User talk:RexxS/Archive 54

Nomination for merging of Template:SHORTDESC

Template:SHORTDESC has been nominated for merging with Template:Short description. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. DannyS712 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Page-move error

Hi RexxS, I see you've reverted the move of Geschwinde, ihr wirbelnden Winde/The Dispute Between Phoebus and Pan. Whichever title is used, the BWV at the end should be BWV 201, but it's now ended up at 20. Could you fix that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• RexxS and Nikkimaria - I moved the page to the "201" — Ched (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The talk page still needs to be fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Error

This was of course an error: you got the BWV number wrong (you wrote BWV 20 instead of the correct BWV 201). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad it's all sorted, thanks Ched. I've fixed the talk page now. @Francis: I probably would make less typos if I didn't have to repeatedly revert your contested moves. Have you never read WP:RM? You just need to make the case that sufficient English-language sources use your preferred title; surely that's something you can cope with. --RexxS (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Editathon welcome message

I've just asked Catriona if she could ensure we have the usernames of any participants before the event. I will then send out the hastily-constructed welcome message below. (See you later!) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Great stuff! Thanks, Nick --RexxS (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

		Hello, RexxS, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I noticed you have an interest in editing on LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning-related topics, and I hope today's Editathon will encourage you to participate, and become a regular and valuable contributor. Should you decide to stick around, you might wish to join our LGBT studies project. Meanwhile, here are some pages you might find helpful: Useful Wikipedia links: Wikipedia:Introduction The Wikipedia Adventure (fun interactive tour) Your first article Easy Referencing for Beginners Simplified Manual of Style The five pillars of Wikipedia Links for Wikipedia's LGBT studies Project: Guidelines for writing about LGBT-themed subjects How to write about transgender and non-binary people Categories for LGBT articles Editing biographies of living persons Wikipedia:Writing about women
		I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) This automatically inserts your name and the date. If you get stuck, please see our help pages. If you can't find what you are looking for there, feel free to ask at the Teahouse or at the LGBT Project's Talk Page. Alternatively, contact me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to assist you. Again, welcome! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello RexxS,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Thanks for blocking Ψαωεψ. Have you looked into ẞœ? Their edits at Fenn Treasure look suspiciously similar and I was getting ready to request a checkuser. –dlthewave ☎ 02:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: ẞœ was the first I saw to introduce the lawsuit content. I hesitated to ABF about the mistakes at the time because they were correct that a lawsuit was filed. Of course, once Auberginia and later Ψαωεψ showed up to push exactly the same line, then sockpuppetry became obvious (although they could be meatpuppets who share the same off-wiki forum or similar). You could file a WP:SPI, but however it turns out, it won't make much difference to how we proceed even though it would be nice to know with absolute certainty what we're dealing with. Blocking is preventative, so I'd want to see a repeat of the BLP violations before I place any more blocks. In the meantime, I've indefinitely semi-protected the article to see if that eliminates the problem. I intend to lift the semi-protection in a few weeks, depending on how successful it is. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12

I think you may have omitted an all-important word in "I have hostility to you personally" in this edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops - what a blunder. Is that what they call a "Freudian slip"? Thanks, Phil, I've added the important "no", as I actually don't feel any hostility toward any of the folks, just the POVs. "Hate the sin and not the sinner." - Gandhi. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that you were online to fix this quickly, because it seems that some editors think that there's a left/liberal conspiracy against racists on Wikipedia, rather than a simple following of the facts as agreed by those who have studied them dispassionately, and your original wording would have been used to confirm this. If you haven't come across it already I would recommend this Radio 4 series that debunks such nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Issue on common.js

There is something weird going on with my common.js page - the top menu reads as follows:

• User:Atsme/common.js | Cannot install | Manage user scripts | Cannot install | Manage user scripts

^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind - I fixed it by doing nothing. 🤓 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Always glad to be of assistance. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Not much of an advertisement for partial blocks

So, my first partial block was a success technically but hasn't turned out much of an advertisement for partial blocks, has it? I'm starting to have hostility for the guy personally, and you have convinced me there's no point in letting them edit any part of Wikipedia. I've blocked them indefinitely, and can see a revocation of talkpage access in their future. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC).

@Kind-hearted Shonen: it was generous of you to give Sriramadas.mahalingam a chance to edit elsewhere, and I believe that partial blocks will find one valuable use in sorting the SPA from the genuine newbie who fouls up. Of course, they were devised to allow established contributors who just can't be neutral on a particular topic to continue to contribute usefully elsewhere, but they also allow WP:ROPE without leaving an affected topic vulnerable.

In the present case, it was possible that Sriramadas.mahalingam could have taken the time to learn about reliable sources, and then make useful contributions on another topic, so you did the right thing. It's not your fault that they still felt they had to right the great wrong done to their favourite organisation.

Is there something cultural about editors on these topics? They seem to have a sense of entitlement that Wikipedia must reflect their viewpoints, and get angry with anybody that they see standing in the way of that happening. I just spotted this disgraceful outburst by one of the employees of Raheja Developers at User talk:Vishal210891 #February 2020 UPE.

Oh yes, it's curious how often we get that, isn't it?

— As a company employee you're getting paid for editing on behalf of the company. Signed, Protector of Wikipedia.

— No, you're getting paid for maligning my company! Signed, Company PR rep.

Sense of entitlement is right. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC).

When all else fails, revert to bluster and wild accusations. It works often enough for politicians... · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Maths text books with £sd

That made me laugh but though it best to reply here.

Ah but that was a different kind of culture war: the relative priorities for national expenditure of (a) education (b) MST subjects (c) the West Midlands and maybe even (d) selective/rejective secondaries. Am I right in guessing that back then (decimalisation time) there was a lobby that asserted that a duodecimal system was better for teaching kids fractions and how will they cope with 12 inches in a foot I suppose next they will want to do away with feet and inches, more orders from the Fourth Reich in Brussels! --Red King (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

How about a big collaborative FA?

Encouraged by the collaboration at Sic Bar, I have been thinking how great it would be if a few of us got together and knocked out a new FA as big collaboration. Might you be interested? Giano (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Giano: I would indeed, Excellency. I have JSTOR access plus a few others, so I'll start trawling for sources there as a starting point. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, go for it and just edit. We had better start putting “inuse” when necessary I’ve expanded it quite a bit, but am running out of my own knowledge. There’s art, poetry, sciences and FKWE. Giano (talk)

re: English Heritage listed building row/Wikidata

Thanks for starting {{English Heritage listed building row/Wikidata}}. I've mocked up my impression of what I think the finished article should look like including the relevant WD properties and qualifiers at user:Nthep/sandbox8 but I lack the technical understanding of all the # commands to make the slightest attempt at getting it into the template you started. If you could have a look at some time I'd be grateful. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, Nthep, for not getting back to the template so far. I usually try to find an extended block of time to do complex coding as it requires me to concentrate. Annoyingly, I've had a dozen distractions competing for my attention over the last week or so, but I hope I'll find a quiet patch this coming week. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem. I must find myself a primer on coding so I can try this type of work myself. Nthep (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Hello R. You forgot to sign this message. I thought I'd let you know so you can beat sinebot to the punch. I'm getting mesmerized by your rotating cube so I have to go take a nap :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, MarnetteD. David re-edited his post and edit conflicted me. I'm trying out the new beta edit-conflict feature, and still trying to get the hang of it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. Enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 01:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Oldstone James AE appeal

Thanks for closing it. I hope you're good with me tacking on a Creationism topic ban, as well. Best, El_C 22:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you, El C. Creationism is in the Category:Pseudoscience, so there should be no quibbles. As we don't have a decision code nor a sanction log specifically for Creationism, it's easier to apply and keep track of sanctions through the broad topic area, but it can only be helpful to point out the specifics as you did. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind as well, RexxS — Creationism being covered by ARBPS. I made sure to note it on OldstoneJames' talk page and on AE/AEL. Glad we're in agreement and thanks again. Best, El_C 22:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

So that was anticlimactic, eh? El_C 01:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Yes, what a pity after all that effort to salvage something for them. Oh well, at least we tried. --RexxS (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, at least we gave it a good go — T for Teffort! El_C 02:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I've just been made aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldstone James. Not good. El_C 03:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hartnell

Allegations of anti-Semitism and racism came from co stars that worked with Hartnell like Nicholas Courtney and Anneke Wills - they're not smears. Nobody's saying he was a bad person, or definitely a racist, or anything like that - I have a great deal admiration for Hartnell, but it still just isn't right for the Wikipedia article to delete information this way.

Besides, we have allowed controversy and accusations of racism surrounding other beloved celebrities on here, as well as their defenders, such as Wayne, Disney, and Churchill. If the Hartnell allegations are considered not noteworthy enough, we should still take into consideration the first hand sources surrounding them and debate on whether they are notable enough. 79.69.227.38 (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP, please stop edit warring to put your contested version onto the article, or you will be sanctioned. Note that without high-quality reliable sources, these claims are potentially defamatory and a violation of our living persons policy. Please be mindful. El_C 09:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have taken it to the talk page to see if we can reach a consensus on this matter. Talk:William_Hartnell#Alleged_racism 79.69.227.38 (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

CM Punk

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

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

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

Wikisource and italic in Infobox Bible translation

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

Raul Catinas

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration case opened

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

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

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

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

Look out, a train! (splat)

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

Infobox scientist

Hello RexxS,

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

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

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

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

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

JSTOR

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

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

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

Comunicado do Wiki Movimento Brasil sobre atividades no primeiro semestre

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

Atividades que serão on-line

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

Atividades adiadas

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

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

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

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

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

use of the singular they as an epicene pronoun

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

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

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

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

Template:Bv

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

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

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

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

RfC

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

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

Listed buildings in Monmouthshire

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

ANI discussion concerning you

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

Citation bot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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