User talk:RexxS/Archive 24

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scuba diving

WikiProject status guidelines say that a WikiProject is inactive if there hasn't been a significant edit to the main page in four months (see Template:WikiProject status). The last edit to WP:Scuba was on October 14, 2013‎ which is five months ago, hence me marking it as an inactive WikiProject.

That said, I'm glad to see you are interested in revitalizing this WikiProject and that it soon be seeing more activity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think those guidelines bear no relationship to reality? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and marking a WikiProject as inactive serves little purpose beyond discouraging potential participants. There are only about half-a-dozen active participants in the project right now and our focus is on improving articles. We know each other well, so the project pages don't receive regular attention, but the last thing we want is to give the impression that there is not a core of active editors interested in scuba diving. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Got to agree with RexxS. Take a look at the edits on project articles over that period. The project is stable rather than inactive. The activity is all in article space. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

June 12

Hi RexxS, was that training session on June 12th? If so, then I'll be available to help out if you want - by coincidence I had booked that day off as leave (for no reason other than using up my holiday entitlement). So if you need me, then let me know. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bazonka! It is June 12 - info is at Wikipedia:Barclays edit-a-thon. We still haven't finalised the format of the day, but it will be handy to have several more trainers available on the day. I'll keep you in the loop. --RexxS (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Jolly good! Hopefully my hangover will have worn off by then. Talking of which, I've just arranged more meetups on 19 April (Liverpool) and 18 May (Manchester). Bazonka (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bazonka: Why 18 May for Manchester? That's third Sunday, and Manchester meetups are usually fourth Sunday. I ask because it's going to clash with the (provisional) date for Oxford 16, we were settling down to third Sunday as one week after London (second Sunday). Yes, Oxford 15 is down for 27 April, which is fourth Sunday, but that was to stay clear of Easter. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No particular reason. It's more accident than design that the last few Manchester meetups have been on the 4th Sunday. I probably should make it more regular though. No-one has signed up to the Manchester meetup yet, so I can move it, but I don't think having a clash with another meetup in another part of the country is really a big problem - no-one (possible exceptions of RexxS and HJMitchell) is likely to want to go to both. RexxS, what do you think? Bazonka (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not just RexxS and HJ come to Oxford from the Midlands - we often get somebody whose block expires today, at 23:06:18 (UTC). I would like some more Midlands people to come to Oxford at some point - hello Andy - or further north: there are direct trains to Oxford from such places as Macclesfield and Stockport (from Congleton, you need to change at Stoke-on-Trent on Sundays). I shall be at Coventry 9 this coming Sunday. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just remembered why I went for 18 May (brain not woken up properly yet). It was a purely selfish reason - I'm unlikely to be able to make the weekend after. I'm reluctant to reschedule, but I will do if necessary. Casting vote to RexxS... Bazonka (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not going to be able to attend the 4th Sunday in July either. Of course it's not all about me! But maybe Manchester should settle on the 3rd Sunday and Oxford on the 4th? Bazonka (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope to get to Oxford sometime (RexxS has kindly offered me a lift), but I often have commitments on Sundays, so it's a case of juggling diaries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Meh, why do I get the crappy job of casting vote? My experience in chairing tells me that a casting vote has to be for the status quo. In the absence of further debate, you should leave things as they are. At least that will allow Banzonka to go to his own local meetup; Harry and I can probably split ourselves between the clashes. I do agree though that RedRose and Bazonka could consult with each other to sort out dates as there's possibly more overlap between Manchester/Oxford meetups than many others. Feel free to use my talk page as a clearing house. All welcome. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS, it's because you're clearly the best man for the job.

So we'll stick to 18 May for Manchester, but in future months, we'll always go for the 4th Sunday, and Oxford can be on the 3rd. If there's a compelling reason to do something different, then we should discuss it. I'll leave it up to RedRose to decide whether Oxford 16 clashes or moves to another week. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WINC (AM)

Since you are helping on the article (thanks, by the way), I was wondering if you can help create a bibliography source section on the page? Wehwalt was trying to explain it to me, but I just wasn't getting it. I gave it a shot in the sandbox and I'm not sure what I did wrong. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect what Wehwalt was talking about was shortened footnotes. When you use the same source multiple times but cite different pages, then it's possible to use a short footnote that refers to a full citation in a "Bibliography" or similar section below. I'll have a look and if it's worth setting up the system in WINC (AM), I'll do it for you. I'll edit in 'chunks' so that if there are any of my edits that you don't want, you can easily revert them - don't worry, I have no sense of ownership over them! I've still got a few alt texts to add to images (and I need to find out why alt text isn't working for {{Infobox radio station}}) but I'll have a look at the shortened footnotes and report back. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried the shortened footnotes (in the sandbox), but I was obviously doing something wrong and couldn't get them to work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it, there are very few occurrences of the same source but with different pages like the current refs number 61 and 62:

• "Broadcasting" (PDF). Broadcasting Publications. February 13, 1978. p. 84. Retrieved December 2, 2013.
• "Broadcasting" (PDF). Broadcasting Publications. February 13, 1978. p. 88. Retrieved December 2, 2013.

I could convert those two so that the article looked like this:

... with a Middle of the Road format.

...

References

...

...

Bibliography

• "Broadcasting" (PDF). Broadcasting Publications. February 13, 1978. Retrieved December 2, 2013.

As you can see, the short footnotes inside the References section have links that take you to the full citation in the Bibliography.

But for just a couple of duplicate sources, I hardly think it's worth it. It's really at its most useful when most of the article sourcing is from a few books. If you're interested in the technique, have a look at one of Wehwalt's featured articles on coins, like Washington quarter which has been written to use nothing but shortened footnotes. Other articles commonly use a mixture when half the sources are a few books and the rest are online, like Nitrogen narcosis. HTH --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You could do the couple occurences, just to save time in case they are asked for when I take the article to GA or FA (which I intend to do). Dianna did one, she didn't think any others were needed, but I would like to have the others done as well...if you don't mind. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:Neutralhomer/Sandbox4#References and sources doesn't use Shortened footnotes, it uses list-defined references which are altogether a different beast. See NBR 224 and 420 Classes#Notes for an example of an article which uses shortened footnotes exclusively, by means of the {{sfn}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:Redrose64: I tried the SFNs too (see here) before reverting back to the List References. For some reason, the template would clump the SFNs and the List References together, even though I had them in different sections on the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:RexxS: Awesome, thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes and List-defined references are two different systems, they are not intended to be used on the same page. But if they are both used, they will be clumped together unless you force them to be separate. In the 16:34, 26 March 2014 example that you mentioned in your 00:07, 27 March 2014 post, the main problem is that under Sources, you had wrapped all of the {{cite book}} in a second {{reflist|30em|refs=...}} and that simply won't work without the <ref>...</ref> being present as well, which produces a second set of LDRs. Best to remove the {{reflist|30em|refs=...}} and add asterisks at the start of each line, like this. It's not perfect, but shows you how it could have been done. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any intent associated with the use of LDRs and SFNs, and I'd argue strongly that they are completely compatible. For one example of the use of two together, see the Featured Article, Oxygen toxicity. It is, of course, possible to name a {{harv}} style reference and treat that as another named reference. These days I prefer to just use the {{sfn}} and {{r}} templates to minimise the "snot" (as Jack would call it) in the wikitext. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked at both (the current one and Redrose's version) and consulted with Wehwalt (who is doing a PR on the article) and Dianna (who is also helping), rattled it around in my head for awhile and decided the way we have it works best. Less confusing. :) Thanks to Redrose for creating the LDR/SFR combo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In case you couldn't tell...

...I came by and dumped a bunch of dinosaurs (like, more than three?) on your talk page. Better feed them soon or Bishzilla will be upset. You April Fool! ROAR! Mieszilla (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Strange. This was on my local TV news yesterday (approx. 18:45) --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

But how many bags of food to get? [Proudly:] This dino can count up to four (almost) - proof of evolution! --T-RexxS (rawr) 16:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Tables in List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

Could you tell if the tables in List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are accessible? Or is the one in User:Tomcat7/Sandbox7 better? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There are four principal issues that editors ought to address to help make tables accessible:

1. If I had weak eyesight, could I read the smallest text when my browser's zoom is set to read normal text comfortably?
2. If I couldn't see any colours, would I lose information?
3. If I were using a screen reader that allowed it, could I navigate up, down, left and right around the table?
4. If I were using a screen reader in its normal mode, would I hear all of the characters used?

The first problem can be solved by making sure that no text is any smaller than about 85% of normal (one level of <small>...</small>), which is about 11px compared with about 13px for normal text. Both lists manage that.

The prime ministers list uses colours to show political party, but repeats that in text within the table, so solves that first problem. Your sandbox list uses colours that I can't see repeated in the text.

To allow screen reader navigation, a table needs unique column headers and row headers. The prime ministers list has no row headers and fails that. Your sandbox list has row headers but they are not unique - use the names as row headers.

The character † is used in the prime ministers list and isn't normally read by a screen reader. It should use {{†}} instead, or a symbol like '*'. I don't see that problem in your sandbox list.

I don't have time now for a full review, but I'll have more time on Friday if you want. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Consider using a template for each row, rather than raw wikimarkup. This will make it easier for people to edit the lists (improving accessibility for novice editors), and allow the embedding of markup (in the templates) that will emit [[mircoformats] making the templates readable ("accessible") to machines, and to browser add-ons available to readers. An example of such a template is {{EH listed building row}}. Ping me if you need help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Please have a look. Will changing the color of the internal links decrease accessbility?--Tomcat (7) 10:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

I've just been made aware of your comment here. Absolutely chuffed- thanks so much. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks spam

Dear mentor RexxS and new friend Mr Stradivarius, please be the first to get your compliments and flower bouquets here in recognition of valuable assistance! (Feel free improve code also HINT.) darwin^fish 19:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC).

Precious again

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

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

Two years ago, you were the 90th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Hi, RexxS. It may have been better to post only a brief message on the WikiProject talk page with a link to the Chiropractic talk page, inviting people to comment at the article's talk page. This would have made it easier for other readers to see the previous discussion, keep all the discussion in a single place, and prevent accusations of "forumshopping". Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you're right, but there's no forum shopping when I'm just following the instructions on MEDRS on asking for other opinions. You'll be pleased to know Guy and I have exchanged helpful emails - and we both just had a bad day, it seems. We're both "singing off the same hymn-sheet" now and all that's left is try to get QG to edit at a pace that we can all keep up with. Thank you, as ever, for the advice and your concern. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Chiropractic. Editors want me banned. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, QG. I've commented there that I think there's room for compromise - and that's preferable to any amount of banning. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly the end of this scholarly encyclopedic chiropractic article on Wikipedia. If this were an article like toothache there would never of been any content dispute. Based on the edit history, I'm sure editors will continue to delete reliable sources and continue to add original research. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

They are still trying to get me banned. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Look at this discussion. Middle 8 is not getting it. How long can this continue? QuackGuru (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Like a fire it will continue while fuel is added to it. My advice is to let the RfCU run until everybody has had their say. Give it a day or two (or more) without feeling obliged to contest every point. Then read over it all and see if there's any useful advice for you. You can then compose a measured response. I saw your replies to JzG on his talk: if you're happy to take a break from contentious topics for a while, that's fine - put it in your statement; if you feel you understand better that discussing one section at a time can be more productive, then add that; and so on. If you want to say that you're prepared to discuss issues with other editors when you run into problems, you know that you're always welcome on my talk page (and I'm sure there are more who will be willing to help). Don't get upset; keep your cool. I have confidence in your good intentions and I believe many others feel the same. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I switched from chiro to acu for now. Did you see the new acu page? The same thing I did for chiro I did for acu. QuackGuru (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That may not be least controversial topic you could have chosen to move to. Nevertheless, thank you for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, as ever. My advice is to go to the talk page the moment that you get into dispute; impose a strict 0RR on yourself for the first pass through the article; and take it slowly. The other editors there may have a different viewpoint, but are just as keen to make the article as good as possible, so look hard for common ground and work with them as much as you can. The page is now back on my watchlist after a break of several years. --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I made over 400 edits to acu in a few short weeks. At chiro it was about 24 hours. I think I am slowing down a bit compared to the previous article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You are slowing down indeed. I'll see if I can find a "Reasonable Rate" barnstar for you. My wiki-pal Rich Farmbrough might have one somewhere. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am being followed. It is probably a sock account used to hound me. Do you have any advise for me. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I'd just spotted that. I've warned the user about deceptive editing. You now need to disengage and don't edit war. If need be, I'll ask at the Doctors Mess for other opinions on the mechanism of acupuncture. It's not a quick fix, but it's necessary to achieve any long-term resolution. Don't try to do it all yourself. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This looks like an auto generated edit summary and not that of a new editor. QuackGuru (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's autogenerated for sure, but J-S has been editing for seven months, so could easily have learned how to use some automation tools/scripts by now. It's important to assume good faith as much as possible as that improves collaboration, rather than polarising editors into opponents. From your point-of-view, you should now put this behind you and keep yourself clear of controversy as much as possible. There's still plenty of other work to be done! --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will assume good faith and I should think it was a coincidence that two different accounts made very similar edits.[1][2] QuackGuru (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Both DJFryzy and Tharyanp have edited an unrelated article to chiropractic. Brosurf previously edited The Friends of Science in Medicine too. The Friends of Science in Medicine is edited by only a few editors. Tharyanp came to the talk page to support DJFryzy's proposal to the lede. User:Callanecc previously blocked DJFryzy for socking. I think it is another sock account. QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

At least one of the sock accounts got greeted with a block. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Infallibility and such

When's the last time you read WP:NPA? Small minds like yours are only satisfied to discuss other editors and not the underlying problem of lack data. You have the opinion of many editors that this is somehow better but no data to support this opinion. In the absence of actual facts and in the absence of anything verifiable you take pot-shots at those who actually want such and assume that by destroying them on some moral of emotional level that your lack of support for a cogent argument is somehow acceptable. I feel so sorry for you and your inability to reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know what this is about, but I'll just point out the irony in suggesting somebody read NPA and then proceeding to deliver a personal attack... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Thanks for taking the time to drop by, Walter. If you think I've made a personal attack on you, then let's discuss it rationally and I'll apologise for whatever harm I've done to you. I didn't set out to cause you upset but to improve the accessibility of articles. I understand that you don't think putting list templates into infoboxes improves accessibility. Like many other editors who have looked at the issue, I disagree with your conclusion, because it doesn't fit with my experience or my estimation of the value of semantic markup. I've given you my sources: my experience with a few common screen readers; my understanding of W3C; and Graham87's experience as reported to me. I just don't accept that I have to supply you with a Wikipedia-style "reliable source" for a question of editorial judgement. In no other circumstances are editors required to produce such high levels of proof of the efficacy of their techniques. You might just as well ask for verifiable proof that we shouldn't use level 1 headings in articles or any other piece of guidance that's in the Manual of Style. I've already given you three reasons to use {{Plainlist}} in infoboxes: screen reader navigation; resolution of potential ambiguity; and avoidance of <br />. You've raised the problem of editors having to supply additional code. But you surely know what my response is: it's a collaborative process and editors don't have to supply extra code; other editors can improve such contributions however imperfect they are at first.

@HJ Mitchell: It's a debate at Talk:Michaëlle Jean #Formatting where I've let my enthusiasm for accessibility overcome my enthusiasm for civility. Mea culpa. --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell. You seem to confuse irony with a private rebuke. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If that's a private rebuke, how come HJ and I can see it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A bit confused

RexxS, I think you've entirely misread the discussion when you responded here. You're right: I descended into sarcasm after the originator went south, and I shouldn't have risen to the occasion like that. I also at no point claimed that ANI was not the right spot. Not sure where you and I have ever gotten off on the wrong foot - but I would have hoped you would have helped to alleviate a situation, rather than make false statements that make them worse. Cheers.  the panda  ₯’ 15:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, DP, I shouldn't have reacted like that. I can only say that I was dismayed by Lesion's announcement of retirement. He's a valued but innocent editor who had a bad experience at ANI. I felt he deserved sympathy, so you caught the wrong end of it. Look, it's not personal: on another day I'm sure we'll agree 100% about an issue. Till then, happy editing --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic improvements

I'm done with chiropractic. It took a very long time (felt like forever). Maybe it could be a really good article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you peek at this?

Another infobox has no outline around the outside, see {{Infobox racecourse}}, as an example, used here: Meydan Racecourse. I think you can edit on this one boldly, I'm a part of the project and will help if anyone has an objection. Montanabw^(talk) 00:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've added a border and increased the line-height for the 'title' to make it appear part of the infobox - feel free to revert if it's not what you wanted. Check out Flemington Racecourse as an example (you may need to purge the page). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Live Art, Feminism and Archives 25 April 2014

See this: User:Leutha2/LADA1. Leutha2 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done capturing that. I hadn't realised quite how much work they got through. --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

meta:Meetup/Oxford/15

Do we have the numbers for this?

©Geni (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Do donkeys lay eggs?

I have a solution for bakers, give an extra and they can climb Babel. Sharing forage equally does not require white bears to be brought together. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC).

As you generalise the egginess and stages, you find entropy creeping in - which is how you jogged my memory in the first place. I got to x.log(1/(1-x)) for partitioning before I had to write it down. A fine gift, though, wouldn't you agree? I'd like to see how you avoided invoking Scott and Amundsen in equi-dividing the green stuff. --RexxS (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Assume you have n throws left. Clearly you mount to floor n and defenestrate, if breakage occurs you then perform 1 - (n-1) (at worst case), if not mount to n+(n-1), and so forth. We cover triangular number (n) - call it T(n). in the case of n=14 this is 105. (I actually started from the top, and worked down, and landed at floor 9 - forgetting whether I was counting throws left by then (motorway slip roundabouts, ya know)).

Add another missile and we can clearly start at floor T(12)+1 = 92 (if we allow 13 throws - call it case [13,3]) failure gives us the case for [12,2], success [12,3] which means we can ascend another T(11)+1 floors, so we can cover, in the case of m=3 tetrahedral(n-1) + n.

* m=0 e(m,n)=0; (or possibly undef.)

* m=1 e(m,n)=1;

* m=2 e(m,n)=T(n);

* m=3 e(m,n)=Tetra(n-1)+n;

* ...

In general e(m,n) = Sum(e(m-1,n-1)) + n - closed form? Left as an exercise....

As to the donkey, draw the field, the diameter of the field, -1,0,+1, and the circle that is the range of the donkey. For a given range R we know the intersection points of the circles (left to right) A,B, and the intersection points of the range with the diameter, (left to right) C,D. We now calculate the area of the segment above the circle C->(0,R-1)->D->O->C and the area of the curved triangles (-1,0)->A->C and its reflection (a sector of the unit circle less a segment of the R-circle). When these are equal the area is divided equally. We set them equal and solve for R. I suspect that numerical methods would be needed to get an actual number, but for an actual solution I would tie the rope across the field and constrain the donkey thus.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC).

It's a good approach to consider how many throws you have left and that's how I eventually arrived at a solution. Being a physicist, not a mathematician, my first instinct was to consider a continuous problem where you have a partitioning fraction (x=f(n)) that determines where your next try goes within the current possible range. For example, a binary search has x=0.5 independent of n and terminates when the range is less than unity. For the eggs, the lower-result scenario differs from the upper-result (as we lose an egg), so it's not symmetrical and the worst-case scenarios had me solving for (1/x)^x which brings up -x.log(x) - entropy!

As for the donkey, I think you've neglected an obtuse triangle AOC, but your approach is usable. As you have foreseen though, the problem of expressing those areas as functions of R is a real pig. I found it easier to consider the sector (radius R) from A -> mid-point arc CD -> (0,-1) plus the segment of the unit circle between A and (0,-1). Just finding A in terms of R is ok since both x^2+y^2=1 and x^2+(y-1)^2=R^2 at A. The area of that [sector plus segment] is then set equal to one-quarter of the unit circle. Nevertheless, an analytic solution - although implicitly expressible using trig functions - turns out to be beyond my powers to express as an explicit quantity. I eventually used numerical methods to yield a value for R about 1.11 if I recall correctly. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Follow up - large PDF with health message

the file being discussed

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_47#Sharing_health_media we were talking about a large PDF I had posted to the article on antibiotics. I converted this to a djvu which is half the size and also transcribed it to Wikisource so that anyone can easily grab the plain text. I am in the process of connecting the English and Spanish versions of this message.

I know the process is clunky. If you have other comments then share or otherwise I will see you at Wikimania to discuss further. Some of the concerns that I have about this include how to decide what sources like this are acceptable for inclusion, which organization should have their documents in an article if multiple organizations all have similar messages, and how will my doing this set a precedent for what other organizations imagine doing with Wikipedia. Even though I worry about organizational meddling in Wikipedia I worry more about Wikipedia being extremely popular but largely ignored by organizations. If you hear of someone passing through WM UK and talking about what organizations should do, I hope that you would be comfortable telling them that sharing more of their text is an option worth exploring. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll certainly do that, and I'm looking forward to us all getting together at Wikimania. See you there! --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Derby Day ping

Oh great chart guru, Just a very polite ping that on Kentucky Derby Day (Saturday, May 3) can you please help keep an eye on a recent GA that I've worked on, California Chrome? The horse is the favorite for the race, already has a rabid fan base, the "Chromies" (in a good way, mostly) but the article is already getting anon IP edits from people who are making random odd edits. I have meticulously sourced this article and if there are errors, they are in the sources consulted (or at least my interpretation of them) and, while of course any article can be improved, anyone changing material needs different/better sources to correct errors and not just put in random rants (which is what one anon IP just did, phooey). I think everyone around here knows the drill, but... thanks in advance. I'm driving back home that day and will be on the road about 7 hours, I'm hoping I can at least catch the race itself in a cafe or something along the way, I won't likely have internet access during the race itself and other eyes will be much appreciated, thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 06:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello, I believe the following discussion about template accessibility may be of use to you. Please comment if you wish at Template_talk:Infobox_album#Consistancy. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you Lil, I am indeed interested in that discussion. --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

File:VillaMedicicafaggiolo.gif

Right. I think it's time I took a break.

Can you suggest an appropriate wording to use as an apology? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok - thank you for your understanding. If I were you, I'd just say something like "I'm sorry I missed seeing the source and I promise I'll try to do better in future". Simple is best - and don't beat yourself up about it: errare humanum est; we all make mistakes and acknowledging them goes a long way towards fixing them. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

See what I wrote on Giano's talk page. I did not handle this "appropriately". I seem to be showing the early signs of a potential burn-out, and would appreciate it if you did discuss this with other contributors and admins discreetly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

BLPTALK

Thanks for focusing on the policy. [3]

You said that I seem to think "any content not covered by this is allowed." Not at all, nor have I written anything to imply such a thing that I'm aware.

Let's be perfectly clear: Yes, caution needs to be taken even when the discussion is related to making content choices.

I've reviewed the discussions about the policy and the consensus for this exception is to prevent talk page discussions from being shut down by BLP concerns. Clearly, if it is an inappropriate use of the talk page, then it is "not related to making content choices". I agree that caution needs to be taken in general, and especially when there might be something libelous. If what looks like a libelous statement appears in discussion that's otherwise an appropriate use of a talk page, then the person making the statement should be asked to clarify what the statement is based upon and why the wording is appropriate. That's my personal take on what would be reasonable, but I've not seen much consensus for it, much less anything stricter. Hence, I'd like to clarify the policy... --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

WINC (AM) on FAC

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that the WINC (AM) article, which made some changes on and helped out with, is currently up on FAC. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Manchester

Hi RexxS, will you be coming to the Manchester meetup this Sunday? We're a bit low on numbers at present, so I'm thinking of cancelling it unless more people sign up. (Also, the venue has had to change due to a clash with the half-marathon, so that may cause a bit of congestion.)
It would be a good opportunity for us to have a chat about the Barclays thing - it's a month away, but I'm not sure what other chance we're going to have to talk about it. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll be there. Sorry I was late in signing up. --RexxS (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jolly good! Bazonka (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this and let me know your thoughts please! Bazonka (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know much about pubs in Manchester, so this time I can't be much help. I'll go with whatever you decide. Looking forward to future meetups, I must admit that I liked The Sir Ralph Abercromby that we used for meetup 12 and others because I could hear everybody and we had space to ourselves. I know the food wasn't as varied as Wetherspoons, but that's the trade-off for the space I guess. As it's now the end of the footy season, is there a chance of trying a Saturday once more for a meetup? It would be good value to meet Eric again. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This month, the problem is the congestion in town, so I suppose the question was really: are you prepared to walk out a bit further to the Church Inn or sit in a noisy/crowded bar. (I should probably have been a bit more explicit.) Anyhow, I think we'll go with Mike's suggestion: the Sand Bar. Sounds OK to me. Yes, we can probably go back to Saturdays, but of course the football season hasn't really finished... See you on Sunday, Bazonka (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request(Fae)

An arbitration amendment request(Fae), to which you contributed, resulted in a motion.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You!

With your help, the WINC (AM) was just promoted to Featured Article status. Together, we took a C-Class article, edited, added and made it a Good Article. We didn't stop there, we made it better and now it is a Featured Article. Whether you made one edit or twenty, you still helped and I thank you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well done, NH! I'm very pleased for you, and glad my tiny contributions helped a little. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! They did indeed, they helped with that annoying reference template when it wasn't working. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

New User Help

Hi RexxS - I have finished my article that I made at the Manchester Wikipedia edit-a-thon. Can you please publish it for me? It is the one on Nancy Papalopulu in my "sandbox1" area. Thanks! Kimberly Mace (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Kimberly Mace

Hi Kimberly, I've moved the page into article space as Nancy Papalopulu - it doesn't need the (biologist) disambiguation as there are no other articles with that name. Your sandbox1 is now a redirect to the article, but you can re-use it for another article now if you simply overwrite the redirect with fresh content. Happy editing, --RexxS (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)