, huge thanks for that copyediting, George. I actually have a defence for that particular piece of Pedigree Chum: the GA reviewer couldn't see the connection between the diagram and the History text despite the wording The first report of anesthetic potency being related to lipid solubility was published by Hans H. Meyer in 1899, entitled Zur Theorie der Alkoholnarkose. Two years later a similar theory was published independently by Charles Ernest Overton. So I added the extra to satisfy that concern, never suspecting that it would come back to bite me in the ass. It's all there at Talk:Nitrogen narcosis #First response in mind-numbing detail. Maybe "illustrated in the graph in this section" would work as a screen reader would hear the alt text for the diagram and then the paragraph that relates to it.

It's annoying that the management of narcosis and its diagnosis are the same - ascending removes the effects. WP:MEDMOS mandates the sections to be covered, so I have to say "ascend to a shallower depth" at least twice (plus the lead). I do agree though that I can cut it out of Prevention and probably rephrase it in Prognosis and epidemiology, so I'll have a crack at that.

The only other thing I'd mention is that the book is titled Bennett and Elliott's physiology and medicine of diving and is the "bible" of diving medicine. Although each chapter has different authors - and the editors are now Brubakk and Neuman - it's always referred to as "Bennett and Elliott" which is why I used that for the sfns, rather than "Bennett & Rostain" who wrote the chapter on narcosis, but I'll bow to your experience on that issue. I think your script chewed up the title of the book, so I'll go and unpick that in a moment. May I give you a ping at a later date to cast your eye over the article when I've done some more work on it? Regards --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course. If Bennett and Rostain just wrote the chapter you're quoting from then we need to handle that citation a little differently. And we could maybe handle the "bible" bit by adding a note or something. Anyway, having seen me pop my head up in your article Peter (Southwood), an editor I expect you're familiar with, asked me to take a look at Decompression (diving). What a monster that is!

I've only been scuba diving once, a one-day PADI introductory course. My wife refused to come along because the face mask makes her feel claustrophic, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Mind you, it was in the relatively warm waters of the Mediterranean. The only problem I had was that I was slightly out of control, as my belt wasn't heavy enough, and I got too close to another member of the group who was obviously also suffering from claustrophobia, who tried to punch me. He apologised and explained when we got back to the surface, and we had a drink together afterwards, so no harm done. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

PS. I don't know if you've been to FAC before, but FA reviewers make GA reviewers look like pussy cats; everything's got to be just so, down to the last comma. It's a tough gig. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, George. I'm not too worried about the ref format, but I take your point about the status of Bennett and Elliott, although I'm not sure how to emphasise its importance as the primary authority on the subject. It probably needs its own article. Peter's a nice guy who is very keen. We discussed at one point the dozens of stubby little articles about decompression, and I lamented how fragmented our coverage was. Peter put in a huge effort and managed to turn countless little one-liners into redirects to sections of one omnibus article - which of course just grew and grew. At some point it needs a bunch of us to turn it into a summary style and split off about 4 or 5 daughter articles. One day.

I've been lucky enough to have scuba-dived for most of my adult life and a National Instructor for over 20 years (purely amateur - I've never made a penny out of it). It's an odd coincidence, but my wife suffered from just the same face mask claustrophobia, and she was never able to accompany me on my dives, a source of great regret to me. If you're interested - when you come to collect your reward pint or three (for the copyediting) at a future meetup - I can regale you with underwater tales of sharks, stingrays, giant eels and crazy Italians.

I successfully took Oxygen toxicity to FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxygen toxicity/archive1 in 2009, so I've been through the grinder - plus the TFA later that year. I do allow that standards may be even higher now, so I'll need a stalwart co-nom such as your good self to lean on when Nitrogen narcosis is thrown into the lion's den at some point. More pints are available as a suitable bribe. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll help out with your FAC nomination as and when, of course, but a co-nom would be going too far for the little work I've done. I did a lot of snorkelling, and the thing that scared me most (apart from gigantic jellyfish off the west coast of Scotland) was one time in Brittany when I came face to face in the murky water with a diver brandishing a spear gun. Thank God he didn't mistake me for a big fish! George Ponderevo (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

One last comment:"The most dangerous aspects of narcosis are the loss of decision-making ability and focus, and impaired judgement ..." So it's dangerous to lose impaired judgement? I'll leave you to your task now, and get back to my far important articles such as Percy Ponsonby. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Bleh. I was hoping that the Oxford comma before the second "and" would help clarify that. But as a Cambridge man, I suppose I'd better re-write it. "The two most dangerous aspects are: No, wait. The three ..." --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

New version: The most dangerous aspects of narcosis are the impairments of judgement, multi-tasking and coordination; and the loss of decision-making ability and focus. - Is that semicolon too strong? I'm unsure about impairments (plural) but felt it better than impairment of judgement, of multi-tasking and of coordination which is too French. Maybe just go for the singular? --RexxS (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit, you can stand down now. Why anyone ever asks for my help is a mystery to me, as all I do is criticise. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. My problem is I find myself too invested in the text, and I can't see where I've created an ambiguity, or where I've used jargon. Having another pair of eyes - especially belonging to someone familiar with English grammar - makes a world of difference. Thank you once more. --RexxS (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I really will leave you alone after this, and you can rouse me from my slumber when you're done, but one last thing: " For any given depth, the pressure of gases in the blood passing through the brain catches up with ambient pressure within a minute or two, which results in a delayed narcotic effect after going to a new depth." Clearly going up to shallower water is going to a new depth is it not, which we're repeatedly told is the treatment for narcosis? George Ponderevo (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice catch! How about After any change of depth, the pressure of gases in the blood passing through the brain catches up with ambient pressure within a minute or two, which results in a delayed narcotic effect after descending to a new depth.? which correctly asserts the general principle, then relates the particular which only occurs on descent. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That would do for me. And now I'm off up those wooden hills to the land of nod. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed split of Decompression (diving)

Hi RexxS, I have awakened the beast with a prod from George Ponderevo, and propose to make the split. Would you take a look at the suggested distribution of sections and article names on the talk page, and make any comments you think appropriate? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Done --RexxS (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes:

I've archived the debate [3]. Nothing more productive was going to come, and the majority approved the motion that info boxes are not always necessary. Seems a good compromise. Giano 19:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to my humble talk page, Excellency! I was seriously hoping not to have to post there again, so fine. But look above: George has picked up on one of my off-hand comments from that discourse and an article that has been languishing since 2009 has had new life breathed into it, and might even go to FAC one day! Every once in a while, something comes along that reminds me why I started editing in the first place :) --RexxS (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

bzzt: same George has been seen placing a granular date in an infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

He gets everywhere that George. Reminds me of an old football chant: "He's here, he's there, he's every f*****g where [insert the name of your favourite footballer]". George Ponderevo (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fiiiigaro, figarofigarofigaro ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: March 2013

This Month in Education – Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2013
Headlines
Program leaders invited to workshop in Milan Chesapeake College Wikipedia Project Toni Sant joins Wikimedia UK as Education Organiser Medical English students begin work with Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia Farewell, Annie! Articles of Interest in other publications
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 21:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your barnstar

Worthy of your genius, oh great Tyrannosaur. Brilliant combo, crowned and sealed by the puppy's body language. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC).

Infoboxen

RexxS, new question about whether we need a tweak to the horse breed infobox, or if it can happen within just one article.

If you look at Mustang (horse), you will see that I have tried and failed to add a second image to the infobox. I have a good reason to want to do this in a couple of articles (another is Welara, where we have two images in text that would also work to go into an infobox) But I don't know if the template itself has to be tweaked to allow a second image, or if we can just make it happen on a case by case basis in individual articles. Help? Montanabw^(talk) 19:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, the generic infobox template already allows a second image, so I've enabled that feature in the {{Infobox horse breed}} template now. We always use lowercase parameter names by convention, so I've slightly tweaked the Mustang horse article to use |image2 and |image_caption2 - there is also an |image_alt2 parameter that I've created to match the |image_alt that already exists. If this does the job, do you want to update the documentation for {{Infobox horse breed}}? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful! Thanks! I think you did update the documentation for the template, yes? (If there are more than two brackets involved, I get confused...) Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Diving medicine article - request for your comments

Hi RexxS, I would like to start expanding the Diving medicine article, but would like your opinion on what it should contain. See the talk page. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've put some thoughts on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

EUBS quote

RexxS, Do you mind taking a look at the quote box on the EUBS page re the DYK comment here? You know my bias on this one for the direct sources so your input/ rewrite would be great. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the quote was too big. I've tried to summarise the first paragraph as best I can, and left Peter Barnard's personal reflections in place, thus halving the size of the quote. I think it works better like that anyway, but I need you to look at what I wrote to see if it accurately reflects the sources. As usual, feel free to hack my work or revert it. If you can manage with the smaller quote, don't forget to ask Chiswick Chap at Template:Did you know nominations/European Underwater and Baromedical Society to have another look. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems he would like to see it at 50 words or less for his interpretation of fair use... At that size of a cut there does not seem to be much point in trying to preserve the history in their own words. I am not sure I care enough to lose more. Thoughts? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made a version at about 100 words and commented at DYK. I suspect that Chiswick Chap is unlikely to object to that compromise, but the real question is whether you are content with the latest version, although I've tried to preserve the quoted wording that is the most personal reflection of Barnard's views. Are any of the sources available online, so that a curious reader could easily see the whole of his statements? --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not yet though I expect the German Society will get to those papers for their database soon. Until then, the politics between the societies can not be any better summarized than by someone that was there and impacted by the efforts. I am happy with anything. :) It would be good to see another diving medicine related topic on the front page so the effort at review seemed worth while. I just wish I had been able to find more on their history from the 80's and 90's. The version I put up is one I wrote about a year ago that was just sitting in a text file on my laptop. Peter needing some background was enough to get me moving again... Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Clueless admin

Hi Rex, I'm feeling a bit of a fool as so often. Without ever being able to figure out how Pending Changes work — how do I accept or not-accept an edit, exactly? — I have now pending-changes-protected an article.

I do understand that it's up to any autoconfirmed user, not me in particular, to do the accepting. Fortunately! Still, it's a little uncomfortable to feel such a perfect example of the clueless admin who wields the tools at random. I'm sure you understand all about it. Could you explain it in a very simple way, please? It's not the point of PC that's the problem; I do understand that; just not what to, well, do. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

It's actually editors with the reviewer flag (like me for some unknown reason) who do the accepting. All admins have the flag by default, and can also grant it to users (both deserving and undeserving). Reviewers (and admins) can pretty much edit articles as normal, except when there are changes made by a non-reviewer that have not yet been accepted; in that case you get the option to accept or reject the pending changes.

I just did an example at Rob Portman - as you can see I restored a {{citation needed}} but accepted the rest of Laexdmfoto's changes - and then accepted my own change. Any reviewer could "unaccept" [sic] my acceptance if I was wrong and it all takes place in that little box at the top. You can check out Special:PendingChanges for 'Articles with edits awaiting review' to find some to practise on (except I just emptied the only one out of there :). --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jus da fax 05:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm grateful for all attempts to discuss the issues surrounding infoboxes in a rational and collegial manner. As you say, getting the views of more uninvolved editors is a valuable step in achieving that goal. But as you can see, the problem with AN/I is that it tends to give a platform for the same groups to rehearse the same arguments yet again, so - grateful as I am for the notification - I don't think I'll be commenting there. Regards --RexxS (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Understand, rational colleague. What do you think of my first attempt to survive WP:Great Dismal Swamp? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you survived well, but it's not a place I'd advise anyone to visit often. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, also for advising to be bold, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

passionate dedication
Thank you for looking in detail at the aspects of complicated tables, improving their accessability and clarity, and for wise words concerning the spirit within the project, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (12 November 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 90th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

More about FEIWIKI and welcoming help

Dear RexxS, FEIWIKI stands for the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI)itself and is used to sign in and edit the related page on Wikipedia. I am the webmaster of the FEI and together with my colleague Olivia, who is publication Manager at the FEI, we have changed the said page and added some interesting information on the FEI. Furthermore, we wanted to change the flag attached to the German President who officiated in 1935-1936, not wanting to show the Nazi emblem our our page, EVEN if historically this was the regular flag for Germany. I can see that this Nazi flag is coming back everyday and would like to know why.

We do not feel that we are going against Wikipedia rules by completing the said page working for the FEI and of course, we are just going to promote the Equestrian World and inform people about what we do.

Keen on discussing further with you and of course benefit from your high experience in Wikipedia.

Thanks, Nicole Sigrist FEI Webmaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feiwiki (talk • contribs) 14:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nicole, I suggest you create an account for yourself as Wikipedia only accepts contributions from individuals. Feiwiki unfortunately breaches our username policy. I am pleased that you want to add information to Wikipedia, but you should take note of our conflict of interest policies when you edit articles about your employer. Unfortunately the normal practice on Wikipedia is to maintain historical accuracy, and as distasteful as I find the Nazi flag, it is the correct flag for the Third Reich which your president in 1935-36 represented. A discussion on the talk page at Talk:International Federation for Equestrian Sports might attract other editors who may be able to suggest alternatives - perhaps get agreement to remove the flag icons altogether?

I think you need to realise that you won't be allowed to promote anything on Wikipedia - at least not in the proper use of the word "promote". Wikipedia prides itself on being an encyclopedia, first and foremost, and will not allow itself to be used as a vehicle for promotion. Of course, presenting neutral, well-sourced information on any topic is always welcome, and I expect that with your background and expertise on equine matters, you will have access to a wide range of useful sources and have valuable insight into the field. I have left an rather stern commentary on your talk page, explaining the problems that I have observed so far, and I'd be grateful if you took time to consider them seriously. Montanabw is a very experienced and well-respected member of WP:WikiProject Equine and I'd advise you to take advice from her if you are in any doubt. --RexxS (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm dropping by to say that I'll take this conversation to the FEI talk page and perhaps we can expand from there. Montanabw^(talk) 15:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

REPLY

This is IP Admin Sorry posted on your userpage instead of Talkpage. Reposted here. RexxS: Without infringing on our member's rights, you can Google the contents of some of the material and notice that it is from a recently published online article. It has the very same content. That writer is our member and he has alerted us to this forum.

Wikipedia, or yourself, is free to contact him via that other forum and he will confirm that he has not authorised the publication of the plagiarised material. There are also additional material written by the member that has not been published online but circulated amongst several members for comments before submission elsewhere. This information was also published on Wikipedia without his consent. We do not mean to infringe on your community norms and we admit we are not familiar with them. We do understand that under intellectual property laws and Wikipedia guidelines on these matters, plagiarism and using of copyright material is one reason for deletion of "own" material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.41.132 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem with my userpage, it's easily fixed. Replied at User talk:220.244.41.132 to keep the thread together. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)