RexxS

Deletion of the Kingdom of Jeypore

There have been recent edits made in the article called Kingdom of Jeypore and that you have locked the page in order to protect it from vandalism. The article is filled with misinformation and confused history of the region with irrelevant additions like the case of Bissam-Cuttack. By writing distorted history the admins are promoting violence in the region. These articles are often taken too seriously by the inhabitants and differences arise in society because of such irrelevant material. So please delete this page because it is a heap of garbage. And locking down the editing of this article and limiting it only to the british users is not only racist but also impartial.

Delete the page. JahangirMo7 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@JahangirMo7: I tried to delete it previously when it was in a much worse state, filled with unsourced hagiography and irrelevant rubbish. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Jeypore. It was deemed to be a notable topic, so the page won't be deleted. Feel free to nominate it for deletion again, but you'll be wasting your time. --RexxS (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS If you cannot delete then remove the edit lock from the page because we all have the right to edit wikipedia and fix our articles with correct information. Don't make it a white privilege, we already had enough of that in past. You and your bunch of intellects found all kinds of flaws on this page, you removed the name of the kings which was mentioned in Hindi while the Mughal Emperors wiki page has all the names written in Arabic/Hindi , why dont you remove that ? Vengasingh (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No. You have exactly two rights on Wikipedia: the right to fork and the right to leave. I'm going to help you with the second option right now. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - July 2020

Issue 2—July 2020

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

A happy Juneteenth, Canada Day, and July 4th to all. During tumultuous times, at least the newsletter returns. The newsletter remains experimental; if you have ideas, suggestions, or criticisms, please post them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter. With that, here's what is happening this month:

Newly recognized content

Mary Carson Breckinridge nom. JECason, reviewed by 1namesake1 Complete blood count nom. Spicy, reviewed by Tom (LT) Joseph Ray Watkins nom. Doug Coldwell, reviewed by Ajpolino

Nominated for review

Huntington's disease is a Featured article removal candidate DNA repair nom. for FAR; some medical info needs checking Prostate nom. Tom (LT) Niacin nom. David notMD, under review by Ajpolino Willis J. Potts nom. Larry Hockett Pantothenic acid nom. David notMD, under review by HaEr48 Dimple nom. MonkeyStolen234 Atul Gawande nom. Vrrajkum, under review by BennyOnTheLoose Buruli ulcer nom. Ajpolino Louise Bourgeois Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell

News from around the site

• Calling all reviewers! A rush of good article nominations has filled the WP:GAN#MED queue. Anyone can review a nomination against the good article criteria; see the instructions here for details. If you have questions about reviewing or would like some supervision as you get started, feel free to post at WT:GAN or my talk page. Happy reviewing!
• The arbitration committee is hosting a large anti-harrassment RfC. Feedback from a broad swath of the community would be helpful.

Discussions of interest

• A question regarding incorporating machine-readable disease codes into more medical articles is still ongoing at at VPP
• More eyes are needed to review some class-created medical pages; list at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#List.

For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!

Let's hook some new editors

An experienced user (right) entices a new user to contribute productively. The new user remains unaware of the hook embedded within until it's too late.

According to at least one metric (scroll to the bottom of this signpost article for a brief explanation) total edit levels are higher than they've been in a decade. By another metric they've at least substantially spiked over the last few months. The encyclopedia, and of course WikiProject Medicine, can only survive if we continue to rope in new editors to fill in for us as we lose the time, interest, or ability to improve the encyclopedia. We all know that this work can be time-consuming and frustrating, but hopefully we can put aside our frustrations to help guide and recruit the talent that will ensure the project's continued success.

This may be a good time to remind yourself of the Wikipedia introduction pages, which have recently been improved. Help:Introduction provides a streamlined starting point, while Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia provides a more comprehensive reference guide. The Wikipedia:Teahouse remains unnaturally quick at responding to questions, and is always a good place to direct new editors. The classic {{Welcome}} template has recently received a trimming, plus a few WikiProject Medicine-specific welcome templates are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources#Templates. When in doubt, you can always point an unsure user to WT:MED and we can all try to lend a hand. If you come across introductory resources that remain unclear, outdated, or conflicting please post at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee to bring it to the attention of interested editors.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Ajpolino (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC decision

The second point says it "...annexed by Jordan in 1950"enjoys widespread support" There is no easter eggs in removed phrase So I don't understand could you explain. --Shrike (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shrike: I am astonished that you don't understand that the easter egg was [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|Jordanian rule]]. Surely you can read the diff as well as I can. Are you really telling me that you don't see S Marshall's point #1 in their close was "It is not normal Wikipedian practice to include easter-egg links from relatively bland phrases like "Came under Jordanian rule" to our nuanced articles Jordanian annexation of the West Bank"? Is it still your contention that SelfstudierSelfstudier's edit was not a removal of the exact easter-egg link that the RfC discourages? --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't contend anything I just want to understand.The phrase "It was annexed by Jordan in 1950." didn't contain any links easter or otherwise.So point 1 of the RFC imo has nothing to do with removal of this phrase I have no problem with removal of easter egg.Also my complain is not about removal of easter egg but about removal of phrase that didn't contain any links --Shrike (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree but what I did was in good faith that all.I will not comment further on this case --Shrike (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You know, you really aren't coming over well here. Selfstudier's first edit changed:

• Aqraba came under [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|Jordanian rule]]. It was annexed by Jordan in 1950.

to:

• Aqraba came under Jordanian rule.

Selfstudier's second edit changed:

• Aqraba came under [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|Jordanian rule]]. It was annexed by Jordan in 1950.

to:

• Aqraba was included in the [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank]].

The RfC had a close that specifically warned against using the easter-egg link[[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|Jordanian rule]].

Both of Selfstudier's edit removed that easter egg in line with the findings of the RfC. Are you really saying you still don't see the removal of the link after it's been pointed out to you multiple times? How on earth can you hold the opinion that "point 1 of the RFC imo has nothing to do with removal"? I have no intention of agreeing to disagree about that and we're now well into BOOMERANG territory. --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok I see you point.Thank you for your explanations. Shrike (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

dyslexia

RexxS since your an administrator could you help me at Dyslexia and talk page I have a very disruptive editor Sandy Georgia which has turned the talk page upside down, Ive asked for an interaction ban and am waiting for a reply however in the mean time Id rather not interact with this person, she drove Doc James away and I might leave too, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I do think it would be preferable if you asked an uninvolved administrator about that.—S Marshall T/C 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  ok who would be a good choice?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Ozzie10aaaa: As someone who has worked with both you and Sandy in the medical arena, I'm really far too involved to be able to act or advise dispassionately in any quarrel you may have. A good choice would depend on what you were expecting an uninvolved admin to do. I can make some suggestions of folks who come to mind: Boing! said Zebedee has a good understanding of medical issues, but is not involved in the personalities; Dennis Brown is a respected mediator who is always willing to help; and TonyBallioni has a broad overview of many aspects of the project, but is relatively free of any "baggage" in the medical field. I've just pinged them to this thread, and perhaps one of them will be willing to chime in. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  RexxS thank you, as you can see the individual has followed me to this page to Barkeepers page, and on and on...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  No, I have long followed and participated on RexxS's and Barkeep's talk, as Barkeep already explained to you. Your posts popped on my watchlist. I'm sorry you feel harassed, but this is normal editing. Again, I welcome you to talk with me at my talk should you be interested. Since Barkeep did already explain this to you, I'd be most grateful if you stopped making this claim; you can find someone's participation at any page by using the WMFlabs tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  They will find all the info they need by examining the article and talk page history, and this. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• RexxS again thanks Ill be waiting for the Admins you pinged you may be interested in the fact this person was blocked before for personal attacks....

Hi Sandy, I've just blocked you for this edit. Accusing others of sockpuppetry without providing evidence is a personal attack. You have been warned not to do this in the past on multiple occasions ([1][2]). If you wish to retract the allegation or provide evidence, I will be happy to life the block. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC) [3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've just had a read of Talk:Dyslexia, and I have to say I'm seeing nothing wrong in any comments made by SandyGeorgia there. Venturing into content a little, I do agree that the image in the infobox is problematic. It's a photo of a typewriter, with the caption "Wilson suffered from dyslexia, and did not learn to read until he was 10 years old. He taught himself shorthand as a means of compensating" - and there's no mention of anyone called "Wilson" anywhere in the article. What on earth are readers supposed to make of that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

well the image can be changed if you so think--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The image is totally absurd - it needs to be removed lest readers think we're stupid. I should just add, Ozzie10aaaa, that your claim that SandyGeorgia "turned the talk page upside down" doesn't really mean a lot. You would need to be specific about what you claim SandyGeorgia has actually done or said - give us diffs, with explanations of why each one is problematic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the image and caption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

well you took that out, about what I posted below, her past block and the diffs from other editors ??--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Digging up an editor's past is not a valid way to justify assertions about their recent actions. Do you see above where I said "You would need to be specific about what you claim SandyGeorgia has actually done or said - give us diffs, with explanations of why each one is problematic"? That. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

this individual has been blocked, has several diffs below showing incivility towards others and today has followed me to two adminis talk page, should she continue Ill take her to ANI, thank you for your kind time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, you've made accusations here without substantiating them. If you try the same approach at ANI, I'd really not see it turning out well for you. Anyway, I've given you my opinion and my advice now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it that way(this individual has been blocked, has several diffs below showing incivility towards others and today has followed me to two adminis talk page) and again ANI is an option.... Boing! said Zebedee thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you got to host this chat, RexxS; this is why I have suggested many times it should be at my talk (but perhaps Ozzie wouldn't mind if it resumed at his talk).

Ozzie, both Barkeep and RexxS have mentioned frequently working with me, Barkeep explained I did not follow you there, and I explained same regarding here. Yet you repeat the claim that you are followed and harassed. This is casting of aspersions; you have already been told it is not true. You've presented no diff of anything I have done. And please study up on that block you keep repeating everywhere, as you will find that it was soundly rejected by everyone as a bad block. It would also be helpful if you would not alter posts of other people at the talk page at dyslexia, removing and refactoring other people's posts to the point of making the page indecipherable. (All of that is diffed at Talk:Dyslexia.) I understand that you maintain a unique talk page style at your own user talk page, and that is your prerogative, but Talk:Dyslexia is a community page (not "owned" by any one editor), and there are guidelines governing it.

It would be nice to be able to talk to you, Ozzie, so I again encourage you to take this to your page or mine, where I hope we can talk calmly. I am noticing that you are spreading this dispute to many pages, which is not a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Im beginning to understand why Doc James hasn't been active at WP MED for 1 monthSpecial:Contributions/Doc_James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• past block shown above and below.....?

1.you could communicate without continually belittling the existence of other views....per Blue Rasberry[4]

2.I was castigated by SandyGeorgia...per CFCF[5]

3.During this dispute SandyGeorgia made repeated accusations of COI, adding tags to RfC responses by me and other members of WPMED....per CFCF *[6][7][8]

4. Sandy, however, assumed bad faith about my notice and directed some accusatory comments at me until I set her straight...per Tryptofish [9]

5.After being brought to ANI and being threatened with a block they backed down. SandyGeorgia was the first one to respond and did not appear to have any concerns with their behavior. They have continued on the pinging tradition with 6 pings on March 30th, all to bring my attention to a single discussion I was obviously watching...per Doc James[10][11][12][13][14][15]

…...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at edits like "article went thru two reviews for GA and was published so...your point is not logical if its been reviewed twice for GA, thank you (please in the future do not make edits without consensus, as this page is semi protected, also I would prefer not to take this to an administrator)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)" as well as "Thjarkur Ill continue this conversation with you on your talk, as I'm considering an interaction ban w/ the Sandy Georgia who twice now had edit conflict ( said individual just came out of an Arbcom )with the individual who just posted below you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)" makes me think Sandy isn't the problem. Now, I don't know you Ozzie10aaaa, and I know of Sandy, but have never worked on article with her that I can remember. Looking at the Talk:Dyslexia page, I just don't see anything that justifies an iban, for sure, but more importantly, your attitude towards others editing and throwing mud about Sandy coming out of Arb (I have no idea what that is about) bothers me more than anything that Sandy said on the page. Don't get me wrong, I totally get being a little possessive over a page, as long as it doesn't run into WP:OWN issues (we aren't there yet) but you do seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder when it comes to Sandy, and there really isn't any justification that I can see.

In a nutshell, I think you are overreacting, Ozzie, and seeing problems where there are none. If anyone's behavior is suboptimal on that talk page, I'm sad to say it would be yours, Ozzie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

answered at Dyslexia talk page and above ….I don't see it that way(this individual has been blocked, has several diffs below showing incivility towards others and today has followed me to two adminis talk page) and again ANI is an option--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• • If you aren't getting my point, I'm not sure how to explain it further. ANI is always an option, but everyone's behavior is examined and nothing is off the table, so I wouldn't recommend it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

again as I mentioned above I can see why Doc James took a very long vacation(your opinion is appreciated anyway, thanks)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind hosting any discussion, as it's sort of "neutral ground", and sometimes having a place to air one's thoughts may be all that's needed. It also has a number of page watchers who may be able to add perspective. It seems that the number of yellow bars that I'm seeing has diminished, so perhaps it's possibly time to draw a line under this?

If it's any help, I've just spent the best part of the last hour profitably, taking an axe to Hinokitiol, which was riddled with primary sources, animal studies and speculation from in vitro experiments. It needs someone with some pharmaceutical expertise to find the good secondary sources and re-build the article as there's not much left. Any takers? --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

RexxS thank you(Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decisionmay answer any lingering questions some have brought up)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes it is best to try to solve issues at the lowest level. I appreciate. My page has hosted a lot in the past as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I took a quick look and didn't find anything. Unless English-language sources normally use a different name, then there isn't much, especially if you don't read Japanese. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Are you any good at sorting out talk page archiving? I am probably the worst person, so anyone else is an improvement. I've worked out that the deactivation of MiszaBot hasn't stopped archiving from happening because lowercase sigmabot has taken over without any need to change existing templates. I've also worked out that the new bot doesn't handle searching and indexing of archive pages, which MiszaBot did.

Talk:Gurjar is an example of a page that has MiszaBot templates and is still archiving but now has no archivebox at its head even though the underlying archive pages are there. Really could do with a walk-through of how to get those archive pages displayed again ... and the documentation at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page is beyond me. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: I can do a walk-through if you want, but simply placing the following near the top of a talk page will do the whole thing for you from scratch:

{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot III|age=90}} <!-- make this the same as the number in |algo below -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = {{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
}}
{{Archives}}

That's more or less the minimum I find useful for it to work. I've added the missing {{auto archiving notice}} and {{Archives}} to Talk:Gurjar, and moved them to the bottom of the notice-boxes so they show up just before the TOC. Let me know if you want me to walk you through another. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this and I'll have a go next time I spot a page - IIRC, there are loads of caste talk pages where it once worked and now doesn't. I thought that since code similar to the above was in place, it must be because of User:MiszaBot III not working, as that page says, and the replacement requiring an additional bot for indexing, as this says. No wonder I was confused. - Sitush (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

On manuals of style and "consensus"

"I only added the (talk page stalker) to alert you to the fact that someone else was joining the conversation. Remind me not to extend you the courtesy in future." Oh, I thought that you meant that I was the "talk page stalker".
"In 2002 there was this version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layou" Sure, but, again, the obvious and valid justification for that original order does not exist anymore.
"You can denigrate the consensus process with scare quotes, but it's still project-wide consensus, and it is not optional at any editor's whim to ignore it." If a style rule is the consensus of the members of a WikiProject, then members of that project may feel obliged to respect it. But why should it be binding on other editors?
Again, WikiProjects do not "own" articles. This is not a spurious opinion: it follows from the most basic principles of Wikipedia. And from this it follows that WikiProjects do not have the "right" to define style rules for "their" articles. Sadly, there are many that do; and Wikiproject Medicine seems to be particularly abusive in this regard...
"Consensus" is not an absolute state. It must always be qualified as "consensus of" some group of people. It means that those people either wanted the decision, or grudgingly agreed to accept it because they concluded that further fighting for their choices would be pointless. So, whose consensus are the MOSes? I doubt that there is any MOS that is the consensus of more than a couple dozen editors...
"you'll need to raise the issue and get consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout." That would be totally a waste of time. I know that from a long experience. It is an inherent flaw of Wikipedia's "consensus process": any complaints about problems such as bad policies, rules, habits, etc are invariably ignored, because they are only seen by the editors or administrators who created the problem -- who will be quite unwilling to fix it, if only out of laziness.
For instance, over 90% of the extant templates are harmful: they should not have been created, and should be phased out. But the only persons who read the Talk page of a template are the creators of that template.
There is a robot-assisted user who has decide to insert " " between numbers and units of measurements; which is against the "contents rather than appearance" principle, hogs the watchlists and histories and makes the source much harder to edit, while having a minuscule effect on article readability. But any complaints get read only by that user...
Years ago there was an effort by the Foundation to identify the factors that were causing a steady drop on the number of editors. A study was done with volunteers who were asked to edit articles for the first time. The study clearly identified that the biggest factor was the complexity of Wikipedia: the cryptic source and the billion style rules, templates, navbars, tags, procedures, tools, markups, categories, linkages, ... --- each with its own contrived syntax and semantics, with its baffling bugs and its crooked workarounds to the bugs. How can Wikipedia expect to attract new editors, if its "reference manual" (which is highly incomplete, buggy, and scattered over thousands of random places) is itself bigger than the Encyclopaedia Britannica?
But "of course" this finding of the study was completely ignored by the Foundation -- because fixing this problem would require discarding thousands of "features", including many pet projects of senior editors...
Anyway, After some 15 years ot frustration, I got tired of "going through the proper channels." All I can do now is, once in a while, to complain to the wind. Sorry for that, and all the best...--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Jorge Stolfi, What were you expecting WMF to do about it?· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jorge Stolfi: I was discussing other things with Whywhenwhohow and their talk page was still on my watchlist. It's often polite to add the {{tps}} tag when adding to a discussion on another editor's talk page and the use of "stalker" for the person adding the tag is not meant to be taken seriously.

I think you're still mistaking WikiProjects for the Manual of Style. As I said earlier, we don't accept that WikiProjects have any authority to create policy or guidelines and that is codified at WP:CONLOCAL

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay.

Wikipedia has a standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines. Their stability and consistency are important to the community. Accordingly, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Bold changes are rarely welcome on policy pages. Improvements to policy are best made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.

The Manual of Style has been accepted by the community as a guideline and as with all policies and guidelines, editors are expected to abide by it, unless they have strong reasons not to. This is usually what WP:IAR permits, but IAR is only valid when you can show, beyond dispute, that the edit improves Wikipedia. You will not find that other editors will agree that placing external links before references improves the encyclopedia, and IAR is not applicable. The original reasons for placing external links at the bottom of an article (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout #cite note-5) apply just the same as they did in 2002.

Nobody has to learn all of the policies, guidelines and conventions before they start editing, because other editors, more familiar with those, can correct any mistakes that are made. That will only work, however, if editors are willing to accept that not everything will end in accord with their personal preferences. When you deliberately move an external links section above the references, simply because you think it's better that way, you are setting yourself up for an unnecessary conflict when another editor reverts your change because we have agreed, as a project, what the order should be.

There's no problem with you expressing your opinion when it contradicts a consensus, but you can't expect to be able to enforce your opinion if nobody else agrees with it. It is a shame that editors leave because they feel that the encyclopedia doesn't fit the way that they feel it should, but what's the alternative? You can't continue to improve the largest encyclopedia ever written if everybody can write whatever they want in whatever way pleases them. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"We don't accept that WikiProjects have any authority to create policy or guidelines and that is codified at WP:CONLOCAL" Good to know, but some WikiProjects need to be reminded of that. But it is not sufficient that "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope". The reverse is equally important: they should not feel entitled to define additional rules for "their" articles.
A common instance of that abuse is when the Project decides to stick a navbox at the top right of every article in their "territory", with links to "their" other main articles. Such navboxes are not only useless, but they are a problem for articles that span the "domains" of two or more Projects: whose navbox should those articles get? And the top right corner should be reserved for a good image related to the article's subject.
Infoboxes are at least useful, and some do contain a good relevant picture of the article's subject; but, for most areas, 99% of the readers will not read any of the box data below hat image. The long infobox often messes up the layout of the first few sections, and violates one of the anti-goals of Wikipedia: "WP is not a database".
I mentioned WikProject Medicine as a particulary bad one. First of all, they decided that any chemical that is used as a medication "belongs" exclusively to them -- even in the case of chemicals like benzoyl peroxide and docusate that have many important non-medical uses. And of course they will stick their extra-long infobox on all "their" artcles.
Moreover, they decided that all "their" articles should strictly follow a peculiar order and format -- which makes the head section of all "their" articles objectively very bad in style and contents.
Not long ago,for instance, I spent many hours cleaning up one of "their" articles, only to see all my work reversed -- with no attempt to salvage any part of it -- for the only reason that my version did not strictly follow their mandatory order of paragraphs in the head seection.
I believe that recently there was even an intervention from Higher Up on one of the most obvious blemishes: the Project's requirement that the drug's price be specified in the head. That seems to be on the way out now; but there are still several other Project-required items that do not belong in the lead, like the "mandatory" mention of the WHO List, means of administration, side effects, and availability. That information should be further down, in the body of the article -- if at all. But just try fixing that...
On a higher level, WikiProject Medicine seems to have decided that "their" articles should be sort of a reference work for medical professionals or medical students. That too is a violation of Wikipedia's anti-goals -- "WP is not a textbook", "WP is not a manual" -- and is downright dangerous. People should not come to WP for that sort of information; they should go to official public health websites in their countries, or the WHO. While some of that information should be included in the article, it should not be presented in such detail and style as to mislead the readers into thinking that it should be trusted when taking decisions about their health.

---

"The original reasons for placing external links at the bottom of an article (Manual of Style/Layout note-5) apply just the same as they did in 2002." Again, I will not try to fight that rule. But I must insist that the reasons given in note 5 are quite weak or even nonsensical; and that the introduction of the <ref> ... </ref> mechanism invalidated them.
On a higher level, again, the first reason in that note assumes that consistency of layout is an important goal for Wikipedia. It should not be. Layout consistency was important for commercial paper ecyclopedias, for marketing and operational reasons. Those reasons followed from the fact that their creation was tightly managed: a few Chief Editors were expected to ensure that coverage was uniform over all areas, and to carefully check all articles for contents. Consistent layout and style would be a natural consequence of that work; and it would be the main visible evidence that could convince the prospective buyer that the information itself received the same level of competent care. But Wikipedia does not need to do that. In fact, it is salutar that its looks are rough and inconsistent, to remind the reader that the information is equally rough. "You should not try to look smarter than you are."...
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hinokitiol

So papers like that are primary sources and don't fill the bill. Maybe I can revert the next one. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I checked the first few and found three of them were different formats of the same paper:

• Krenn, B. M.; Gaudernak, E.; Holzer, B.; Lanke, K.; Van Kuppeveld, F. J. M.; Seipelt, J. (2009-01). "Antiviral activity of the zinc ionophores pyrithione and hinokitiol against picornavirus infections". Journal of Virology. 83 (1): 58–64. doi:10.1128/JVI.01543-08. ISSN 1098-5514. PMC 2612303. PMID 18922875. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Krenn, B. M.; Gaudernak, E.; Holzer, B.; Lanke, K.; Van Kuppeveld, F. J. M.; Seipelt, J. (2009-1). "Antiviral Activity of the Zinc Ionophores Pyrithione and Hinokitiol against Picornavirus Infections". Journal of Virology. 83 (1): 58–64. doi:10.1128/JVI.01543-08. ISSN 0022-538X. PMC 2612303. PMID 18922875. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Antiviral Activity of the Zinc Ionophores Pyrithione and Hinokitiol against Picornavirus Infections | Request PDF". ResearchGate. Retrieved 2020-07-08.

If you look at a PubMed version pmid:18922875 and scroll down to Publication types, you see "Research support". That's a good indication of a primary study, although not infallible. But a quick look at the text, which starts "We have discovered ...", and you can see that it's not a review. As soon as there are claims for the effect of a drug on the body, or its mechanism, we really need quality secondary sources from good academic publishers. You can always point folks to WP:MEDRS if they need a full explanation.

Hinokitiol is currently being hyped quite strongly, presumably by pharma, because of the current climate of desperation to find effective remedies for COVID-19. No doubt it won't subside for some time. --RexxS (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Time for a formal SPI ? That is now four accounts, two blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I don't think so. The last one, Special:Contributions/Amugune has a broad span of interests; they definitely aren't an SPA, and have no detectable POV. Compare that with Special:Contributions/Georgedouglas123 and you can see exactly where the latter account is coming from. The previous IP, Special:Contributions/82.132.185.208 was simply angry with me for reverting the codswallop they had inserted into Buoyancy and decided to revert me at Hinokitiol in retaliation. I think we got the main culprits earlier, thanks to the notification at WT:MED. I suggest we see if we get any more problems before we bother the checkusers. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Since then, I've had another couple of new-ish editors trying to insert the same dodgy content using the same dodgy sources, so I'm trying an alternative approach. I've just requested page protection for Hinokitiol, so it will be interesting to see if another, uninvolved admin sees the same problems. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed ... watch the calendar so we don't go stale :0 I'm busy cleaning up yukky paid editing-- sheesh. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Celtic Knot Conference

With 20 billion page views every month, Wikipedia is often the first stop when people are searching for information. It is a cornerstone of the digital age, but the information within it is not evenly represented across languages.

The Celtic Knot Wikimedia Language Conference aims to bring people together to share their experiences of working on sharing information in minority languages. We aim to help people learn how to direct the flow of information across language barriers and support their communities. As in previous years we will have a strong focus on Wikidata and its potential to support languages.

Wikimedia UK and local partners organized the first Celtic Knot Wikimedia Language Conference in 2017 in Edinburgh (focusing on Scottish Gaelic), followed by the 2018 Celtic Knot Wikimedia Language Conference in Aberystwyth (focusing on Welsh) and the 2019 Celtic Knot Wikimedia Language Conference in Falmouth (focusing on Cornish). In 2020, due to the ongoing COVID-19 health crisis, the conference will take place remotely. We will maintain the previously planned focus on Irish and developing its Wikimedia community - whilst making sure that we can share and support other languages in the Celtic Knot and beyond. The event is organized by Wikimedia UK and Wikimedia Community Ireland in partnership with Hunt Museum (Limerick) and with the support of various other stakeholders and community members from the Wikimedia Movement.

From: m:Celtic Knot Conference 2020 #About

The Conference starts its main programme online tomorrow m:Celtic Knot Conference 2020/Live program.

There are several satellite events taking place online as well m:Celtic Knot Conference 2020/Satellite events.

More information is at m:Celtic Knot Conference 2020, and all are welcome. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation question

Hi, since you are a key player the Citation Bot debate, and my understanding of academic citation is limited, I'd like to understand the nature of the problem and was hoping you could help. Say for example citation #68 in Greenhouse gas which has 4 IDs (Bibcode, PMID, DOI, S2CID). The paper is open source and freely available, but there are no direct links in |url=. If I or another bot were to add |url=http://www.geol.umd.edu/~hcui/Reference/Hoffman98Science-Snowball.pdf to that citation -- what would happen to the 4 IDs, would they stay as is, be deleted, or would the URL be redundant and not recommended? Also, would there be a place or use for Fatcat.wiki [16] in this case? Thanks! -- GreenC 21:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@GreenC: There is a considerable degree of agreement among a lot of editors that we should always, where possible, provide a link to an online source from the title of a citation. However, we currently have:

• Hoffmann, PF; AJ Kaufman; GP Halverson; DP Schrag (1998). "A neoproterozoic snowball earth". Science. 281 (5381): 1342–46. Bibcode:1998Sci...281.1342H. doi:10.1126/science.281.5381.1342. PMID 9721097. S2CID 13046760.

That has no link from the title "A neoproterozoic snowball earth".

So, we could add the link that you suggest to the title like this:

• Hoffmann, PF; AJ Kaufman; GP Halverson; DP Schrag (1998). "A neoproterozoic snowball earth" (PDF). Science. 281 (5381): 1342–46. Bibcode:1998Sci...281.1342H. doi:10.1126/science.281.5381.1342. PMID 9721097. S2CID 13046760.

Now, that allows anyone who is unfamiliar with those identifiers (i.e. the vast majority of readers) to follow the title link that they expect to be there and reach an online version of the source.

Unfortunately, if we do that, the next time CitationBot visits the page, it will remove the link that we just added. I'm not asking for the bot to add those titles links, I'm just asking that it doesn't remove those that exist and impose its programmed view of what shouldn't be linked over the view of an editor who has put the link there for a reason. It doesn't have approval or consensus to remove title links, and it needs to stop doing that if it is to be usable again. I hope that clarifies the problem that I found. --RexxS (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for taking the time to explain. Is there (theoretical) consensus bots could be adding a |url= where it can discover the open source URL, like in this case? Or is the |url= field contested enough ground bots should probably be not be adding URLs when IDs exist? -- GreenC 19:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@GreenC: if you have a read through Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167 #Auto-linking titles in citations of works with free-to-read DOIs, I think you'll see considerable support for the premise that readers expect to be able to use a link from the citation title. There's also a strong sentiment that it would be desirable for the CS1 template to create those title links whenever it can be deduced from an identifier, especially when a free, full-text version is available. Ideally, imho, any identifier to an online source should automatically create the title link, which would free up the |url= for editors to override the automatic link for some uncommon exceptions.

So, I don't think there's much point in trying to use a bot to add |url= in order to create a title link, as that functionality ought to be in the CS1 template code. Eventually, we ought to be able to converge to a situation where a bot can legitimately remove |url= when it merely duplicates the title link that is already being automatically added by the template code. We would then only have |url= in cases where there is a positive decision by an editor to override the automatic link, and I'd suggest having a tracking category for those, so that they can be kept under review. I hope all that makes sense. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Two things

1. I'm losing it: I went to Talk:Rexx and spent about two minutes trying to figure out why your user talk page looked like an article talk page.
2. Is there an existing magic word, parser function, template, module, script, or anything, that you know of, where I can input a revision ID number and it outputs the timestamp of that revision? Thanks, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I'm not aware of any existing magic word, etc. that does the job you want. The parser function {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP:Page name}}, documented at mw:Help:Magic words #Technical metadata of another page can only use page titles as far as I can tell.

However, the information is retrievable using the Wikimedia API which has scattered documentation starting at mw:API:Main page. In essence, you make a request to a webpage which processes the request and returns the information. Follow this link for example:

• https://en.wikipedia.org//w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&revids=968181989&rvprop=timestamp

The revision id I used is for Special:Permalink/968181989, which was your edit to this page.

You can make it return plain text like this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org//w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&revids=968181989&rvprop=timestamp&format=json

To make it into a usable tool, it would need to be dressed up in some code that read a revision id, made the call to the API, and then extracted the timestamp from the plaintext and output it. If it was okay to use an external webserver, it could be programmed in php or python or whatever. If you wanted to use it within a Wikipedia page, it would best be programmed in JavaScript which you would need to put into your common.js page. It's too late tonight to knock that together, but I could look at your preferred alternative over the weekend, if you let me know.

Optionally, one of the page watchers might be aware of a script/gadget that already exists to do the job, and might be able to point you to that, which would be quicker. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Rexx, the info about the API is very helpful. I was basically looking for something that would work like {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP:Special:Permalink/968181989}} (which doesn't work). I'm thinking if it can only be done by script and not template then maybe the best way to package it is into something that works like WP:EASYLINK (which, if you're not familiar, converts the URL of the page you're looking at into a wikilink and copies the wikilink into your clipboard so it can be pasted elsewhere... makes linking to pages/sections very easy). A "diff link" script could get the rev ID from the URL, call the API to get the timestamp, and put it in the clipboard as a wikilink. So if you're looking at Special:Permalink/968181989 and click "diff link", it would put into your clipboard [[Special:Permalink/968181989|19:11, July 17, 2020]] so when you hit CTRL+V it pops out 19:11, July 17, 2020. A quick and easy way to link diffs. Still, if this doesn't already exist, I'm not sure if it's worth bothering any other editors (like you) over it, as it's a minor convenience and not a really important thing; I might play around with putting together a script at some point. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for attempting to work with the editor regarding Akathisia before blocking becomes necessary. It seems to me like they're attempting to POV push, but I also recognize that the article may very well be missing information that is understood by some to be accurate, thus if we can convince them to work with us it may be a net positive even if it's hard. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: you're welcome. I've just left a few notes on the talk page as well. In all of these cases, the best plan is to go back and compile a list of the sources, pick the best quality ones and read them thoroughly, then sling the rest. There are several editors offering suggestions, so perhaps one or two will be willing to take on the task of revamping the article. Thanks for your endeavours. --RexxS (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Today

July

pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

Today is a birthday, of a great woman born in the 19th century, flowers and music and memory, - good song about the year at its height even on the Main page. - Thank you for all you do, such as the little precious template that makes each of my days easier! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

More archiving magic foo...?

Can you make Talk:Lipizzan auto archive every 180 days or so? There’s an archive but it’s manual, I think. Need to make old dead discussions go away sometimes. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Montanabw:  Done. The bot will do a pass in the near future, but let me know if that doesn't happen in the next week. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)