User talk:RexxS/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Module:DateI18n

RexxS, few weeks ago I made a big rewrite of Module:DateI18n, simplified language specific cases and moved c:Module:I18n/Date to Data namespace where one version can be accessed by all wikis. Can you update code here?--Jarekt (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt am I right to think that I need to replace Module:DateI18n with one from Commons and then check through it for altered dependencies? Are there any other modules that call the new Module:I18n/Date? Can I just import the new version from Commons> if so what is it called? Sorry I don't have time to do the work right now, but things are pretty busy here. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I was not very clear. Yes please replace Module:DateI18n with c:Module:DateI18n. Data from c:Module:I18n/Date was moved to C:Data:DateI18n.tab and C:Data:I18n/MonthCases.tab and those pages (like file pages) do not have to be moved to be accessible from other projects. There are no other dependencies, except for Module:No globals which should be the same on both projects. And yes just import should work, with Special:Import. No other modules call c:Data:DateI18n.tab / c:Data:I18n/MonthCases.tab. Thanks. --Jarekt (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Jarekt I did the import but it threw errors on my testing page Module talk:WikidataIB/testing, so I restored the previous version. I'll set up the new version in a sandbox tomorrow and debug the problem. It's probably something trivial, but I can't leave the errors in mainspace while I sort it out. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Update for Jarekt. I finally found some time to set up a chain of sandboxes: Module:WikidataIB/sandbox → Module:Complex date/sandbox → Module:ISOdate/sandbox → Module:DateI18n/sandbox. It turns out all of the errors were variables in Module:Complex date that weren't declared as local. Of course, I couldn't leave errors showing in the live modules while I investigated, so I didn't realise until now that it only needed a quick fix. It's done now, so thanks again for the update. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I was not always using "no globals" module, so you must have a version on enWiki before I got religion began using it everywhere. --Jarekt (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I'm just dropping by without having looked at the background above, but if anyone needs a module checked for inappropriate globals, let me know. I've got a script (on a local computer) which quickly gets them all. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, there was one more problem with Module:Complex date which I fixed to remove an error in 9 articles. I also cleaned the whitespace and that really should be copied back to Commons. Jarekt might like to first fix the TODO comment I added. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look at it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq and RexxS, the issues being fixed in Module:Complex date is stuff fixed a while ago on Commons. I compared EnWiki version of the module with Commons version and ported "lazy loading" of some modules from EnWiki to Commons, modifying the master copy at c:Module:Complex date which I then moved to Module:Complex date/sandbox. Can we synch EnWiki version with Commons version? --Jarekt (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt and Johnuniq: Thanks both. As Module:WikidataIB/sandbox currently calls Module:Complex date/sandbox (line 406), we can check the testcases in Module talk:WikidataIB/sandbox/testing. That doesn't throw up any errors or other issues, so we should be okay to update Module:Complex date from the sandbox version you made. I'll do that now... Alexey Verstovsky still looks fine. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Church sorting

I made a bit of a mistake, Motacilla has suggested waiting until the coronavirus pandemic is over before starting the RFC but unfortunately I'd forgotten about that. I admit that that was my mistake for forgetting about that but the lockdown is due to be altered tomorrow though its unlikely much will be changed, is there anything that I should say to Motacilla? Their reply is at User talk:Motacilla#Dedication v location RFC on Commons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I'm not sure what you could say. He's in a fragile mental state right now, and I don't know whether he's better off trying to engage at Commons, or just keeping away from it until he feels better. I saw his reply to you and was dismayed, so I intend to just wait. When he feels well enough, he'll email me and I can pick up the thread again. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I'll just wait then, maybe they will need to start another new RFC later but I don't think its likely to change this time judging by the comments already. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"is there anything that I should say to Motacilla?" Having dropped me in it, the very least User talk:Crouch, Swale could do is respond on my talk page instead of here behind my back. And having launched the renewed discussion after I pleaded for it to be deferred, Crouch, Swale could apologise for putting me in an impossible position that has compounded my distress.

Crouch, Swale offered "if you don't want to comment there yourself I can post of you're behalf" (sic). That would be no substitute for being there to read other users' comments and be able to reply. Small wonder if you "don't think its likely to change this time judging by the comments already". The discussion is distorted by my being effectively excluded.

This is not the first time Crouch, Swale has distressed me. On 28 January s/he messaged me "I'm afraid I don't see evidence of bullying by Rodhullandemu". So how is using the "f" word at me, calling me "asinine", "consistently wrong" and an "utter fool" and making repeated overt or implied threats against me, over a period of nearly three years, not bullying?

I am the victim of a long-term bullying campaign. Crouch, Swale's 28 January message to me effectively gaslit me. Hence when s/he told me on 1 May that s/he had started the discussion against my express request, I despaired.

Commons' alphasorting of churches and pubs remains important to me. But the matter goes way beyond this. It is now primarily a matter of online safety. Every user or administrator who has commented on my Commons talk page has either ignored or denied Rodhullandemu's bullying of me. This makes Commons an unsafe space.

Before Rodhullandemu was made a Commons administrator in 2014, Ultra7 warned "In my experience based on a few recent enough interactions, Rod seems to think consensus building is just a vote with some extra words, where everyone gets to present their "honestly held" opinion, and that's that. If you query something he has said, sometimes he will simply ignore you. He is apparently unaware that this sort of stonewalling is a textbook example of the non-sweary kind of incivility. I'm all for the principle of ending a back and forth once it has become circular or unproductive - users can and should be able to simply agree to disagree - but Rod seems to me to believe that on Commons, he is under no obligation to present any kind of counter-argument at all, even if it's just to give a single reply explaining how the other person are themselves mistaken. That's simply not how consensus works, and by extension it's not how Commons should work. It's certainly not the mindset any admin should have, even on Commons."

Ultra7 commented on Rodhullandemu's contribution to one discussion "Not only is the tone arrogant and condescending, what he was saying didn't even make any sense." Ultra7's warnings from 2014 well describe Rodhullandemu's aggression and bullying toward me years later.

Secondly, RexxS has more than once pointed out that Rodhullandemu "should not be taking admin action against an editor with whom you are involved in a content dispute. That's what's happened before and it should never happen again." In this Rodhullandemu has grossly and repeatedly misused his admin powers over a long period. And he threatens to do so again, this time by banning me for life.

On both his abusive and bullying behaviour, and his misuse of power, there is ample evidence that Rodhullandemu should not be a Commons administrator. Commons users should request his De-adminship. Until they do, I cannot be sure of my safety and I have good reason to avoid Commons as much as possible. Motacilla (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons has 215 admins as I write this. I've only met three that I know of: Geni (talk · contribs) has been to Oxford meetups several times, I met Mattbuck (talk · contribs) at Wikimania London, also Mike Peel (talk · contribs) some time or another. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have had a look into what has been said both here, at the RfC, and at commons:User talk:Motacilla. I don't know the background to all this, but I do see a lot of problematic comments by Rodhullandemu which are both personal attacks and violations of c:COM:MELLOW. I understand that the current climate is frustrating and aggravating for all of us, but there is no excuse for an administrator to behave that way. Rod was warned on the Commons talk page, and looking at his more recent comments in Commons and User Talk namespaces I do not see any issues. I can either escalate to the admin noticeboard or leave it for now. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone else brought Rodhullandemu to the admin noticeboard - commons:COM:ANU#Complaint about Rodhullandemu. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: You (as the editor that started the RfC) could temporarily withdraw the RfC and resume it in a few months, so that it is a fairer discussion given the mental health concerns here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think temporarily withdrawing the RFC would be appropriate given it has seen some support although mostly opposition though that doesn't prevent another discussion in a few months though its likely it will be closed without action soon. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about pageviews

Hi, RexxS - quick question...in the pageview stats at the top of a user page - are the views inclusive of the actual user or only visitors who view the page? The same question for mainspace articles - are the views of registered users and the editors who are actually editing the page also counted? In other words, does the counter distinguish between editors of the page, WP registered users, and actual visitors? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: To the best of my knowledge, every visit is a page view, with the exception of "Web crawlers" whose visits are not counted. Maybe a page watcher might know more? --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Ref and nowiki

How can include easily a link to <include> and , for newbies?. It would be great in the scale to help Wikipedia to improve. --BoldLuis (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@BoldLuis: If you want to refer to any tag, you can use Template:tag, like this:

Wikitext is {{tag|nowiki}} - displays as <nowiki>...</nowiki>

Wikitext is {{tag|nowiki|o}} - displays as <nowiki>

Wikitext is {{tag|nowiki|c}} - displays as </nowiki>

Wikitext is {{tag|nowiki|e}} - displays as <nowiki />

Is that what you wanted? --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Something similar to <nowiki> and link to magic words or place where explained what it is, at least, and for what it is used. As said, ideal for newbies. --BoldLuis (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@BoldLuis: okay - I see what you mean. There's no simple system to create a link that I'm aware of. There are help pages:

• Help:Wikitext is very comprehensive, but is organised by function, so you have to search the page to find <nowiki>, for example.
• Help:Cheatsheet is much simpler, but doesn't cover the topics you mentioned, unfortunately.

Sorry things aren't better organised. I can see how useful a simple link would be. --RexxS (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You gained a Barnstar. Thank you a lot if you can help ever to improve it for newbies. --BoldLuis (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Improving links for newbies. BoldLuis (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Sronly

Thanks for the advice yesterday on how to use this! I've added it across 31 lists + 3 developing in sandbox. Could you just confirm whether lists such as Grade II listed buildings in Brighton and Hove: A–B, where there is a table with a visible header followed immediately by another table with no header, will be dealt with properly by screenreaders; or should I add an sronly template above the main table? I have about 10 lists like that. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489: I'm glad you found it helpful. We were talking about table captions, not table headers, though. The caption was what we were discussing yesterday and it uses |+ markup; a table header is the name of the column or row and the markup is ! (I've added proper headers to the columns in the main table to demonstrate). You should add a caption to every table and only hide it with {{sronly}} if it follows immediately below a section heading (markup == etc.) that it would duplicate. See if the edit I made makes sense. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Sorry, yes, I meant captions rather than headers; had a late night and my brain hasn't recovered yet! That edit makes sense; I'll apply that across the other lists in question. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

What sanctions did I run afoul of?

Thanks for your comment. I've see the AN/I thread now. I'm trying to understand what sanctions I've violated if you'd care to chime in. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: I've commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard #Kendrick7 to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

atorvastatin-associated myopathy

Please comment on this on the atorvastatin page. At present, we do not mention weakness anywhere in this article, even though weakness is the most common adverse effect. Sbelknap (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:Atorvastatin #Weakness as adverse effect of atorvastatin exposure. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Agnes George shauri

This editor is part of the librarian project, to address 'citation needed,' but I have asked this person to stop, as many of the attempts to provide citations have been completely wrong. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: I can understand that some of the efforts to provide citations turn out to be incorrect, but the article is no worse off for their efforts if they have been checked, and thank you for that. It would perhaps be better to encourage new editors to find better sources than to tell them to stop. For example, the sentence Before 1935, the only source of vitamins was from food isn't a biomedical claim and could perhaps be verified from a more general or tertiary source. I think in the case of Agnes George shauri, they are so prolific that checking can become a burden. I'll drop a note asking them to slow down. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Medicine proposed decision

The Medicine proposed decision was posted --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

May

May · Mary · Monteverdi

Thank you for article improvements in May! - DYK my list of people for whose life I'm thankful enough to improve their articles? - I have a FAC open, one of Monteverdi's exceptional works, in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

today a composer pictured who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, RexxS. You have new messages at MartinezMD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy holidays!

Hi Doug! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. And talkin' about being amenable, I would be extremely amenable to a beer in a quite little pub I know in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter! So check how many air miles you've got 'cause it's a long way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Outreach Africa editors

Thanks for explaining that. But I've seen some terrible sources and they've never been pointed to Help:Referencing for beginners or if they have I see no evidence of it in the ones I've reverted. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I guess that's not unusual when there's an outreach initiative into areas where there is not a pool of experienced editors who can engage "on the ground". My experience is that explaining how to become discriminative with sourcing is the toughest part of training new editors. But as long as we are welcoming and willing to help – even reverting poor sources is part of the learning process – in the long run Wikipedia benefits. Thanks for engaging with them, Doug. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I despair, I don't know if they are doing more good than bad. Look at [1] and their talk page. This one should be blocked perhaps and all their edits just reverts, unless someone can check them all and get the editor to change their habits. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a tough one, Doug. I think that it's an excusable newbie mistake to mistake a Wikipedia mirror like peoplepill. com/people/roger-milla/ for a reliable source. The problem comes if they don't take notice once it's pointed out to them. As for the revert suggestion, look at the source added to Ethnic groups in Ivory Coast: http://countrystudies.us/ivory-coast/20.htm. That's just an amateur site, but the content appears to be taken directly from https://www.loc.gov/item/90005878/, an obviously reliable source. IMHO, we need to explain how to use the best source, not to revert when a substitution would improve the article. I'll drop a note on their talk page. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but I just don't have time to check them all and explain, sorry. Thanks for helping out. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Now another editor has come to my talk page to ask what can be done and say it needs stopping. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've commented at User talk:Kuru##AflibWk_editors, but I accept that if they don't slow down after explanations have been made, there's little alternative but to apply short blocks. It's a shame, but our other volunteers on RCP can only be expected to put up with so much. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Risper Chemutai - another AflibWk editor in need of direction

I just spotted this unreliable source. Glancing at other edits, it looks like Risper is taking time between edits but needs direction on how to identify reliable references. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: I've left them a note with some explanation of "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"from WR:RS. Although I agree about The Famous People, it actually isn't any worse than half of the sources used on Ronald DeWolf. I guess we have to try to fix things one source at a time. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, famousPeople tends to get added where there's lots of work to do, which is why I keep checking for it even after it was removed from use in 2018. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The old Wikidata module

Hey RexxS, hope you're well.

I'm trying to update a whole lotta map dates to use Wikidata rather than local edits on wikis, but I'm having some trouble fighting the old Wikidata module that still exists on some of them (on many, Module:Wd has not yet been ported, and I'm loath to port an entire module just for one use case if I can avoid it). I was wondering if you might be able to help, seeing as it seems you know the dark arts of the module!

I'm calling it like this: {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatements|item=Q95963597|property=P585}}

This works fine, except for one small problem: on several wikis (namely, at least on cs: and el:) the date produced from wikidata:Q95963597#P585, which has day accuracy, is producing to year accuracy. I'm thoroughly confused as to why this would be - I've even tried specifying the |precision= param per the code of formatRawValue over at el:Module:Wikidata/Formatters/time, but to no avail - it still produces the year.

Do you have any ideas why this might be, or how to fix it? Any insights you can offer would be greatly appreciated!

All the best, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: The call you quote gives me script errors on enwiki:

• {{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatements|item=Q95963597|property=P585}}

I only wrote the first half of Module:Wikidata; the rest was ported in later to duplicate code from other projects. The problem is that Wikidata modules are not standardised across projects, so you can't expect any particular call to be reproducible on another wiki. I wrote Module:WikidataIB as a standard replacement for the other modules. principally for use in infoboxes, of course. It's implemented on 82 projects including cswiki and elwiki, and is quite well localised "out of the box". You might have more luck using that. Here are some examples:

• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597}} → 20 November 2022
• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597 |df=mdy}} → November 20, 2022
• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597 |df=y}} → 2022
• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597 |lang=cs}} → 20. listopadu 2022
• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597 |lang=el}} → 20 Νοεμβρίου 2022

The date localisation is handled by Module:Complex date. The documentation at Module:WikidataIB/doc is rather lengthy and still not complete, but it should give you most of the functionality you will need. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

[Update]: I just checked and el:Module:WikidataIB hasn't been updated since 2107, and el:Module:Complex date hasn't been updated since 2016. I can update the WikidataIB module without problems of attribution, but I need to ping Jarekt as the maintainer of Complex date to see if he can do an update. Sorry about that.

On elwiki, you can use:

• {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |fetchwikidata=ALL |onlysourced=no |P585 |qid=Q95963597}} → 20 November 2022 

but that doesn't localise the date. I'll try to update now. --RexxS (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

[Update redux]: @Naypta and Jarekt: I've updated everything I could find on elwiki and el:Module talk:WikidataIB/testing seems to be giving the results I'd expect. The examples from above now work on elwiki. I'm not sure I've caught every single module that needed updating or creating:

• Module:WikidataIB
• Module:I18n
• Module:Complex date
• Module:I18n/complex date
• Module:ISOdate
• Module:DateI18n
• Module:Ordinal
• Module:LangSwitch
• Module:Roman

Jarekt: can you spot any that I've missed? It would be useful to have a complete list of dependencies for future reference. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I found the following dependencies on Commons, some of them added using lazy loading:

• Module:No globals
• Module:i18n/complex date

• Module:Linguistic

• Module:Delink
• Module:Yesno
• Module:I18n/or

• Module:Roman
• Module:Ordinal

• Module:I18n/ordinal

• Module:ISOdate

• Module:DateI18n

• Module:Formatnum
• Module:Calendar

Which is a lot, I hope to be able to reduce that in the future. Module:I18n/or can be easily moved to tabular data, etc. Some of the modules might be quite different on enWiki and Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS and Jarekt: you're both stars, thank you!

I'm sadly aware of the fragmented state of the modules on the different wikis - so far I have the following different lines, all doing the same thing, on different Wikimedia sites:

{{#invoke:Wikidata|claim|item=Q95963597|property=P585}}

{{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatements|item=Q95963597|property=P585}}

{{#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|item=Q95963597|property=P585}}

{{#invoke:Wikidata|getValueFromID|Q95963597|P585|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}

{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P585 |qid=Q95963597}}

{{Wikidata|property|Q95963597|P585}}

Which is all a bit nuts! But it works, so hey ho :) Thanks so much for getting the modules updated, I can go and continue spreading the merry Wikidata joys now! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hrm, maybe not sorted yet actually :( cs:Wikipedista:Naypta/Pískoviště shows cswiki not working either with WikidataIB - it just returns blank. Any ideas? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: The version of WikidataIB on cswiki is from 2018. It doesn't recognise the parameter set |ps=1, so you have to use the actual parameters fetchwikidata (fwd) and onlysourced (osd). I've left an example at cs:Wikipedista:Naypta/Pískoviště. If Module:Complex date can be imported to cswiki, we can easily update WikidataIB to the latest version. --RexxS (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you! Last thing I'll bug you about for now, sorry - cs:Modul:WikidataIB/i18n is set up, and looks correct to me, but the date still isn't localising. Best as I can see, it's correctly imported in cs:Modul:WikidataIB and should be overriding the i18n defaults - do you have any idea why it's not? No worries if not, you've already been super helpful Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: The WikidataIB/i18n module was originally intended to localise dates as well as error messages, etc. but there were just too many variables in date formats for it to work. That's why I eventually decided to avoid duplicating work by using Jarekt's Complex date module from Commons, where everything has already been localised. If you import that module and its dependencies from Commons, the latest version of WikidataIB will do the localisations for you. I'm sorry there are so many modules to import for Complex date, but they do provide a lot of extra functionality with dates. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
• CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
• Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
• QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I am formally notifying anyone who was originally named as a party in the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you help me with a template issue for Wikiproject COVID-19

Hi

Thanks very much for coming to the workshop on Friday, it was really helpful to have your suggestions for improvements. I feel like I need to find a solution for not getting lost on the page, if you have any ideas do let me know.

One issue I have is as you saw there are some big tables on the pages and a lot of people find VE helpful in editing them (including me). Unfortunately the standard Wikiproject COVID-19 header template has something in it to make the background green which breaks VE on the page (VE opens but just shows boxes of wikicode). So I created a new header template for the new pages which some people didn't like so they nominated it for deletion. Is there a way to make the standard COVID-19 header template not have the green background? Maybe either by just adding a bit of code to the top of the page under the template to 'close' the green background or by having an option in the template to turn off the green?

John Cummings (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I'm always glad to help, but you haven't given me links to the templates you're concerned about and I can't find them from your contributions. If you can let me know where you want me to look, I'll do my best to sort the problems. --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much @RexxS: so the header template they are keen on using is the one on this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19, as you can see the whole background is green which means that VE breaks, I created the header template on this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/Reference_sources which they are not happy with and want to delete. I think what I'm asking is for a way to make the header on Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19 work with VE, I guess there are a few options to do this, whatever works easiest/best. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I'm able to edit Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19 with Visual Editor using this link:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19&veaction=edit

I don't normally use VE, but I'm not seeing where it's breaking on that edit. There doesn't seem to be a problem with the green colour (that seems to be a green herring), but template {{start tab}} is known to cause issues with Visual Editor, and we'll have to wait for that to be fixed if we want tabbed pages to be 100% editable with VE.

The TfD was no consensus, so the template can exist while waiting for a resolution of the VE problem.

Nevertheless, there are multiple problems with your template. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Reference sources on a mobile phone, or follow this link to the mobile version of the page:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/Reference_sources

On the link above you can see that the icons run onto two lines. On my mobile phone, the icons take up five lines. The text is squashed into the right half of the screen because of icons on the left side. As more than half of our pageviews now come from mobile visitors, it's really not a viable layout. Of course the layout on the main project page isn't much better. --RexxS (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking at it, yes I agree the new template is not ideal. I don't feel like I've done a good job of explaining what 'breaking' means. So what I mean is that whilst VE loads on a page with the 'green header template' you can't actually use it to edit things in VE, whatever you click on just brings up boxes of wikicode in a window because it thinks its being transcluded. Its probably easiest to show you,

1. On this page VE works just fine Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19/Main_messages.
2. But if I replace the header with the green one User:John_Cummings/Rexxtest and you try and use VE you get a whole load of wikicode boxes which say transclusion.

I hope this makes sense, I'm sorry if I'm not being clear.

John Cummings (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes John, that's clear. When VE tries to edit a page that contains a template, it tries to use the TemplateData for that template to render a popup that can be edited. Otherwise it tells you that a page is being transcluded and creates a popup giving you the content to edit. Unfortunately, Template:Start tab is transcluded and that in turn transcludes the pages that the tabs will link to in an unintuitive manner. That's a bit too much for VE to figure out and it fails to show you the content of the transclusions inside the transclusion. When you try the same with your header, which doesn't transclude anything (it just links to pages, rather than pre-loading them), it works as you would expect. Does that give you a better idea of where VE is hitting a brick wall? --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that's very helpful in understanding what the issue is, I just don't know how to stop it happening, it seems unlikely that the new header I created will continue to exist so there seem to be three broad options:

1. Find some way to add an option to the 'green header' to make it so you can use it with VE (I don't know how to do this)
2. Find some way to add some additional code to the page so the green 'stops' at the top of the page and so VE will work (I don't know how to do this)
3. Make an identical looking version of the 'green header' but with no green (I don't think this would be super popular but might be ok, not sure if I know how to do this, but seems the least technical option)

What do you think is the best option?

John Cummings (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@John: The green isn't anything to do with the problem you have. It would exist no matter what colour was used for the background. The problem is how the current page loads the other pages it references in the tabs. The way to fix it is to use a set of tabs that simply link to other subpages, not transclude them. The page needs a new layout anyway because of the way it renders in mobile view; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 #Mobile view. The best option is 4. Completely redesign the entire page to be mobile-friendly. That should more or less guarantee it works with VE. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I do notice that the COVID-19 pages are missing {{End tab}}, so I've wondered if that might be affecting something. I'll try adding it at the bottom and see if that affects VE or anything. It'll be hard to keep it there, though, since it'll get moved away from the bottom every time someone adds a new section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: The start tab opens a <div> to set background colours, etc. (what John calls the "green" part), so that the editable page content lives inside that div, but of course without the {{end tab}} (which is little more than a glorified </div>), it has to rely on the MediaWiki software to close the opening div when it finishes parsing the page. A lot of fancy user pages rely on that automatic fix to make pretty borders, etc. That may cause hiccups in VE, but I think the real problem is the way VE handles the transclusions inside transclusions. It's certainly worth adding the {{end tab}} and seeing whether that improves matters for VE. If necessary, put a hidden html comment above it saying "All content goes ABOVE this line". It won't help, but it'll make you feel better knowing you've done everything you can. --RexxS (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and just removed the tabs as we now have other nav options. Someone fell free to put up for deletion.--Moxy 🍁 11:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Had removed the tabs ...bur they we added back ...as some point accessibility should be the main concern. Not sure ever seen someone go out of there way to make it hard for readers and editors at every turn.--Moxy 🍁 21:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: I agree that lack of prior consensus isn't a viable reason to revert, but I'm loathe to start edit-warring, as it sets such a bad precedent. I'd advise you to simply stick with the case you've made - accessibility and functionality - on the talk page and wait to see if more opinions are added. We don't win these sort of battles quickly. --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I've added the end tab as a work around to use the standard header, thanks very much for your help. John Cummings (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your block of Citation bot

Hey, I noticed that you blocked this bot with the "block account creation" flag set. Was there a reason for doing so? Just curious is all... It obviously won't affect anyone other than the account, since you didn't enable autoblocking (the correct action in this instance). Just ping me in your response; I have so many pages on my watchlist that I can't keep up with them... ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I just realized that you may have used the "shut off bot" button to do this block. Did you? If so, then there's (most likely) my answer: It has this option enabled by default. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Nevermind; the "emergency shutoff" button doesn't link you to the block page with options; only to a subpage with instructions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I only recall checking the autoblock was off. The "block account creation" flag would have been at whatever the default value was, and I doubt it makes any difference, as I don't expect the bot to log in and start creating new accounts. If it does, we've got a lot more to worry about! --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed! Cool, I was just curious and thought I'd ask. :-) You're right; the flag makes no difference outside the account itself, since you disabled autoblock. Thank you for your time! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

30 days archive

RexxS Im leaving you this note b/c you are involved in WP:MED and are an administrator, [2] in the link you will find an editor has archived several posts before the 30 day archive set for by the top header[3] I would revert them myself or ask Doc James, however due to Doc James absence(who knows for how long) your the best choice , thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Ozzie10aaaa. I really don't think it's something to be worried about. If archived posts need to be reopened, it's quite easy to bring them back from the archive. The number of days to archive was changed from 10 days to 30 days just last week, so I think we need to experiment to find the best compromise. I'll leave a note on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

?

... cube ... forgotten what I was about to post here ... — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Ratchet & Clank page

Hello @RexxS: Hope you're doing well. I just wanted to bring this issue to your attention. Recently, there is another user with a different IP address that has instigated a pattern of disruptive editing not conducive to the integrity of the Ratchet & Clank page. I have provided a warning to the user on their talk page but they did not heed the advice given. I was hoping to see if you can best assist me on dealing with this issue by semi protecting the aforementioned article. Elainasla (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)