Jump to content

User talk:RexxS/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Editathon email

Hi I just wanted to check that you got my email regarding a possible Oxford editathon in March? I've been having problems with Gmail. Hope you're well! Shiningroad (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

RexxS, just in case you missed it, there are comments from Jonathan Cardy et al. at User talk:Redrose64#Editathon in Oxford. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Shiningroad, sorry I didn't get your email - probably gmail problems as you say. I'm good, thanks, and I'd be keen to see an Oxford editathon to coincide with International Women's Day in March. A good contact is Liz McCarthy, who works for the Bodleian and may be interested in helping out. In any case, you can always get in touch with the Bodleian at communications@bodleian.ox.ac.uk to discuss possibilities (or I can give you Liz's direct email if you email me again). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice on references to multiple pages

Hi, RexxS,

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I am sincerely flattering you by adopting the slick use of templates to reference multiple pages from the same reliable source in all the articles I hope to bring up to good article status this year. I wanted to thank you for your informative page on the topic, which has been my guide for article drafts for several years (and the documentation I link to when I use that reference format in articles in mainspace). I'm also posting here to let you know that I have now written my own version of documentation for that editorial practice, as a sign of my appreciation. I love to make articles absolutely, positively verifiable through reliable sources, and you have helped show me the way. Thanks. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't do this

RexxS, I had decided a week ago to stay away from Andy's ArbCom review, largely because of comments by Nyttend, Ched and other long-time editors whom I respect. This reference to me [1], however, is a major mistake in your defense of Andy, and I urge you to remove your reference to me as unfairly treating him in TfD discussions. Unlike DePiep and several others, I can back everything I've said in TfDs about Andy's conduct (and his sarcasm and provocative comments and accusations) with diffs and damning explanations. Your call: either remove me from your comments, or I will request an extension of today's deadline and will file a complete presentation of evidence that will not help your cause. Please advise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I stand by all my evidence and have the diffs to support it. I'd be happy to see an extension - or even more an opportunity to analyse the evidence. Understand that I will refute your denial that that you have unfairly targeted Andy and you will not be painted in a good light if I have to do so. I suggest you take a step back and reflect on your attitude to Andy as you would both be better off if you avoided each other. That's my advice. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC
Please explain how I have "unfairly targeted Andy," because that's not even remotely close to being true. I am no Javert, and Andy is certainly no Jean Valjean. If you believe that, then you need to review your own perspective regarding Andy, your heated defense of him, as well as Andy's own on-wiki history.
My perspective regarding Andy is largely a result of Andy's own aggressive conduct in TfDs in which I have participated, as well as other TfDs and drama board discussions which I read contemporaneously with Andy's participation in them over the last several years. Andy does have his supporters, several of whom I hold in great respect (I don't know you, so please don't take that as a back-handed swipe at you), and that is why I had decided to stay away from this ArbCom review largely because of their early comments, largely to the effect that everyone deserves a second chance and that Andy had made significant positive contributions to the project despite his past sanctions. Because I am open to other perspectives regarding this editor, I had decided to let the AbrCom proceedings take place without my participation.
That being said, several of Andy's supporters are only too willing to ignore Andy's aggressive and often uncivil discussion comments to other discussion participants, as well as his aggressive editing. Angry comments directed at Andy do not "just happen" in a vacuum; they are usually triggered by Andy's comments in the first instance, and when confronted with vocal opposition in discussions, he does little to reduce the level of heated discussion. Very little, in fact. So let's not pretend this is someone who has been unfairly targeted by hoards of Wikipedia bad actors; I can think of precisely one editor who routinely opposes Andy's proposals for the sake of opposing Andy. He is an editor who, however admirable his accomplishments, has also been blocked thirty-plus times, site-banned for a year twice, banned from editing the article of the day, and is currently topic-banned from various things related to infoboxes. He has an established pattern of conduct and a record of serious sanctions, and that's on him, not on some imagined hoard of people who live to make Andy's life miserable. Most of us would love for the project to have his productive work, but coupled with a far less aggressive, more collaborative approach to editing and to templates in particular. I'm sorry if you believe otherwise, but there are other perspectives on Andy which do not coincide 100% with your own, and many of those perspective are no less valid than your own, and there are numerous editors who hold such perspectives in good faith based on first-hand observations of the editor in question. And they're not all wrong. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
And, Andy's prosecutors - including you, Dirtlawyer1, fail to see the log in their own eyes. Andy is often correct and the OWNers of various templates are engaging in mere IDONTLIKEIT knee-jerk opposition. His conduct, far from "aggressive," is merely pointing out the obvious (and note I oppose him occasionally on TfD and find he is reasonable and fair in his debate(). Now quit trying to intimidate people who speak fairly about Andy. Save your pitchforks for actual trolls. Montanabw(talk) 02:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: I have only to read your recent interactions with Andy to see how you've singled him out for your attention. My defence of him is far less heated than your persistence in opposing him with little justification.
It should be clear from the diffs I've already provided that I have little time for for those who bait and harass others. Andy has not done that. He has been working on consolidating the unmanageable proliferation of templates into more generic ones for several years now and is just as civil to others as they have been to him.
Those who OWN their templates see him as an inconvenient threat to their creations. Once someone has had a target painted on their back by ArbCom, it is far too easy for those opposing Andy to try to use unrelated issues as a tool to remove him from discussions. That is precisely what this case is about - and incidentally, it's also the argument that you're deploying above.
Andy has worked with many editors - myself included - on multiple projects, both on-wiki and in support of Wikimedia UK without any suggestion of a problem. He received an award at Wikimania for his work and those who endorsed that award were not all wrong either.
Like many other editors Andy does not suffer fools gladly and I have seen him snap back when provoked. I have regularly counselled him to ignore these editors, but it is difficult when they are deliberately side-tracking debates and attacking him. I have documented many instances of this and there's nothing imaginary about it. This isn't your hyperbole of "hoards of editors", but it is a clearly identifiable handful of editors. I can only surmise from your persistence in whitewashing the actions of that group that you sympathise with them. Clearly your actions do nothing to help alleviate, but merely further antagonise the situation - you ignore those who start the provocations and seek to blame Andy for his reactions. That he reacts poorly when attacked is no justification for calling him the names that I noted in the case.
You're just going to have to accept that your interactions with Andy do nothing to further your claimed desire "for the project to have his productive work, but coupled with a far less aggressive, more collaborative approach". If you're not able to collaborate with Andy, then you need to examine your own attitude. Plenty of other editors manage to collaborate successfully with him without having problems.
Frankly, I have no confidence in your assertion that "I am open to other perspectives regarding this editor" since your actions demonstrate quite the opposite to your words. Please feel free to explain how open you have been to other perspectives on Andy because I've been unable to find any evidence of that anywhere. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Rexx, from your comments above, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's my conduct that is under review here. It is not. The sooner you accept that some of Andy's conduct is problematic, the sooner some recurring TfD problems will begin to resolve themselves. I am not part of any conspiracy to hound Andy, and I don't pretend to speak for anyone other than myself. I certainly have no interest in whitewashing the actions of anyone. Andy is responsible for his own actions. As am I. As are you. Andy is no different in that regard. But you have to believe in some of Wikipedia-wide anti-Andy conspiracy/cabal to believe that there is no merit to complaints about his conduct when he has been blocked more than 30 times, site-banned for a year twice, banned from editing the article of the day, and is currently topic-banned. Do you think I'm responsible for that? I have no prior personal history with Andy before November 2014, and I am certainly no leader of your anti-Andy cabal.
"Like many other editors Andy does not suffer fools gladly and I have seen him snap back when provoked." And the same could be said of me, and many other editors who have been on the receiving end of Andy's on-wiki comments and editing behavior. You clearly like Andy and admire his good work. Good for you. You also clearly have a blind spot for Andy's not-so-admirable conduct. When you make blanket statements about Andy's critics, to the effect that they are all out to get Andy, that none of them have any valid points, that they are all driven my some irrational animus towards him, I hope you understand how that sounds to an uninvolved third-party.
"Plenty of other editors manage to collaborate successfully with him without having problems." And plenty self-evidently do not. Why is that? Why does Andy generate such reactions? Is that the fault of everyone except Andy? Does an editor get blocked 30+ times and site-banned twice because other persons are unfairly persecuting him? Is it remotely possible that Andy is perhaps doing some things that lead to these outcomes?
"I have no confidence in your assertion that 'I am open to other perspectives regarding this editor.'" As for my open-mindedness, have you stopped to ponder why I am engaged in this discussion with you? Or do you believe that my dialogue with you is part of some vindictive campaign to stick it to Andy?
I would be curious to hear your answers to my questions. And in an intellectually honest manner where we're not trading rhetorical statements. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You're the one who is mistaken if you think that you can malign other editors without your own conduct being examined. This is my talk page and I'm entitled to review whatever I choose here. Let me remind you, you're the one who came here. You have a track-record of attacking Andy in concert with others, so please don't insult my intelligence. I've just come from pointing out where you've called Andy foolish and stated that he intentionally (your emphasis) did not notify the creator of the second template in a TfM discussion. Words are easy - "I'm not part of a conspiracy" - yet your actions contradict such platitudes.
Andy's blocks were before you even started editing on Wikipedia, but I see that you insist in dredging them up time and again as if they were relevant to the present disputes. That's common tactics in attempting to discredit an editor and I'm pretty sure you know that. Not an admirable trait.
I see from your repeated hyperbole ("Wikipedia-wide anti-Andy conspiracy/cabal") that you take me for an idiot. I have no need to believe in any such thing. A few determined editors are sufficient to pile on - as you have so clearly demonstrated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 10. You don't have to be a leader, just being a follower is all that's necessary.
Personalising these sort of issues into "liking" or "disliking" someone is playground talk. I had assumed you were older than that. Let me say that I do think Andy does good work, even when I disagree with him. I don't think he does himself any favours when he makes terse replies instead of spelling out the issue in detail, but my response is to privately try to counsel him, not to make it into a confrontation as several others have a habit of doing.
You want to know why some editors don't get on with Andy? It's because he believes that infoboxes improve articles and that reducing the vast number of overly-specific templates into more manageable generic ones improves the encyclopedia. He believes this sincerely and has put a lot of work over the years into furthering those goals. There are a number of editors who intensely hate infoboxes and a similar number who have invested effort into the very templates that Andy seeks to amalgamate. Both groups have not found convincing reasons for opposing Andy but know that they can provoke him sufficiently to get a response that allows them to seek sanctions. It doesn't matter how often they fail because eventually the mud will stick and Andy will be removed from the area where he is an inconvenience to them.
No matter how much you protest, you're not an uninvolved third-party, so I have no expectation that you'll agree with my analysis. But you provide no reason why the same few editors show up time and again to oppose Andy. It was exactly the same behaviour from a small group over infoboxes. Your attitude is that it isn't real but you simply ignore the evidence I already found from a brief inspection of the TfD logs. Feel free to explain away the treatment numerous editors have received when they tried to add an infobox to certain articles. Am I imagining that as well? It's the direct result of the campaign to keep Andy away from infobox discussions and gives a free hand to the anti-infobox brigade to dismiss editors who won't argue their case as firmly as Andy used to. You'd like to see the same result for TfDs, wouldn't you?
The reason you came here was to try to get me to remove my mention of you in the Review Evidence page, or have you forgotten that already? There's nothing for me to ponder, other than why you waste your time by continuing the debate when my opinion of your actions is absolutely clear. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to that last point? --RexxS (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sir, I do believe you are sadly correct: this is probably a waste of my time, as you suggested immediately above. In your adamantly stated opinion, I am 100% at fault, Andy/Pigsonthewing is 100% blameless, and you are completely unreceptive to arguments by me or anyone else that some of Andy's discussion comments and related editing are problematic. So, no, this is probably not a good use of our time, and I apologize for wasting yours.

For your benefit, I had absolutely no part in the Great Infobox Wars, nor did I ever have any personal interaction with Andy/Pigsonthewing prior to November 2014. In fact, I am generally pro-infobox, but I have never engaged in an edit war to add or remove one. You might ask yourself how someone with my six years of history and depth of Wikipedia contributions has come to view Andy as problematic, but that would require you to question your own opinions and conclusions. I have attempted to engage you regarding Andy's issues, with sincerity and in good faith here on your talk page. Based on your strongly expressed opinions regarding me and the motives you attribute to me, I see no further point in continuing this discussion. Hopefully, we can find something upon which we can agree and work together in the future. As you note above, this is your user talk page, and I will now respectfully withdraw from it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Refs

WRT refs IMO it is much better over one line rather than 20 lines and access date is not needed for journals. I prefer full journal names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Have re added the full journal names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you 100%, James. Also, I'd be keen to see the {{cite doi}}s removed, but as well as replacing journal names with abbreviations, Boghog's script also amalgamated authors into a single parameter and removed month from the date. I'd like him to get it right because he's doing a good job cleaning up the cites otherwise. Thanks for commenting on his talk page. As for the width of refs, there's never a "right answer" as 32em will cause longer citations to be broken up over more lines than 35em would - and anyone viewing on different screen width will see something different from us anyway. I'm sure 32em will be fine. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

All the socks watching fireworks

Darwinfish and the gang send you some deep midwinter Stockholm fireworks from last night.

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec14c}} to your friends' talk pages.

Help with a teaching exercise

Hi RexxS, RichFarmbrough has recently refreshed a list for me which has enabled me to update a training exercise for newbies. But I think I've made it over complicated, would you mind running an eye over it? ϢereSpielChequers 21:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It certainly looks fine and you've broken down the steps quite well. But it does introduce several techniques at once to newbies:
  1. The difference between Wikipedia and Commons;
  2. Searching Commons;
  3. Altering a given piece of text in Wikipedia to match information read from Commons;
(Assuming they will have already met editing an article and giving an edit summary.)
It may be that your audience will cope with those concepts all in one go, but I wouldn't guarantee it. You may also find - depending on the IT skills of the group - that you need to explain having multiple tabs open as well as copy & paste. Believe me, it happens. Normally I'd prefer to demonstrate adding an predetermined image (perhaps a picture of a kitten to a sandbox) first so that they can see how it's done before asking them to do that themselves - and adding the "search" bit as a separate step. The sort of actually useful exercise that you're describing would then be the follow-up. Now, the problem is that you may not have time to do all of that, so you have to either pre-judge the abilities of your audience or have extra helpers available to catch problems as they come up individually. It's always more efficient to solve problems as a group, but it risks boring the more able in an non-homogeneous group.
tl;dr: It looks good and should work well with the right audience, but may need some simpler preliminary exercises for some. HTH --RexxS (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rexxs, I've run a couple of sessions based on earlier versions of this and yes on both occasions I had an assistant. Also for things like opening multiple tabs people seemed happy to help each other. I'm thinking of this as a module which could even be someone's first edits. ϢereSpielChequers 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

talk aimed at college faculty

While you guys are at it, do either of you have a link to a good outline for a talk where one as only 30 minutes to discuss WP to a layperson's audience? (College faculty, to be precise) - basically a "how you can use WP in the classroom and a teaser for a class on editing that I'll be doing in a few weeks?") Montanabw(talk) 06:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@ToniSant: or @Kudpung: are likely to have something that would work for that. ϢereSpielChequers 07:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, 30 mins is very short. If it's a straight lecture and you have your own notebook connected to a large display, with your knowledge you should be able to deliver something off the cuff. If you are expecting people to learn how to get on to Wikipedia in the first place or sign up for it it will take longer. Old experienced professional teachers and lecturers like RexxS and me (we've also done workshops together) don't need a lesson plan or crib sheet for this kind of thing. Using your computer and a large display is essential whatever you do. Load your computer with lots of screenshots that you can use on the fly when and if they need to know. better still of course is if you have an Internet connection. 'How you can use WP in the classroom' is as broad as it is long - does it refer to doing academic research for homework assignments, or just obtaining and improving editing skills as a contributor?Much of the content you deliver depends what previous knowledge of using or editing WP they bring with them and you will have to establish that within the first three minutes of classroom time to know where to place the starting point for your talk so that you teach them as much as possible in that limited time. Hope this helps. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
If I was talking to a bunch of academics, I'd be inclined to spend a decent chunk of the time dispelling myths and explaining how a tertiary source can be useful for students without being a substitute for the primary and secondary material they should be relying on. Just my two cents. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all, and more comments welcome! Yes, I will have my laptop hooked to a display and the internet should be up, so I could easily wing it, (Ah iz also a teecher at da place...(an adjunct)) but I find it helpful to bounce around ideas for the audience, who will most likely have zero editing experience. My goals are 1) Explain that WP is not crap and the basics on how to best use it as a tertiary research source for undergrads doing their term papers; 2) To introduce faculty to things like GA/FA -class articles but also the caveat emptor of vandalism that can always hit even an FA class article. (But how not to freak out about it), then 3) Offer a "teaser" for the class I'll be teaching on editing (that I offered in the fall but was cancelled because only one person signed up!). Montanabw(talk) 19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, expanding a bit on what Harry says, I always make a point very early on about how imperative it is to understand what COPYVIO is and why it is strictly forbidden, without of course expounding all kinds of laws. I usually illustrate this with some screen shots of the Duplication Detector. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important to win people over at the start of a session, so with a faculty audience I would lead with something like of course by the time you are studying at undergraduate level you need to get beyond tertiary sources such as a general interest encyclopaedia. ϢereSpielChequers 11:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The biggest challenge is the "wikipedia is crap" belief. It's about attracting these people to be interested in editing, maybe creating (advanced) class projects (as opposed to crap class projects) and how to make use of it as a tertiary source in contrast to other encyclopedic resources. Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review/Proposed decision

RexxS, if you are going to provide analysis of evidence, could you please try and do it in the next 24 hours? I'm trying to get the PD out Wednesday. Courcelles (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do, Courcelles, and thanks for the note. It's a shame that I won't have the time to go into the detail that it deserves, but I'll do my best in the time allowed. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

For excellent images for facebook Hafspajen (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Whirling dance disappoints

(That's a very artistic baklava above.) Laurel and Hardy dance in my edit notice, but the phenakistoscope is frozen! Disappointing! :-( Can Dino help? Bishonen | talk 11:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC).

Never mind, seems the couple just took a few hours to overcome their shyness. They're dancing right now! :-) Bishonen | talk 14:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC).
Laurel and Hardy were always very shy in the company of ladies. I imagine the ellipsis in the caption would have caused them considerable consternation, so you're lucky to get them to dance at all. There was also a known bug in the way that the server rendered animated gifs at different sizes, although I thought they had fixed it - perhaps not completely. --RexxS (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, Laurel and Hardy have always danced with great abandon no matter where I put them, though now you mention it, I suppose they are shy with ladies — remember Oliver Hardy's tie-twirl? (We should have an animated gif of that.) But the pretty phenakistoscope image, where a gentleman caller spins 'shonen von Leuchtenberg round and round, wouldn't move at first. Both the dancing images have ellipses in the captions, but at opposite ends. Hmm. I didn't call up any individual sizes for them, just a gallery size. "Perhaps not entirely fixed" is the story of animated gifs, I suppose. Though the blinking Bishzilla will blink scarily at any size! Bishonen | talk 15:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC).

Ozymandias

Hahahahahaha! You know, you should create a sock under your real name, Famously Brilliant. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC).

Parents argument row

He's typically upset that he's had his proposal shot down in short order, without much of an explanation. It usually works better not to challenge the offended party in that situation, if it can be avoided. Alakzi (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was the person who supported his proposal. See User:RexxS/sandbox#Infobox person where I tested it out. I'm afraid it runs deeper than you realise. He's been chronically opposed to anything Andy does and dislikes me because I've often taken Andy's side in disputes - although ironically not in this one. He just wanted to turn it into an attack against Andy again and I'm not about to let him get away with behaving like that.
Nevertheless, I'm grateful for your concern and advice. Thank you sincerely. --RexxS (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. There's no shortage of feuds in this place. Alakzi (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Sad, but true. I had a wiki-friend who abandoned his old account and started a new one every few months, simply because it avoided folks realising they had a feud with him from his previous incarnation. That didn't end well. --RexxS (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello stranger!

Hello,

Its been a while! Hope you are well and we will maybe see you at a meet-up again one day. I have wandered to your talk page as I hear you are the best person to help with an info box. I need one for Brett Harvey (director) but have no idea which to use.

Thanks, ツStacey (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just realised there was no please in any of that.. Oops! Please insert a please above where necessary ;)
(watching) In case of doubt: use {{infobox person}}. I would do it for you, but I am restricted by the arbitration committee ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stacey. The article hasn't got a lot of the content that we would usually put into an infobox, but if you think the article will expand to include things like date and place of birth. etc. then {{infobox person}} would be a good choice, as Gerda says. Just paste the following at the top of the article:
{{Infobox person
| name          = Brett Harvey
| image         = <!-- just the filename, without the File: or Image: prefix or enclosing [[brackets]] -->
| alt           = 
| caption       = 
| birth_date    = <!-- {{Birth date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}} or {{Birth-date and age|birth date†}} -->
| birth_place   = 
| nationality   = 
| occupation    = film writer and director
| years_active  = 2003–
| known_for     = 
| notable_works = ''Weekend Retreat'' (2011)
}}
It's not much of an infobox yet, but has potential. Whenever you find more information, amend the infobox - an image would obviously be good. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much! ツStacey (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Science Conference

Hello Doug, You're receiving this update because you asked to be informed about the Wikipedia Science Conference taking place in London on 2nd and 3rd of September. Thanks for your interest.

The call for proposals is now public and session proposals are coming in. The two keynotes, and some other invited speakers, have graciously accepted. In mid-May we will bring together a programme, a publicity poster, and an online booking form. Then we'll begin the main publicity and will need your help getting the word out.

Please put in a session proposal if you've been thinking of doing so: the deadline is the 8th May. This is far from the only way to be involved. The conference will need session moderators, a programme review group, and other volunteers: if there is a specific role you are interested in, or if you have any other questions, please email me at m.l.poulter@bristol.ac.uk.

There will be a large "unconference" session in the programme and - fingers crossed - a "hackathon" event two days later on the Saturday, so even if you do not have a proposal accepted, you will have a chance to shape the conference activities.

Personal note: I will probably be calling on your training expertise, either at the event itself or the hackathon, because some of the attendees will be power users, but some will be completely new to wiki editing. It'd be great to have you involved.

Please pass on the word to any colleagues who might want to put in a proposal or help the conference in any way. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Martin

Hi RexxS. Give me some time, and later today I'll try to organize my thoughts a bit better. I'm not sure how much you saw, and perhaps you even posted, but a couple weeks ago there was an issue requested at Arbcom. It revolved around Laurence Olivier article, and was poorly (IMO) titled "Infobox II". Unfortunately it got turned into case to sanction user Dreadstar, and the wider issues were never explored. (that being the WP:OWNership issues) Perhaps I'm jumping to an "endgame" here, but I honestly don't have the desire to sit through yet another "let's find a way to sanction anybody who supports an iBox" situation. My own perspective is that things that were once contained within the walled garden of classical composer bios, are now spreading out into BLP areas. I'll try to watch, but won't really be active enough to participate beyond an occasional observation until the end of the month. Best of luck with all. pretty sure the poor attempt at humor on Bishonen's page was understood by all who know me. :-) — Ched :  ?  17:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Nuisance post

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)

Three years ago, you were the 90th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - Now, I repeated: "I don't want to post here" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

parameters.py

Hi RexxS. Would this interest you? You appear to be quite the Lua expert. Alakzi (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I've commented at Andy's page. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RexxS/Archive_26&oldid=1140272037"