User talk:RexxS/Archive 41

Infobox thoughts

Hey RexxS, thanks for the note the other day. I am just experimenting, but do you think edit notice like this would reduce drive-by infobox additions/removals? I was wondering if this has been done before. I am thinking that once we are able to reduce general discussions about infobox and make sure new editors/readers are informed, a lot of the hostility would be reduced as discussions would ideally focus on how the infobox would/would not improve that specific article. If incivility still persists (from experienced editors especially) when we are having centralised and specific discussions, then that would be the better timing to address these civility issues. What do you think? Alex Shih (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Alex Infobox removals, in my experience, are very rarely "drive-by". They are most often a conscious decision by an editor who is doing a lot of work on an article and decides to do without an infobox. Sometimes that is then contested, but it rarely seems to lead to the same level of disturbance that happens when a new (or new to the topic) editor finds a page where they expect an infobox to be and either adds one or asks for one on the talk page.

The sad thing is that new editors hardly ever read edit notices - those sort of advice boxes seem to just become "noise", although it certainly wouldn't hurt to try in this case. However, if you ask folks like Cassianto, they will tell you – and I can empathise – that the wording you use "The current consensus for this article is no infobox is necessary. Please discuss any changes specific to this article only in talk page instead" would still lead to regular requests at the talk page for an explanation of why there is no infobox. It's dealing with those sort of requests on a regular basis that drives them nuts, and that's where you start to see irritation (or worse) creeping in to the exchanges.

My experience is that a hidden html comment right before the place where an infobox would be has some effect. I should say, I've been in arguments over those hidden comments with a number of content editors I respect, simply because those warnings often failed to point to the discussion (usually archived) where consensus for excluding an infobox was reached. I would strongly recommend that any such comment and/or page notice contains not only the outcome of consensus discussions but a clear link to the the discussions where that consensus was reached – something like "Please don't add an infobox to this article. Consensus was reached on <date here> in this discussion <link here> not to include an infobox. Please make sure you have read that discussion before attempting to seek a change in the consensus."

Of course, to be fair to those of us (myself included) who think an infobox can produce an improvement to most articles, if there is no prior conclusive consensus, it must be inappropriate to add any such injunction/warning. That's just my humble opinion, of course. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest in the nonprofit sector

Are you willing to talk about this further? I mean talking like voices, via skype or google hangouts or the like. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Sorry I'm slow getting back to you. I'm not trying to avoid the subject, but it is hideously complex, sensitive, and replete with bad experiences for me, so I want to collect my thoughts and compose a proper exposition, which I'll probably be best to email to you. I promise I'll try to fit in an interrupted period in the next few days to write something sensible. --RexxS (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

was really looking to talk; to listen mostly, but whatever you like... thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For being a mentor for my lua tasks. Although I could not all of them. But thanks! Priyanshu Ahuja (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. Do you know what happened with this RfA, and why did the candidate withdraw? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I recall it. You can see the final state of the RfA if you really want to at this link. 300 supports and 83 opposes, but one of the nominators decided to oppose part-way through, which more or less sealed its fate. Another nominator expressed concerns after East.718 switched to oppose after an email from the candidate citing privacy concerns (oppose 74). A lot of the opposes came from well-respected established editors and it was his fifth RfA in a year, which also caused concern. Things were different 10 years ago - the "back channels" like IRC were more prominent, and the established editors seemed to know each other better. Does that help you? --RexxS (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

heavy handed full page protection

Hi RexxS! Montanabw was helping me with something but she got really busy. Plus, the issue on that page got all caught up with the stuff that is happening to her on her talk page. You might have observed it? The admin who fully protected the Built Ford Tough Series article won't semi-protect it instead, even when montanabw asked nicely. There wasn't even a 3 revert violation, it's an overhanded action. I didn't even ask the admin to intervene in any of my work, just asked for a semi-protection. But the blocking admin, named Only, is now WP:INVOLVED with montanabw's page so the BFTS page needs a neutral third-party to look at it. I just wondered if you might point me to a neutral admin who might be willing to review and take the full protection off. Only if you are comfortable with it. All the other editors I know have looked at the page for the move page request, except Bri who has his own good reasons for not getting involved on his talk page. So, you may not want to become involved too and that's perfectly understandable. I can go to Teahouse next. Best wishes either way dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dawn. I know several neutral admins who would look at the page, but I don't think they are likely to remove the full protection as it's only got a few more days to run. Seriously, my advice would be to use the time to set up what you want to do with the article on the talk page. That way there's no edit war and everybody interested can thrash out a good consensus on title, wording, etc. You've established a working relationship with Uricarrillo94, so that's a good step. The article is short enough to write the whole thing in a section of the talk page and you can whittle away at it there until everybody is satisfied. When you've got something that everybody has had a chance to work on, it will be simple to update the article with a consensus version once the page protection has lapsed. I'm sure that such a version would be better and would also stick, because you can then point any dissenters to the talk page discussions. Does that sound like an idea? I'd be more than happy to help out with any templates, of course, but WAF is pretty good at it and has volunteered, so I doubt that if I'll be needed. Please ping me if you should need my assistance, though. --RexxS (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi RexxS sorry so long to reply. I have been working my butt off non-stop hours. I appreciate your advice. And while I'm not taking your advice to create a mock-up on the article talk page, I am doing one in a sandbox. You see, what I had planned before this even started is quite a bit longer. If you are curious you are welcome to take a peek. Last night I finished adding the content. Now I need to edit to make it nicer and polished. It's here: Professional Bull Riders Tours. I really did heed your advice via contacting anyway...even the Teahouse idea I had discarded. It's better to listen to others who have been here much longer than I have. I am here about 1 1/4 years now..still a newbie really. :) OK, hope you have a great day! p.s. I used it to update the other article which was an issue, the Professional Bull Riders article. There has been no activity on the article talk page in question by anyone but me for at least a couple days now Talk:Built Ford Tough Series. Btw, there are only four votes, all oppose, by us four gals who work the rodeo articles. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Oxford 58

Hi, please see m:Talk:Meetup/Oxford/58#Date of meetup and indicate which option would most suit you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018 m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look. Wikidata as Hub One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8. Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL. Links What galleries, libraries, archives, and museums can teach us about multimedia metadata on Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Foundation blogpost, 29 January 2018, by Jonathan Morgan and Sandra Fauconnier m:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref/Connect, 2018 institutional participation in the #1lib1ref campaign Newspeak House queries, created at 3 February 2018 event in London led by Magnus Manske Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative, Wikipedia Signpost special report 5 February 2018, by JenOttowa What is the Last Question?, 5 February 2018 To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Notable works in infobox

Hi RexxS. There's a dispute over the use of the "known for" and "notable works" fields in infobox person. I appears you added the latter (Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_29#Works_parameter), so I thought it might help to check with you about what consensus there is on its use. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronz I did add the parameter |works= as an alternative to |notable_works= and |credits= following the discussion you pointed to, and I'd be happy to help settle a dispute about it, but I can't see where the dispute is. It isn't at Template talk:Infobox person where I would have expected - can you give me a link? --RexxS (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That's as good a place as any to centralize the discussion over a few articles. Let me get a discussion going there. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Citations in medical articles has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Citations in medical articles. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've moved it to project space as Wikipedia:Citations in medical articles. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Post script: Legacypac, it was never an Articles for Creation submission. I was merely using draft space to draft an essay for project space. --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm just using the AfC script for making comments. It nicely sets out the comment different from the text. Legacypac (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Age

If you were born in 1952, as your userpage says, I'm probably not younger than your youngest. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) in decrepit, cracked voice: that's as may be, but I bet I'm old enough to be your grandmother! [Cackles anciently.] Did you ever meet my dear Mr. Thackeray, young man? Charlotte Brontë 15:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

My user page is just a cover. I'm a dinosaur who escaped the KT extinction, and my age is actually 65,000,065. My youngest is possibly not quite your age, though, as we waited several years before we had kids. --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I still think you're getting my age wrong. Did I make the mistake of posting it somewhere obvious? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Cough cough. Brown University Class of <revision deleted>. "Good grief, that's still live?" Bishonen | talk 20:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

Yeah, that could give you a pretty good rough idea. Thanks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

ping

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § The mess that is COI tagging. Please do encourage anyone to pitch in there. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all the work you put into that, Guy. It is much appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

np, I would really like this mess to get sorted out. I find it hard to watch sincerely committed editors knocking six bells out of each other. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Module:WikidataIB

Hello, RexxS, how are you? I'm currently editing a template to allow me create a structured narrative (something like Template:Mbabel) about the Brazilian elections. Here is the problem: In the item 2014 Acre gubernatorial election (Q17813784), I have the property P991 with the values of the winners of the elections (with no qualifiers, once there are elections with a lot of people), for example, Gehlen Diniz (Q48946788), that have some qualifiers in P39 that I need to get on the narrative, like votes, party, district, etc. The module doesn't give the option to do this. I tried to create a function in the module on ptwiki, but failed. Do you know a good way of doing this? Thanks and good contributions, Ederporto (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ederporto, I'm well, thank you! I hope all is well with you too. I've written a function in my sandbox module Module:RexxS called getValueQualIndirect. It should be usable as a basis for you do adapt to what you want. You'll have to change the formatting to suit your application, naturally. Here's the result of running it on Acre gubernatorial election, 2014, fetching values from the Wikidata entry 2014 Acre gubernatorial election (Q17813784). You don't need the qid parameter if you make the call on the page you're working from, of course. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

{{#invoke:RexxS |getValueQualIndirect |qid=Q17813784 |prop1=P991 |prop2=P39}} →

No properties

PetScan problem

Hi RexxS, or any of the usual helpful gang of suspects (talk page watchers),

Is there a way to use PetScan to list articles which do not have a specified category on the mainspace page (in this case Category:Articles with short description) and do have another category on the talk page (in this case Category:WikiProject SCUBA articles)? I am looking for WikiProject SCUBA articles without a short description.

Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Try this. It does suffer from a flaw in that it also lists articles if the article itself shows Category:Articles with short description at the bottom but the article is not listed on that category page. This may be resolved by WP:NULLEDITing each affected article. This flaw is apparently because these edits still haven't made it through the job queue. It may be better to forget categories and look for templates, like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64, I will have a look. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64 for sorting that in my absence. Peter, please feel free to post another message if you're still having problems at any point. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Redrose64, RexxS, It seems to work well enough for some purposes, but will need some rethinking for other uses. I would like to be able to automatically display the progress of short description creation for a WikiProject as a graph as well as just finding the missing articles, which the current search seems to do.

RexxS, If you have any ideas for making the short descriptions visible in desktop view on demand, it may be time to do it. It would be nice to be able to see and compare the Wikidata content, already visible with Yair Rand's script, with the Wikipedia short description when it exists. I don't know if it should be displayed to everyone as default. I may run an RFC on that some time. I would guess that some CSS might do the job. The side effect of not seeing it when it doesn't exist while knowing that it doesn't exist and is not just hidden would also be useful, and may encourage more people to write good short descriptions. Cheers · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Peter: When I wrote the original template, I was expecting to be able to enable it on demand, so I included the class shortdescription. That allows anybody to add a definition to their Special:MyPage/common.css like this:

• .shortdescription { display:block !important; }

which will make the short descriptions available on every page where they exist. I expect somebody could turn that into an on-demand gadget, but it's simple enough to add and remove (or comment out) for most folks who would be interested, I think. I have it enabled at User:RexxS/common.css for the moment.

Optionally, I made {{Short description/test}} that displays by default and which implements the none and wikidata parameters for experimentation. You could add /test to any page's {{Short description}} to see the display, or add {{Short description/test|wikidata}} to see what is in Wikidata for that page. Does that do what you want? --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought you might have done something like that. Good thinking, Batman! Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Eric Corbett disrespectful behaviour

Hi, I know that you are fully aware of how trying Eric can be, so I'd like your opinion. I tried asking J3Mrs (talk · contribs) what I thought was a perfectly ordinary question here, but Eric keeps jumping in with comments that are becoming somewhat provocative. I can't even ask civil questions of ClemRutter (talk · contribs) - who I have met several times in real life - without Eric presuming to know better than Clem. Do you think this behaviour might be in breach of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Eric Corbett prohibited? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

For your information RexxS, that is one side of the story. Redrose is the one who comes across as intimidating, at least to me. I have no technical expertise but he, who obviously doesn't care for Eric's template, came across in exactly the same way as he describes Eric, and I was beginning to wonder if it was baiting so I asked for the conversation to end. Eric is, and always will always welcome on my page where he explained about the template. I don't see the problem with Eric but I think Redrose ought to consider how he came across to me. J3Mrs (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

How many patronising comments did I make? If any, how many were directed at Eric personally? How many patronising comments did Eric make? Of those, how many were directed at me personally? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to say that Redrose comes across as aggressive and combative a lot. It's just my experience, but it needs to be said in this context. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Please provide examples. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Every single GAN that you've waded into with your aggressive tone. I haven't got the energy to find them, I know Ritchie333 has them in his reviews (London stations, I can't remember which ones, but the ones where you became exercised about piping to redirects), you can go find them. You need to work much harder on your tone before claiming others are being disrespectful. And before your fling mud my way again, I don't care, but it's funny seeing pots and kettles going on here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As the author of the template that was being discussed on J3Mrs's talkpage, I do know better than anyone else. And frankly I don't give a rat's arse whether you (Redrose64) report me at arbitration or not. I think in any case that any reasonable person would conclude that it is you who are at fault here, and not for the first time in your WP career.

BTW, aren't you supposed to notify another editor when you start making accusations about them? Eric Corbett 22:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the conversation was supposed to happen in camera... problematic again. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll be brutally honest here. I believe that I showed Redrose64 way more respect than his behaviour deserved. Unless of course he believes that he's automatically entitled to my deference because he's an administrator and I'm not. Fat chance of that! Eric Corbett 23:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

TRM: It's hardly in camera if it's on a publically-visible page that has no protection. As for "every single GAN" - the last one that I "waded into" is here, and the one before that is here. Please indicate the problem phrases.

Eric: I am required to inform you should I bring a case against you at AN, ANI or Arbcom. As far as I am aware, I need not inform you in other circumstances - unless of course you know better than me? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't require you to do anything, ever, except keep out of my way in future. Eric Corbett 01:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Crikey, I'm away for a day and this happens. Well, as you all know, I'm just a dinosaur with a small brain, so I'm not going to be able to solve all the above. I can understand that Redrose would ask the question why use {{h3}} ===Citations=== when {{h3|Citations}} would do the same job. I can also appreciate that J3Mrs could reply that it's how she learned to do it, and that's how it works for her. All of which seems reasonable to me. Look folks, I've met all of you (except TRM), and I like each and every one of you as a person, and I remain certain that each of you wants the best for the encyclopedia that we've put so much effort into over the years. People easily disagree over trivial matters, and that's part and parcel of the online world, but hopefully it can also be easily forgotten. I hope so, anyway. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of trying to explain that {{h3}} ===Citations=== does not do the same job as {{h3|Citations}} as Redrose64 ought to know if he'd taken the trouble to read my replies instead of running complaining to Mummy. As for easily forgotten, you and I both know that's not how things work in this WP world. Eric Corbett 00:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The {{h3}} template and its associated module are very useful, Eric, and I'll make a point of promoting their use, especially in References sections. However, it's a quirk of the way that the MediaWiki software deals with unclosed spans that both markups produce exactly the same rendered html when you preview it:

{{h3}}
===Citations 1===

{{h3|Citations 2}}

as you can see if you examine the page source while in preview:

<h3><span style="font-size:77%;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Citations_1">Citations 1</span></span></h3>
<h3><span style="font-size:77%;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Citations_2">Citations 2</span></span></h3>

That's likely the source of the confusion on RedRose's part. I agree, of course, that the saved page (while it's the current version) does have the additional [edit] link in the first case.

I know that the WP world isn't how we would like it, but I can hope, can't I? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• As per the note in the edit notice for this page "I don't want to post here" but here I am ... ;-)

  I was intending to comment at the discussion about this template on the J3Mrs talk page but decided against it as I was put off by what came across as an excessively aggressive/hostile/intimidating stance taken by Redrose64, who I don't believe I've ever interacted with. Eric very kindly came up with the H3 template after someone was arguing on my talk page about my use of the apostrophe mark-up on a stub claiming I was breaching MoS and implying it's use in GAs/FAs was an oversight and that I should set about removing/changing them as he evidently didn't like it, yet at the same time he happily admonished someone else for changing his own "idiosyncratic citation style". I find this template extremely useful and will continue to use it. I am very grateful and greatly appreciative of Eric's efforts and help. I really don't understand why he is being treated so shoddily over this. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I would be mortified if I ever thought I had treated Eric shoddily, and I too am grateful for his efforts to improve the accessibility of those headings. He may have come across the idea some time ago when my wiki-friend Jack Merridew and I were discussing the issues with Eric's friend George. I've been trying for years to remove the misuse of semi-colons to create pseudo-headings, particularly in the References section, and I think it's great that Eric has come up with a simple, editor-friendly way of encouraging folks to deploy markup that is really useful to those using screen readers, while retaining a pleasant aesthetic for sighted visitors. I'm sorry if I gave you a different impression, and despite my edit notice, I hope you'll always feel welcome on my talk page. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean that you were treating him shoddily, RexxS, it was Redrose64's attitude I was alluding to. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC) PS: I actually like your edit notice!

Orphaned non-free image File:BSAC logo 2012.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BSAC logo 2012.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018 Milestone for mix'n'match Around the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author, Magnus Manske, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal. Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders. These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. m:Mix'n'match/Manual for more. For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading. Congratulations to Magnus, our data Stakhanovite! Links 3D printing Wikipedia goes 3D allowing users to upload .STLs for digital reference, Beau Jackson for 3dprintingindustry.com, February 22 2018 WikiCite report (video) Formal publication and announcement of ISBN citation dataset, see Twitter post, February 23 2018 Plotting the Course Through Charted Waters, workshop on data visualization literacy from Mikhail Popov, Wikimedia Foundation Using Wikidata to build an authority list of Holocaust-era ghettos, Nancy Cooey, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, February 12 2018 Why Should You Learn SPARQL? Wikidata! Mark Longair, blogpost November 29 2017 Back to the future: Does graph database success hang on query language?, George Anadiotis for Big on Data, March 5 2018 To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Reflist

The reflist parameter "em" is outdated, the template now creates columns on it's own when they're needed.★Trekker (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@*Treker: Rubbish. There is no parameter called "em", and I know what the template does because I wrote most of the current implementation. Please don't come here spouting nonsense about stuff that you don't understand. See the conversation at Template talk:Reflist #Columns and try to get some clue about why there's a difference between leaving the default and deliberately specifying |colwidth=30em. And don't fucking edit-war on a Featured Article: your change was reverted; you go to the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, needlessly rude. I undid your edit once, that's not an edit war. Get some anger management maybe, I did nothing to be uncivil towards you.★Trekker (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Be so nice and never ping me again, I don't want conversations with people like you.★Trekker (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@*Treker: You have the nerve to come here with absolutely no understanding and give me a cock-and-bull story about non-existent parameters, then get upset when I put you straight? You needlessly altered a Featured Article, then repeated the same edit when you were reverted. Read WP:BRD and try to work out where you went wrong your edit-warring. When you've made some real contributions to Wikipedia, and have got some clue, you'll have some standing to comment. In the meantime keep your inane ramblings clear of me. --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)