User talk:RexxS/Archive 10

Be calm

Rexx, please chill a bit. Abortion is a contentious enough topic without the aggressiveness. And, yes, if some primary source describes a medical study, and then the NYT does an article about it without endorsing or validating the results of the study, then we can use the NYT as a source for the fact the study was done. That's light years away from a situation where either the NYT or Wikipedia repeats the study's conclusions as fact. That's a huge difference, and MEDRS is primarily concerned with the latter type of situation, not the former.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I seem aggressive, it's merely frustration at your inability to understand where your logic is taking you. One of the reasons we created MEDRS is to ensure that articles don't get flooded by medical claims which are only supported by weak evidence, such as single studies or case reports. The field of medicine is fortunate that massive amounts of research are going on all the time, but it does mean that the field is bombarded by new results continually. As a result we have reached agreement – as documented by MEDRS – that where high-quality sources exist, we only include text that is supported by those sources. This means that in the mainstream aspects of medicine, we will be using only secondary sources as described in MEDRS, such as systematic reviews, literature reviews, textbooks, position statements by major organisations. They all bring an added degree of authority to the primary sources that they summarise, because we accept their authority to select those primary studies which are important and critically analyse them. It is inconvenient that this sets a higher bar for inclusion of text/sourcing into articles, since we generally have to wait for a later source to review a primary (which may contain a new, important finding). Nevertheless, we have concluded that the alternative is far less acceptable.

Consider the logic of your argument. First, WP:Verifiability requires that material needs citation if it is challenged or likely to be challenged; so you say that the LA Times is used to verify that the study was done. But there is no challenge under WP:V; nobody is suggesting that the study wasn't done. Actually, the fact that the NEJM published the Munk-Olsen study is sufficient to verify that it was done, and the LA Times adds nothing to that.

Next, you are asserting that where a primary study has been reported in a newspaper, it makes that primary study worthy of inclusion – because we only need prove that the source exists, regardless of what it says. So by your logic we now have a means of including every primary study that gains some notice in the mainstream press. In other words, because we can independently verify that the primary source exists, we can include it, and the exclusion criteria of MEDRS no longer count.

Finally, if you read WP:NPOV#FAQ, it explains the difference between stating a fact and attributing an opinion to a source. Again you misrepresent my argument. My 'original position' is that the text/source should be excluded by MEDRS as it is a primary source; You substitute an 'unequivalent proposition' that I am objecting to it being stated as fact, and then refute that. There is indeed a 'huge difference' with what you claim, and it's that MEDRS is just as concerned with text which states a fact as it is with text which is attributed as an opinion.

Where does this lead us? The pro-choice and pro-life camps edit-warring to add their favourite tid-bits of propaganda that have been reported somewhere in the press? You can imagine that you'll be able to defend your side and have the article reflect what "you know is right". But the truth is that when you start throwing out our policies because you find them inconvenient, you'll end up with anarchy. The only other choice open to you is to consistently defend the principles that prevent the project descending into a cess-pit. Good luck with your decision. --RexxS (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Rexx, I really must object to you putting words in my mouth. I never sought to disregard or throw out MEDRS; after all, I quoted MEDRS. This is not the first time in history that two people have interpreted a Wikipedia policy differently. Please accept that that may be what's happening here.

Likewise, you again assert that I said you objected to the study's conclusions being stated as fact. No. I never said that. What I said is that the LA Times is an acceptable secondary source because IT does not state the study's conclusions as fact. If I was somehow unclear on this point, then I profusely apologize, but really my comments thusfar do not seem unclear on this point.

BTW, I'm somewhat mystified by why you haven't removed the material in question yet. Generally speaking, it's horrible practice to allow users to edit-war material into an article without consensus, especially redundant material, or material that is already adequately covered in an article. Material edit-warred into the abortion article without consensus used to be removed immediately (and the offenders blocked), and that practice was wise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok – I apologise for putting words into your mouth. You don't see the issues in the same way that I do, and I'm content to accept that. But I hope you can also accept that I genuinely believe your arguments are addressing other issues and missing the point I make.

The LA Times – look at the disputed text: "A January 2011 study in the New England Journal of Medicine concludes that ...". We don't need the LA Times to verify that the "January 2011 study in the New England Journal of Medicine" concluded something. It's not challenged. But we are reporting in the article not just the fact that the study reached a conclusion; we are reporting what the conclusion was, "... women who have had a first-trimester abortion are no more likely to seek psychiatric care after the procedure than before ...". No matter what the conclusion was, I'd be objecting to its inclusion because it's a medical claim sourced to a primary study, and we already have secondary sources addressing the same issue. I hope that clarifies my view that the LA Times is utterly irrelevant to the question of meeting MEDRS, which in my humble opinion is key.

I can resolve your mystification. I have a strict self-imposed 1RR on everything except incontrovertible vandalism. I reverted the original edit by Ritterhude and that is the end of my involvement in editing. If he edit-wars it back in, and others agree (as Doc James did when he re-inserted the text later), then so be it. I can do no more than follow the BRD process by opening discussion on Talk – as I did. If I fail to frame my arguments in a sufficiently convincing way – as seems the case here – the edit-warriors get their way. I'm quite philosophical about that, because I find the alternative (playing the 3RR game), to be an unacceptable way of writing an encyclopedia in a collegial manner. --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, from my point of view the report in the LA Times increases notability immensely, plus the LA Times is not a primary source, and any possibility of misleading Wikipedia readers is greatly reduced because we don't state any conclusions as fact, but rather attribute them in-text.

As for Doc James, I hadn't noticed that he joined the original editor who inserted the material. So, if it was those two versus you, then perhaps there was consensus for insertion prior to when you started the thread. But I am not detracting from the present consensus that this material is already adequately covered in the Wikipedia article.

Generally speaking, if an editor does edit-war material into an article without consensus (especially a controversial article like this one), then the editor ought to be blocked, IMHO. Enjoy the rest of your weekend! :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would always agree that mention in a respectable newspaper enhances the notability of its subject. But then, I'd have to point out that notability is actually used to determine whether Wikipedia should have an article on the subject. Notability simply isn't one of the criteria used to establish whether a source is reliable. It becomes obvious when you consider an extreme example: the "Hitler Diaries" were indisputably notable (published by Stern, Sunday Times and Newsweek), but nobody would suggest using them as a reliable source for Hitler's biography – I hope!

I'd also agree that when we attribute text to its source (as in this case, the conclusion is attributed to a January 2011 study in the NEJM), we decrease the risk of giving the impression we are stating the finding as fact. However, we usually reserve attribution for cases where a finding is disputed among reliable sources ('ASF' – a keystone of NPOV). Perversely, in this case, the findings of the Munk-Olsen study are not disputed among reliable sources, as far as I know, and have no need of attribution according to ASF. In fact they are merely redundant to the preceding two paragraphs of summary.

You see, my objection is not to what the text says, but to the principle of adding a medical claim that is supported only by a primary source (and you may be able to accept that I don't believe a mention in a newspaper alters that). That may make me look awfully pedantic, but the degree of controversy and potential for adversarial POV-pushing in Abortion forces me to make a stand for strict adherence to MEDRS, which I believe is our best shield against POV from either side.

If I'm utterly honest about the issue, I have to admit a sneaking suspicion that the text was included because it does contain a novel proposition: that abortion has no effect on mental health, while giving birth has a negative impact in the following months. As if there's anything surprising about sleepless nights, constant demands, incessant howling, and permanent worry producing an adverse effect on some people's state of mind. Anyway, I don't find the comparison presented in the way it is in the article particularly helpful to an understanding of abortion. I seriously hope that the pro-choice camp isn't putting forward the prospect of avoiding the trials of the early months of parenthood as an important factor in a woman's decision to have an abortion, in other than the most extreme of psychiatric cases. Regards --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

By notability, I meant prominence. See WP:Weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oregon streams..

I would think the table could use a caption too! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for the reminder. I hope I didn't edit-conflict you, but I thought you were having a break and I could finish that bit before you got back. I think it's in decent shape now, but I'll leave the call to you. --RexxS (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I went for a coffee, got back and you'd done the job nicely! I think we're good to go on all the contenders now. Last thing outstanding was your concerns over the placement/formatting of the lists within the main page. Have we got a satisfactory conclusion on this do you think (i.e. a serious review of blurb size, image size etc before each list goes main... and Adam's flexible coding approach to help us deal with tweaking it?). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually think the best solution is to halve the size of the blurbs. That would give us a lot more room to manoeuvre while we're working out which options we want to settle on, but I'm reluctant to push that at this stage. As a fallback, I've suggested making a few condensed versions if folks feel able to produce them. --RexxS (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll produce my two in shorter versions, and see what I can do with some of the others...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's probably plenty. I reckon we only need enough to demonstrate the principle if the need arises. --RexxS (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done a couple at User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates (short), they're all around 500-600 chars. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Anything else...

...I may have overlooked? I'm quite keen to keep the momentum going, as you may be able to tell, so let me know if there are any glaring holes in what we now have. I hope to have the pages/links tied up and tidied up later this afternoon, then add the proposal to Talk:Main page this evening, all being well... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing that comes to mind. I've dropped you an email anyway. Looking forward to the excitement! --RexxS (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Here goes the excitement!! Seriously, thanks for all your support with this, and the ACCESS advice, mockups, consideration and input to the proposal. Fingers crossed! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note about the Oregon streams, User:Finetooth has expressed concerns about the changes both of you made to it at the list's talk page. I figure as you guys were the ones who made the changes, you'd be better able to explain the reasoning behind them. Cheers, and great work on all of this. Nomader ^(Talk) 18:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on Finetooth's talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bring Back Jack

{{User:RexxS/BringBackJack}}

I don't have any weight or leverage to reverse that injustice, but I can withdraw from work on Wikipedia if I choose. If anybody else feels the same, you can transclude the above anywhere by just using {{User:RexxS/BringBackJack}}, or make your own feelings known in your own way. As Jack would say: Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

RexxS, please do not withdraw from editing. I'm already sufficiently disheartened, and I think there's a limit to how many excellent editors this project can afford to make dormant. Even one is too many. I agree with the sentiments you've expressed here, and I think the best thing we can do is continue on as before, and any editors who have been positively influenced by Jack, can continue to build on his work. I don't think the project as a whole will notice an editor who withdraws, with exception of those editors who care, but an editor who continues will make an impression. Jack knows that many editors welcome him, understand that he feels like he's been kicked in the head, and hope that the editor behind the "Jack Merridew" moniker will return, even if Jack never does. It seems to me that Jack's misdemeanours are ancient history, and that those editors who fail to see that, will never see that and they are the ones who make the whole "rehabilitation" process a joke. What's the point of allowing someone to start their "rehabilitation" if there's no chance of redemption at the end of it, no matter how much good they achieve? That's clearly the attitude of some editors. They shouldn't be the ones to have the final say, and they will only have the final say if Jack – and others – withdraw. Rossrs (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't go, man

Jack is a cool dude, both in his work and his persona and helping newbies (some of the salty vets don't). I'm a former permabannee or permablockee or whatever. Jack is not all in the right on this, Rexx. I know it's hard, since he's your bud and I'm glad that you would throw down for him. But no one even disciplined him. Hang in there man.

P.s. And we need you to help protect FL from FA bullies.  ;-)

TCO (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As difficult as I sometimes find Jack to work with, that statement was ridiculous. I'm tempted to revive my use of this userbox, and minded to make a statement as well. As difficult as it sometimes is though, I hope you find a way to retain a tiny smidgeon of faith in the project. For all its current problems, and as slow as progress sometimes seems, I genuinely believe Wikipedia is moving in the right direction. —WFC— 09:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang in there, Big Rex ! Keep the lack of faith ! the darwin twins 16:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

List of First Deputies of the Soviet Union

The Rambling Man, and me, wants you to take a look at the list's tables. Regards --TIAYN (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've commented at WP:Featured list candidates/List of First Deputies of the Soviet Union/archive1. HTH, --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring

Hi RexxS, Your work assessing article quality is really valuable and generated some excellent results from fall semester. The assessment process has been streamlined and dates are clearly posted for the upcoming assessment rounds. The Initiative has a lot more classes signed up for spring, so I would like to recruit some more Wikipedian assessors, and I was hoping you could help with that. I think community members would be more likely to participate if they are recruited by Wikipedians like yourself who have a good reputation. The strategy that worked last semester was to leave an individual message on the talk pages of non-adversarial Wikipedians. I looked for people by contributions to public policy related articles and those active on the 1.0 Editorial Team. I usually mentioned in the message what specifically about their work history made me think they would be a good assessment team participant. This is super time consuming to contact like 50 people, but only doing a few is not so bad. Also, I am looking for feedback about assessing with PPI, so please check out the discussion on the assessment tab, and let me know there if you have a chance to recruit some other assessors. I hope you are looking forward to another great semester working on this project. Drop me a line – ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Amy, sorry for the slow response, but I've been on a small wiki-break. I can't promise, but I'll do my best to help out with your request, if time time permits me. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Principles on editing

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Workshop#Editorial process might interest you. I've pirated your ideas from the last knockings of the Shakespeare case. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elen, thanks for the note. Of course you're always welcome to pirate anything from me, and I'm always keen to be helpful where I can. I'm convinced that the order of principles is now correct. As for the wording, I thought it was amusing that PhilKnight prefers "unseemly" to "confrontational", when it was ChaseMe's dislike of "unseemly" in ARBSAQ that prompted me to think about it in the first place. "Ya can't please all the people all the time." (but I guess you've figured that out already!) --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. state reptiles

Please come by and give this article a review for FLC. I know you helped some, but you said you were holding back from helping too much since you wanted to give a review (even though we still got very needed help on the table!) TCO (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

nominated an image of yours for Featured Picture

See here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/subspecies of painted turtles TCO (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I understand that the gallery as a composition doesn't qualify, and it's a shame that there isn't a process to recognise that, but your bringing it to the FP's attention will make more people think about the issue. Well done. (P.S. I'll try to look at your FL nom tomorrow). --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it DOES qualify and is an important innovation to show people. The issue is that the pics I got were not "good enough" and I busted ASS to get what we did have. Read the talk thread there for some more discussion. As far as I'm concerned this is far from a "gallery" of images. It is a thoughtful schematic and a table was just the mechanism to put it together.TCO (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow – that's interesting. I only glanced at the page several days ago, but I've looked again now and the comments from Maedin are particularly encouraging. I hope it will spark more ideas going forward. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I got a map approved for FP (see my page for the info). That had a huge amount of content. And the whole point was on useful and EFFICIENT conveyance of lots of info. NOT on only having a pretty picture and finding an article for it. I see your construction as very similar in a way. It really is a 1000 words type of schematic. I mean before we got the 2 by 4 table up, we had pictures of each subspecies, but they weren't even conveying key content. For one thing the top view of the western and midland were indistinguishable. You NEED the bottom view to give the info. Plus I just see it as the coming together of very sophisticated methods (I rate you high) with quality insight into the materials (me knowing the subspecies). Same thing went down with the map, with me and FS collaborating. It really is sort of the way Wiki should work and someone (Dianna?) even made that comment. I am just so huggums to have you back!!!TCO (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

List of First Deputies of the Soviet Union

The Rambling Man wants you to check out this list's table layout. Regards. --TIAYN (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

More access stuff..

If you get chance can you check in at the discussion at Talk:American Idol (season 10)#Tables and accessibility? cheers! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I finally got the chance, so I've commented there. I expect that we'll need some follow-up. --RexxS (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice...

... to see you back. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I second that motion! Take care --Gene Hobbs (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thirded! —WFC— 23:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words! I never intended to let a couple of the less able members of the Arbitrary Committee run me off the project, but I really needed a Wiki-break. I'm now back and refreshed – so all I have to do is answer all the backlog of jobs that folks have left here for me :D --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

abbreviation or words?

My prefernce is actually the words. But I donno. What do you think? TCO (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Always prefer the words over abbreviations, unless there's a very good reason to save space. Infoboxes, etc. are valid reasons; a table in the body text is always a judgement call for each individual case. In this case, the abbreviations will always be linked, so a mouseover can supply the fuller info. I'd not worry too much either way here, unless somebody specifically objected to the style you decide on. --RexxS (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing words. I really prefer that as the letters are a little cryptic. Was plenty of space.All the ratings and refs are in.

I am going to have some significant content that discusses that column as well, with links, examples, etc. Will be a day or two for the content though. It's going to be a sweet section (not just a how many are endangered, but I actually found some papers and stuff that fit right in. May need help with one little trick I am thinking about with a quotebox that shows a quote from the 50s and from now, showing massive change in conservation values. Really just want sort of two cells, next to each other. Hmmm. Let me get the main stuff done first, since that is a flourish though.

poor table structure on Taiwan High Speed Rail

• poke; you might have some interesting views on these; it's at 'GA Review' so see teh talk. Besides the tables, I see a whole lot of trivia in there. The sea of goop re 'stopping pattern' that's completely unexplained, for example. This would seem to be rail-trivia that general readers will have no interest in. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • [Darwinbish is impressed by Gold Hat's standard farewell greeting. ] Pretty good, that "Damned"! One doesn't want to imitate wienie users, of course.. What does wienie little Gold Hat think of evil twin (me) using "Fuck"? Fuck, darwinbish ^BITE 20:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC).
    • Tiara Kera masu.TCO (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Iz not gonna call teh feckin' civility coppers ;) Iz just word; one some don't get enough of. But I think you might be better served by the word 'Bite'. I'm thinkin' I might use a colon or semi-colon; ew haz comma-cops around here somewhere ;/ Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
      • [Has fine idea. ] Changing sig! Clever! darwinbish ^FUCK 21:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC). (P.S. and keep that Sinebot off of me, or it'll be the last botting it ever does!)

Thanks Jack, I spotted a link to a train table while stalking your page recently – colours for Business/Standard classes, IIRC. But this looks like a different article, as you've done all the useful bits already! Although ... there is still one train-wreck left masquerading as a "Stations and connections" table. I'll get FS later to go and poke the review and ask what a stopping pattern is.

There must be a term for the closing word or phrase – like 'Yours sincerely', 'Regards', 'Cheers', etc. – but I don't know what it is. Must find out so that I can appear erudite. Ever since I became friends at Uni with a Geordie (native of Newcastle-on-Tyne), I've always been fond of the phrase "Well, I'll be buggered" (meaning "I am amazed"). So perhaps I could occasionally vary my closing phrase to make use of that, if only to stick a metaphorical tongue out at the civility police.

Before I forget, I uploaded some images for Jack's use:

Take your pick, Jack

• 
  Mark of Cain
• 
  Leper's bell
• 
  Star of David
• 
  Yellow ticket of leave

If you're unsure, you could always submit a Request for clarification asking which one the Arbitrary Committee intended you to wear. Buggered, --RexxS (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• wikt:valediction; valediction, too

I know there's more to do in that trains page; I wouldn't want to have all the fun. The editor who seems to be most intent on that page cut the red/blue table, so that's one down. I can't find teh table the gives the bolt-tightening sequence for teh wheels, though. I'd seen the above images on Commons. Understand taht Gold Hat don't do badges, so terima kasih, but tidak; not wearing that. The 'Damned' is per 24601 and the vid for that is back in the arbitrary page history. Buggered, Gold Hat (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

[Darwinfish likes this game, except for the bad words. ] How about a nice Geordie one? NewcastleBrown^fish 18:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Oh gawd. That's the most pointless yet. Try opening your mouth without embarrassing smart sister, Fish! Just once! You might like it! Stupid minnow! darwinbish ^BITE 18:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

I really like the valediction "Stupid minnow!" – you should use it more often. "Why-aye, ya bugger ma!" --Famously Sharp (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

needs moar Geordie ;/  Stinkin', Gold Hat^{Old Speckled Hen}21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

FL on mainpage/moving on etc

Hi RexxS, thanks for your note at WT:FL, I haven't got time right now to go through it in detail, but just thought you'd be better off repeating it at WT:FLC which (in my opinion) has far more traffic than the FL talkpage. Cheers for now, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it to WT:FLC#FL on Main Page – moving forward to avoid having parallel discussions in two places. You have mail! --Disgusted of Dudley (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

American Idol

As has been the case in the past, all of them should be redirected to the season article till such time as they release their own albums and meet WP:BAND. We don't have an article on every contestant on The Price is Right, why should we have one on every contestant on AI? And where do we draw the line? Top 13? Top 24? Everybody who appeared in the audition shows? Corvus cornix_talk 19:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, that was my understanding of how we should do things, but as usual a small group dedicated to one tiny corner of the encyclopedia are able to pretty much make whatever rules they choose. Cheers. --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

VERY nice!

I just saw your featured list. That was excellent and a fun read! Thanks for all you do. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much Gene, you know how much I value your opinion. It started life as an experiment in accessibility, then just grew and turned into a chance for me to find out how the WP:FLC process worked. Now I'm putting time into trying to get Featured Lists onto the Main Page, but I promise I'll get back to scuba real soon. You and I ought to run some of the biographies you created through the GA process – using it to get fresh eyes on them can be really beneficial. Let me know when you have a little free time and we'll do it. All the best to you and Becky, --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

play in the sand

Can you make my little table, right justified and about 40% total width (20% each)? And of course anything else that is wrong. I'm still entering content and tweaking that section overall, so don't freak that the refs in other place are not in or the like. User:TCO/Sandbox/state reptile TCO (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I could, if I wasn't beaten to it by a Mexican bandito. Buggered, --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Tiare kara ma su. TCO (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check this article

hello,

I heard you have much knowledge about accessibility in Wikipedia. If this is the case, so please check the table in List of channels on Zattoo. Is this viewable for screen readers? Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi GOP, The tables are readable, but won't necessarily make full use of the abilities of screen readers. Generally, a data table benefits a lot from having a caption, and having row and column headers marked up with ! and their scope. I've done a demo edit on the first section, getting rid of the old deprecated markup (like 'center') and replacing it with its modern css counterpart, as well as captioning and marking up the row and column headers for the Key tables as an example for you. Please feel free to undo the edit if you don't like it. You've made a good job of setting out the information in a visually appealing way (although I have to zoom my browser because of the small text), but it would all benefit from improving the markup to help screen readers. There's a page explaining how one of the most popular screen readers deals with data tables at HTML Tables with JAWS and MAGic, and it is very helpful in understanding how our markup affects the visually-impaired. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"do me first" please!

I want some advice on how to incorporate endangered animal status into my state reptile page (see talk and reviewer comment, also).

1. Which column should it go in?

2. How should we handle the referencing? I would see a reference for each field, but then should that just go in the same column as the actual ratings? And then we have a ref column on the end, which really reflects the year and identity of the state reptile designation.

3. Also, I would like to "sort" on the endangeredness (but the ratings are like terms like lc or least concern and the like (how to set that up)?

P.s. We still have to gather all the info, but appreciate the help!

TCO (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's my take on it:

1. Make a column for 'Status' – as a distinct piece of information, it deserves its own field (particularly if you want to sort on it). After 'Photograph', perhaps?

2. With tables, I'd always advise "one piece of info = one cell", so I prefer not to put references in with data if I can avoid it. You already have a 'Reference(s)' field, so put it in there – that's just like putting multiple refs at the end of a sentence or paragraph, which is fine for uncontentious information (see WP:CITE#Inline citations).

3. You could use {{sort}}. For example {{sort|1|[[Extinction|EX}} / {{sort|2|[[Extinct in the Wild|EW]]}} / {{sort|3|[[Critically Endangered|CR]]}}, and so on would force a sort by the number you assign. Obviously you could use 'Critically Endangered' instead of 'CR' if space permitted a wider display.

Let me know if you want any help on the implementation. --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I needed help both in terms of implimentation AND in terms of thinking. OK. I'm on board with adding the refs into the ref column. Like that. We can change Reference(s) to References then as a header also, as they will all be at least two then. If possible, I prefer the whole term (can make it break) in text, but initials fine if we are tight. I think whatever we do, we will need an "nb" footnote on that column header, explaining the concept (IUCN ratings, and there relative rank). I would personally like some term that was more descriptive than "status" although I'm scratching my head for something concise and not awkward. It is also possible to make the column headers break (like I know if we need to squeeze year adopted, we could make that into two lines of text in the header.

If you can go ahead and get the column started, it will help us out. Will motivate us to start sticking content in!TCO (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you impliment the sorting please? Right now, it is sorting alphabetically, but should be going by IUCN ratings: IUCN Red List#Categories. TCO (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there RexxS, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:RexxS/Accessibility. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll just make a note here that I've reverted that action. The file in question File:Zachary Bennett-Lynx.png is a screenshot, made by me, of a Wikipedia page as rendered by the Lynx text-only browser. The screenshot is essential to an understanding of the essay, and I maintain that it improves the encyclopedia. For that reason, Wikipedia:NFCC#9 does not apply. (Edit: Removing the NFUR solves the problem.) --RexxS (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. state reptiles

Will you please support or oppose? Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/U.S. state reptiles/archive1 TCO (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Or if you were too involved in the creation (and you helped us a lot on the table), please comment on the table quality.TCO (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, and  Done. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mail

You have mail, sir. As long as I'm here, may I ask: is User:Bishzilla a state reptile? darwin^fish 03:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC).

It appears from U.S. state reptiles that "states show their connection within the designating statutes by comparing admirable behaviors of the animal to their citizens". I'll go and look for a state populated by giant, fire-breathing building-climbers, with huge pockets and a disposition to nuke miscreants. As soon as I've found one, you can rest assured that my nomination of the distinguished 'Zilla will be immediate. --T-RexxS (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote that. We had state pride (which I think is justified and non-controversial) and then it changed to connection, but the rest of the sentence does not work. Anyhow, I rewrote the sentence to be more logical now...TCO (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Gold

Hey RexxS. Regarding the incident with Gold Hat, I feel all of my actions and accusations are completely justifiable. I asked them to change their sig, they proceeded to mess with my sigs. They then posted again with the sig I asked them to change. I assumed that they were joking, and I simply went along with it (that includes the trouting). The second they started trolling me on other pages, I stopped all exchanges with them. Sorry if you feel the accusations of trolling are unfair, but what else do you call it when someone stalks your comments to leave inappropriate, unrelated messages on talk pages? Yes, this whole thing is LAME, but please take a closer look at the situation before passing judgment on other people. Regards, Swarm ^X 17:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Swarm. I understand that you feel all of your actions and accusations were justifiable. However, I did spend quite some time looking at the histories of several pages before I posted. I'm sorry I can't agree with your analysis, but I hope you won't take that personally. Gold hat (Jack Merridew) is a Wikipedean that I very much admire because I've found him an inspirational example of a user who was banned but was able to make a comeback as a very useful contributor, with a huge store of technical knowledge. I won't pretend that he's always easy for everyone to get on with – nobody is, I'm sure you'll agree. But Jack agreed to edit under ArbCom restrictions when he was allowed back in 2008, and even after more than two years of very productive editing, he's still under some of those restrictions (half of them were lifted after a year). There's for no good reason for that other than ArbCom doesn't seem capable of drawing a line under the whole business. So Jack's rather sore about that and may not be on his best form at present.

Have you considered the possibilities that:

• Jack changed your standard sig to one like his to show you that it wasn't his standard sig he was posting, but a hand-crafted piece that he makes anew each time (a "one-off", he called it – bespoke would perhaps have been better);
• Jack is using his sig to draw attention to the unneeded restrictions that he is editing under, and mistook your helpfully-intended advice for meddling – after all he's been editing for over six years, and I assure you that it's safe to assume he already knows the policies;
• Jack may not have been trolling you on other pages, but simply posted a swipe at ArbCom in a reply to Jimbo. After all, his comment was not addressed to you, and to be honest, I'd find it far more likely that Jack is tracking Jimbo's contributions than yours.

I'd like you to ask yourself: when you say "they started trolling me on other pages", how many pages was that, and what did they do to "troll you"?

And when you say "someone stalks your comments to leave inappropriate, unrelated messages on talk pages", how many of your comments on how many talk pages was this?

Would you please have a think about the fact that anybody can look at Jack's contribution history and see the answers for themselves. I'm not trying to be judgemental here, but folks have got into a lot of trouble before for using words like "stalking" that later turned out to be inaccurate.

Finally there's a bit of advice in WP:HUSH that is really apposite to your question: "Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space." I sincerely hope that this helps you to reflect and realise that Jack isn't one of the enemy. He's a good guy who's upset and in need of fair treatment. Are you absolutely certain that you have to prosecute this issue further? Regards, --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You're saying they knew the signature guidelines and refused to stop signing like that, even when asked. Is that not disruptive? After I asked them to change it, they proceeded to a page I was active on, posted "polling is evil" and used the sig I asked them to change. Was that constructive? I was also under the impression that they were a new user. How do you expect their actions came across? Anyway, it's quite possible the mitigating circumstances are indeed true. However, explaining this to me would have been much more helpful then becoming pointy. Swarm ^X 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you have it almost exactly right. Jack knows the rules and is making a point of challenging them, but you couldn't be expected to know that. It is not disruptive to display a single instance of that signature on a page (it doesn't actually disrupt anything), but it is pointy. I can see how you felt that Jack followed you to My76Strat's page, but his posts there weren't addressed to you – the aim was clearly at Jimbo and the problem of polling. I'm sorry, but although I'd agree that it was not constructive, I believe you are mistaken in calling it stalking and trolling, and I'd very much appreciate it if you stopped using those words now. And please understand this: I'm not asking you to look for mitigation for Jack's actions; he's quite capable of accepting the consequences of his actions, but I do ask you to show some sensitivity in dealing with someone who's been hurt. You've shown that you're capable of doing that with My76Strat. But was Jack's {{minnow}} in response to your {{trout}} really vandalism? Check your edit summary when you reverted it. If you accuse someone of something that they feel they are not guilty of, it increases their sense of injustice, and is hardly likely to lead to a constructive exchange. Had I been online when all this blew up, I could have explained to you. I regret that I was not. Nevertheless, I've now done my best to explain, and I'd be happy to help you further if I'm able, but I feel you may have accept that you won't convince me that Jack was guilty of vandalising your talk page, or of trolling or stalking you. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that. That was indisputably not vandalism and it was completely wrong of me to call it that. In fact, I addend my above statement: that claim wasn't justifiable. If Jack's going through a rough patch, I'm sorry. And while I won't go bleeding heart apologist and beg Jack's forgiveness, I'm perfectly content to totally drop this and move on. That's what I think Jack should do also, and I sincerely hope they don't start editing as another sock because of this incident. Anyway, I just thought I'd explain my viewpoint. I thought it was perfectly understandable, but there's always more to the story. Thanks for throwing in some additional perspective. Best regards, Swarm ^X 21:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for understanding. Sometimes even the slightest thing can seem like a slap to the face when you're down. Anyway, Jack doesn't need folks to apologise (although I know it's always appreciated), he needs more folks to appreciate the good things he's done, and let him know that the people who count wish him well. Look after yourself and your friends: I'm glad to see that My76Strat has reconsidered retirement, and I'm sure it was in no small part due to the support and encouragement he was given. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I understand if they need to take a break after this incident, but I'll be sure to leave them a note if they haven't returned after awhile. I can't believe someone who has been around for so long won't return after something like this, but I'll be happy to do so just to be sure. Swarm ^X 00:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Swarm. The river runs a lot deeper than your tiff with Jack. He's not perfect on the interactions, but a hell of a contributor. Appreciate your hanging in there. Let's all have a beer and look each other in the eyes and consider our common interests!TCO (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

With profound respect I have observed this discussion, and others related. The culminating impact is summarized at the Gold Hat talk page. For perspective you are invited to review it there. I have complete respect for the diligence I have observed and the thoughtful things I have observed being said. RexxS you are undoubtedly most proficient at communicating your intentions. The only regard which compelled me to concern, was in referencing a former respect for the other participants. To relegate this to an expression of past tense carries the implications that a surplus of good intention and deed, can exhaust its full value upon a single incident. And then not emerge as sufficient reason to maintain that respect, if even for a little while. Sir, I ask you to reconsider that perspective, and consider that these two are entitled to emerge this incident with the full measure of former esteem. That does not disregard where mistakes were made. It simply means these circumstances do not rise to a level where loss of respect is an appropriate consideration. If I am correct, and the manner reflected in your words is a reflection of your insight, this is an easy answer. Please consider if you agree that respect is a bit high of a consequence to befit these circumstances? My76Strat (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to let me know your concerns, Strat. I wish I were always as able to portray my intended meaning as you generously suggest I can. Alas, I am as fallible as the next man, and there are times when I don't write what I actually mean. This is indeed one of those times, and my use of the simple past when describing the esteem in which I held both Chzz and Swarm, was my mistake. I intended to convey that my previous interactions with, and observations of them at earlier times had led me to a most favourable impression – which of course I wanted to contrast with what I felt was their uncharacteristic behaviour in this case. But I know that people act out of character when their feelings are hurt, or when they perceive their friends misused. Please rest assured that I would never let misunderstandings between editors whom I regard as "on the side of the angels" lessen the high regard in which I still hold them. With kindest regards, --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for offering that clarification. I did anticipate these as your likely regards. I am glad to have been correct, as it speaks well to your strength of character, and aligns you in the upper echelon of my own esteem. I consider you an asset to Wikipedia upon your gift of reason alone. I feel certain there are many other credentials to be found with a look at your contributions. But none are necessary for observance, as I have seen the overriding credential. I would respect any opinion of yours bringing weight to a discussion, with a full inclination to accept. Your words form upon diligence and your integrity precedes every connotation. If we ever disagree, I will first reevaluate my entire position expecting to find error, only then would I proceed in debate. To be honest, I expect we would generally agree. And every bit of that has come through in your writing. Never allow anyone to suggest that you can't, or that your method should change. I have found another role model. Thanks My76Strat (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)