Misplaced Pages

User talk:RexxS: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:13, 21 September 2020 editBoing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users96,327 edits →Ayurveda and blocks← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:31, 18 December 2024 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers380,456 edits he probably won't care 
(743 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- {{Not around|date=February 2021}} no need to show that, - it is well known -->
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot III|age=28}}
]
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 50K |maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 60 |counter = 66
|algo = old(28d) |algo = old(28d)
|archive = User talk:RexxS/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:RexxS/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archive box | box-width=50em | {{archive box | box-width=67em | bot=Lowercase sigmabot III | age=28 |
{{Div col |colwidth=15em |rules=yes}} {{Div col |colwidth=15em |rules=yes}}
: ] : ]
Line 66: Line 67:
: ] : ]
: ] : ]
: ] : ]
: ]
: ]
: ]
: ]
: ]
: ]
: ]
: ]
{{Div col end}} {{Div col end}}
}} }}


{{-}}
== August ==
{{User QAIbox
| title = ]
| image = Sunflowers, Walsdorf.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold =
| normal = Sunflowers in Walsdorf
}}
A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see ], an initiative by Aza24 in memory of ]. --] (]) 22:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


==St Lucy's day for you==
Thank you fixing where I was blind! - ] has one of "my places" (click on August) pictured. --] (]) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
]


] - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, ]. --] (]) 13:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


]
== LUA stuff ==


] (]) 14:59, 13 December 2020‎ (UTC)
You know more about "Lua module coding" than I ever will. Would you have any comment or advice at ] relating to list articles which now exceed ], which is all getting a bit technical for me?&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 18:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
: Hi {{u|Rodw|Rod}} I've looked at the discussion and the solutions offered seem to be taking care of part of the problem for the moment. The bit about Lua is a red-herring, because nobody is going to spend the time transforming {{tl|Vcite}} into a Lua module. It's just not used enough to be worth it. It looks like all of its uses have been converted to {{tl|Cite web}} and its siblings anyway.
: Looking at the ] article, I can see that it exceeds the "Post-expand include size" so you won't see the references beyond about #209. I've made That reduces the templates enough to see all of the references and brings the Post-expand include size down to about 1.8 MB (the limit is about 2 MB). Unfortunately, it increases the text size from about 250 kB to 440 kB and it's messy to work with, because the main templates have gone. It also takes 6 seconds to render a preview, so I think the only real solution is to reduce the size of the list by splitting the article into two. I suggest something like ] and ] would be a nearly equal divide. What do you think? --] (]) 13:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks for trying (several others have also been attempting fixes). Doing an alphabetical split may be possible but a complication since I wrote this (and similar lists) is that the ] council has since combined with ] to create ] so the scheduled monuments list should really be combined with ]. Having moved from Somerset I really don't feel up to this fairly massive bit of work (along with the lists of listed buildings etc) at the moment.&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 13:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
::: {{re|Rodw|label=Rod}} that's an easy one. You split ] as I suggested. Then move most of the intro to a new article ], explaining that up till <insert date> these were divided into West Somerset and Taunton Deane. Then provide the links to the three lists in ], ] and ]. Make sure each article has links to the others and to the short parent article.
::: How does that sound? --] (]) 16:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
::::If you want to go for it that sounds fine to me (I'm now working on Gloucestershire). The <date> ws 1 April 2019.&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 16:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::A similar process without the splits could also be done for :
:::::* ] & ] & ] updated
:::::* ] & ] & ] updated&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::: {{re|Rodw|label=Rod}} it was a bit more work than I predicted. We now have:
::::::* ] – brief introductory article
::::::* ] – overview of scheduled monuments in West Somerset
::::::* ] – list of scheduled monuments in West Somerset (A–G)
::::::* ] – list of scheduled monuments in West Somerset (H–Z)
::::::* ] – overview and list of scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane
:::::: Maybe they could be consolidated, but that will need somebody more familiar with the area than I. At least they all preview in no more than 3 seconds and none of them come past around half of the Post-expand include size limit. All the references are now visible. Somebody probably needs to drop a line at ], I guess. --] (]) 17:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, has this come up again? q.v. ] and ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 21:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: {{re|Redrose64}} Ah yes, thanks for the reminder of that. Last time I "applied some sticking-plaster"; this time I took an axe to it. It might prove a longer-lasting fix. By the way, when are we going to have the next Oxford meetup (virtual or in meatspace)? --] (]) 22:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::I can't do virtual, lack of suitable hardware. Wetherspoons are discouraging gatherings but even so, after the debacle in March I want to get firm assurances from at least three people before I call another. --] &#x1f339; (]) 22:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::: {{re|Redrose64}} What hardware do you need? I can give you a pc (windows/linux, but slightly older spec), a screen and a webcam if that would help? Maybe we can arrange a 'select' meetup in Oxford for that. I might be able to get my bridge camera back from Marielle at the same time :) --] (]) 23:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


== Impact ==
== ==
<!-- ] 12:50, 3 April 2031 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1932987027}}

{{user QAIbox
Actually, I disagree with you on experienced user being poorly defined. It's actually defined ]. If you'd like I can change my wording from "Experienced Editor " to "Senior Editor". Making this a sysop only edit violates assume good faith, so this would need to be changed to comply. ]] 11:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
| title = Impact
:
| image = Cherry crashing into primordial Earth2.png
: {{re|Wekeepwhatwekill}} Nonsense. The "service awards" are a joke. It's ludicrous to claim that someone who reaches their 6,000th edit and 18 months of editing is then transformed into someone with the judgement needed to close a discussion where "the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial." It's complete bollocks to try to claim it violates good faith, and ]. We have sysops for a reason{{snd}} and that reason includes the community's confirmation that the sysop's judgement is trusted sufficiently to do those tough closes. There is a process to go through to meet that bar, and "experienced editors" (whatever they may be) haven't been through it.
| image_upright = 0.8
: Now understand that arguments about what you may or may not disagree with are off-topic for my talk page, so I'll thank you to take them somewhere else where they will be appreciated. --] (]) 12:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
| bold = Thank you for ]
:
| normal = in ]
:{{tps}} {{re|Wekeepwhatwekill}} I saw this a little while ago, wrote a comment, then forgot to publish it and just left it here. Anway, RexxS has answered now, but why let my words go to waste? The Service Awards things are just a social/amusing aside, with names and statuses that are totally made up just for fun - notice at the top it says "displaying the right does not indicate authority or competence". There is nothing "official" or consensus-based behind them, and Misplaced Pages simply does not define those levels of users. So those made-up titles like "Experienced Editor", "Senior Editor", "Grandmaster Editor" etc have no meaning whatsoever in the wider Misplaced Pages community. ] (]) 13:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
}}
:: Well....yes and no. Yes, they might be made up, but, no the edits aren't nor are the years. For a person to remain active on Misplaced Pages for that number of years with that many edits indicates this person has some kind of competence with Misplaced Pages, otherwise they'd be blocked, banned or indeffed. So I see them as a guideline, so to speak. Also, it's pretty well documented that being a sysop is ] so I tend to disagree with you. I guess the best way to state my position is this, if a user closes , say , an AFD with "Delete", that would need to be reversed because the closer wasn't a sysop, because a user can't delete anything. However, a user closing a discussion in good faith shouldn't have his close reversed unless there's something wrong with the close other than "the user isn't a sysop". That's absurd and is an automatic assumption of bad faith to the user, even if it ''is'' a close call. So I agree to disagree with you on that. ]] 14:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
(repeated from ])
:::You can disagree all you like, but you're wrong. The Service Awards titles define *only the names of the awards* and not anything meaningful about the editor. It says it plain and clearly: "''Please remember that neither the number of edits nor the length of time from when an account was created is a good indicator of the quality of an editor's contributions or diplomatic ability. Hence, service awards do not indicate any level of authority whatsoever; "master" editors are not bestowed with more authority through this award than "novice" editors''". We do not, and are not going to, base any recognition of editor ability on those awards. I strongly suggest you honour RexxS's request and drop this, at least from here. ] (]) 14:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

== Query request ==

Hello, can you write a query on {{URL|quarry.wmflabs.org/}} for "all (file) uploads by User:Titodutta before 6 August 2020 and after 1 February 2019 on Wikimedia Commons? It'll help me to identify a series of files which require re-upload for quality issue. The upload log is not helpful, because I need only the file names (see help request at ]). Regards. --] (]) 05:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
:
: {{re|Titodutta}} I'm not terribly familiar with the database layout on Commons and the documentation is a little concise, to say the least. I've found the complete table of edits and the user tables (pretty much the same as enwiki), but I'm struggling to find a table of uploads. In the meantime, I've created a quarry query that shows page names for the 5336 edits you made to Commons between 2019-02-01 and 2020-08-06, but that would need manipulation to filter the uploads you're interested in. You can check it at https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/47652 and download the data if it's any use to you. I'll try and work my way through https://www.mediawiki.org/Manual:Database_layout to see if I can work out how they store file uploads and get back to you when I figure that out. --] (]) 12:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
: I think the image table has the data we need. I've created a new query at https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/47655 which is showing 4268 filenames. Would you check to see if it is what you want, please? If not, I'll have to search further for the correct table. --] (]) 12:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
::* Amazing. That's the thing I wanted. Just the names of the files. It will be very helpful to list and re-upload from this list. --] (]) 00:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your help to that'll help me to easily identify and re upload content for quality-improvement. Thanks for your kindness ] (]) 00:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
|}

== Your open clarification request ==

Hello. Could you drop by your clarification request at ] to advise if you need further clarification. Thanks and for the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>'']'' &#124; '']''</sup> 17:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
:
: {{re|Dreamy Jazz}} sorry I've been too busy playing Whack-a-mole with a disruptive bunch of newly-minted SPAs at ] to catch up with the request. Fortuitously, I've just left my replies, expressing my continuing concerns. Thanks for the reminder, though. --] (]) 17:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

== Another Ayurveda SPI ==

* {{userlinks|Best rabbit}}
--] (]) 20:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

:I took the liberty of ] --<b>] ]</b> 20:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
:
:: Thanks, both. Sorry I still haven't created enough waking time to get round to the IMA and AYUSH pages. I'm seriously going to need a wiki-break soon. --] (]) 23:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
:::I am thinking that we need a central place to report and discuss the ongoing disruption. --] (]) 02:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

== range block request ==

Could you take a look at {{IP summary|2605:A000:8043:3400:0:0:0:0/64}}? This IP range was previously blocked for 3 months basically for spamming an article with a bunch of infoboxes. The IP has now done it again a few days ago. I belive this would be a preventative measure to do so. ]&nbsp;] 21:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
:
: {{re|Bait30}} Same ''modus operandi'', adding a completely inappropriate infobox to an article. That's obviously the same oddball, so I've re-blocked. They've already had 1 month and 3 month blocks so far, so I've set 12 months this time. It's not usually a big deal for an IPv6 as the range is very unlikely to be allocated to anybody else, but the very slim chance means that it's best not to indef. --] (]) 21:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

== Nuance ==

I've been looking over the RfC at Talk:Ayurveda, trying to parse some of the votes there, and I saw your statement that: {{tq|"The fact that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience is beyond doubt...The real question that needs to be examined is whether ''"Ayurveda is a pseudoscience"'' should be part of: (1) the first sentence; or (2) the opening paragraph; or (3) a later paragraph in the lead."}} I wonder if such a sweeping generalization is completely accurate. Looking at the article it looks like Ayurveda has been around for much longer than science...like thousands of years before Aristotle was even born. To be unambiguously pseudoscientific, Ayurveda would have had to claim to be both factual and scientific, but such a thing would have been impossible for most of Ayurveda's history. Do you think it be more accurate to say something like {{tq|"Modern practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscience"}}? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
: {{re|Awilley}} Quite possibly. But ] has been around for thousands of years as well and look how that article starts off. Practitioners of Ayurveda unambiguously claim that methods which have no evidential or scientific basis actually heal people. That is as a clear an example of pseudoscience as I can imagine (as long as we're using the assumption that medicine works by scientific means, not by magic). We have two RfCs that concluded that Ayurveda is pseudoscientific and that represents long-standing consensus, so I don't think there's any point in trying to sugar-coat that fact, just to please an off-wiki-coodinated campaign of disruption by disgruntled fans of Ayurveda.
: If you're interested in how I parsed the !votes, it goes like this:
{| class="wikitable"
|+ !Votes as on 27 August 2020
|-
! scope="col" | Vote
! scope="col" | Voters
! scope="col" | count
|-
| First sentence
| Alexbrn, Crossroads, Retimuko, Tronvillain, Biochemistry&amp;Love, Markworthen, Sitush, Jasksingh, Grayfell, Ozzie10aaaa, TylerDurden8823, JenOttawa, Flyer22 Frozen, Hemiauchenia, PainProf, GPinkerton, AnomalousAtom, Calton, PaleoNeonate, Idealigic, SerChevalerie, hako9, Johnuniq, AlmostFrancis, Beyond My Ken, Levivich, Johnbod
| 27
|-
| First paragraph
| Girth Summit, Adamfinmo, Ivanvector, Aman.kumar.goel, Azuredivay, Guy Macon, Dhawangupta, JoelleJay, Hob Gadling, JzG, Ravensfire, XOR&#39;easter, BirdValiant, RexxS, Littleolive oil, PackMecEn
| 16
|-
| Oppose
| Zakaria1978, Field Marshal Aryan, 1990&#39;sguy, Tessaracter, Shrikanthv, Srijanx22, Shashpant, IndyaShri, Shivkarandholiya12, Orientls, TimidGuy, Shashank5988, Elmidae, Accesscrawl, Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning
| 16
|-
| Oppose anywhere || Siddsg, Shiv Sahil, Yoonadue, TheodoreIndiana, Mohanabhil, PratyushSinha101, Capankajsmilyo, Abhishek0831996, Amousey, Sanjoydey33, 117.230.63.64, My very best wishes, Mr cosmic king
| 12
|-
| Neutral
| Manabimasu
| 1
|}
:* Nobody in the "First sentence group" specifically opposed the first paragraph.
:* Some in the "First paragraph group" opposed the first sentence, others would accept the first sentence as second choice.
:* The "Oppose anywhere" group are arguing to overturn a prior consensus and I don't believe they were participating in the actual RfC in good faith.
:* Many in the two oppose groups have no or very few edits outside of the topic; several were new accounts.
:* There has been a clear campaign coordinated on Twitter to distort consensus away from anything critical of Ayurveda.
: My reading of the strengths of the arguments, the head-count and the attempts at distortion suggest to me that there exists a genuine consensus for including the phrase in the first paragraph, but only a weak consensus for the first sentence. Naturally, that depends on my giving much weight to the arguments that ] should be followed; and very little to arguments that Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience. Others may weight those differently. --] (]) 19:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
::Thank you, that seems a reasonable reading of the consensus there. I had meant to make a more thorough reading of the RfC and close it likely with something along those lines, but it looks like Sandstein beat me to it.
::Responding to your ] point, I think that Lead sentence evidences a couple of problems we face on Misplaced Pages:
::# I think that we editors have the unfortunate tendency to think, perhaps unconsciously, that the issues we spend the most time arguing about are the most important aspects of a topic. If, over many years, we spend 60% of our time on the talk page arguing about whether a topic is pseudoscience, then the importance of that question starts to overshadow everything else in our minds. We tend to seek out and study sources that specifically answer that question, and even as we read general sources about the topic we tend to do it with an eye for pseudoscience. We might even begin to believe that discussion of pseudoscience is the most important/prominent aspect in reliable sources about the topic. {{pb}}One way I've found to counter this "focus bias" is to take a step back and explore some high-level tertiary sources that give a birds eye overview of the subject in a small number of paragraphs. If you have a quality book source about the subject, sometimes the author will give you a quick overview of the subject in a few paragraphs in the preface. Or sometimes I'll look up the subject in an encyclopedia like Britannica. That gives me an idea of what is critically important to the subject, which is helpful in determining what is "due weight" for a Lead section here. I encourage you to try this experiment with an open mind, paying attention to your own reactions.
::# I think that sometimes we editors get into a "righting great wrongs" mentality. We see ourselves as combating rampant falsehoods and we want to use articles as weapons of truth in that battle. There's a tendency to use words to reach out and slap readers in the face with cold hard truth. As satisfying as that might be for us writers, I think it's actually counterproductive for our readers, especially in a crowd-sourced medium like Misplaced Pages. People nowadays are primed to distrust online sources that strongly disagree with their preexisting views. The more overt the disagreement, the faster the people will stop reading and say, "This is biased". We obviously want to steer people away from unsafe medical practices and quackery, but the people who we most want to convince (those predisposed to mistrust of mainstream medicine) will be the first to assume that Misplaced Pages is controlled by big pharma, and turn to less reliable sources of information. If you look at sources like WebMD you'll see that they are written very cautiously with this in mind. They're writing to try to convince the most skeptical. Take their articles on Homeopathy for instance. There's no in-your-face declarations like "Homeopathy is pseudoscience". They make cautious, simply-worded explanatory statements like the following: or more directly,
::Finally, I believe your appeal to the ] article is weak because it is essentially an "other stuff exists" argument. The fact that a Misplaced Pages article uses the "_________ is a pseudoscience" construction in its first sentence doesn't mean that's a good way to write an encyclopedia. It would be a much stronger argument if you could provide examples of an external professionally-written encyclopedia that prominently uses that construction. In writing this post I did some research of my own and I didn't find anything at all like that, but I'm interested to see if you come up with something. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 18:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
::: {{re|Awilley}} You may be confusing me with someone else. In 2014 I made 3 edits to ] and 4 edits to ]. In July and August I made 3 edits to Ayurveda and 40 to the talk page, all of which were in response to the massive recent effort, coordinated off-wiki, to whitewash the article of any critical commentary. In that period of time I made about 25,000 edits to around 6,000 pages. So I really don't think I qualify as someone who "over many years, spend 60% of our time on the talk page arguing about whether a topic is pseudoscience", but you're entitled to your opinion.
::: I'm pleased you've developed a strategy to counter "focus bias". Personally, I just go and do more work on improving accessibility, or FA reviews, or improving the code used to import Wikidata information. I've never found the need to spend more than a few weeks concentrating on countering efforts to distort our content, albeit this hasn't been the first time. Nevertheless, I do sometimes look at other tertiary sources as you suggest. In fact in 1989, when my children were young, I invested in a complete 15th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. So I just took your advice and consulted it to see what it said about Ayurveda. Sadly, it has no article of its own in either the Macropedia or the Micropedia. It has to make do with a passing mention in "Delhi", one sentence in "Alcohol consumption" and few mentions in the dozen paragraphs that Britannica devotes to India in "History of medicine and science". You see, no other encyclopedia has ever had anywhere near the resources to research, write and refine content on so many topics as Misplaced Pages. It's a fundamental mistake of nostalgia to overestimate the ability of older tertiary sources to cover topics in any detail. It's simply a fact that the absence of the word "pseudoscience" in my edition of Britannica does not in any way indicate that Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience; it merely indicates that Britannica didn't have the resources to cover the topic in anything other than a cursory manner. We are able to take advantage of the many good sources that make the point, along with two RfCs that came to the same conclusion.
::: I all too often see evidence of editors attempting to "right great wrongs". It might be my bias toward rational, scientific thought (I studied Natural Sciences at university), but I'm afraid I've witnessed a far greater number of SPAs attempting to remove the great wrong of Misplaced Pages's criticism of fringe beliefs than I have of established editors attempting to right a great wrong in the opposite direction.
::: I have to disagree with your suggestion that we treat obvious fringe beliefs such as homeopathy with kid gloves to avoid scaring off readers. That's not part of our mission, and anybody writing "Some studies show that homeopathic remedies are helpful, while others don’t. Critics chalk up the benefits to the placebo effect." on Misplaced Pages would rightly be castigated for giving ] to critics and supporters of homeopathy. Those "critics" comprise the mainstream scientific view and shouldn't be marginalised in the way that WebMD does. You might want to have a look at the {{oldid2 |976025189|WebMD|Reliable sources noticeboard}} for a few examples of how our editors consider it.
::: I'll see your argument that my appeal to the Astrology article is "weak" and raise you ]: "Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices." We develop our articles by analogy with other similar articles; our policies are descriptive, not prescriptive for that very reason. ] is an essay about deletion discussions and really is a poor rejoinder to the argument that fringe and pseudoscientific topics should be prominently described as such per ], which is policy. I don't think I need to find other tertiary sources that mimic Misplaced Pages to justify our policies like PSCI. The number of secondary sources are all that concerns me, and the absence of critical commentary from Britannica and the likes is more a reflection of their inability to compete with our project. --] (]) 20:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
::::I don't think I'm confusing you with anybody else. I'm not talking about the Ayurveda article specifically, but more the alt-med topic area. There's a lot of editorial overlap on those pages, and a quick check shows that ], ], and ] are all in your top 10 talk pages edited. Though I'll admit I do sometimes mentally conflate editors who consistently take the same positions. So I do see you as kind of in the same "category" as people like JzG (not a criticism of you or JzG!). And to clarify, I'm not saying you or anybody spends 60% of their total Misplaced Pages time on the Ayurveda talk page; I'm suggesting that for some people, 60% of their time on the Ayurveda talk page is spent discussing pseudoscience. (Probably an exaggeration, but you get the point.)
::::It very well may be that Britannica isn't quite up to date on Ayurveda. Though they do have an article online . Perhaps it is more up-to-date on similar topics. You could try , , , or . Perhaps one of these articles will explicitly label its subject as pseudoscience?
::::I get uncomfortable when people start criticizing reliable sources as inferior to Misplaced Pages. Rejecting sources because they aren't as militant about something as we think they should be is dangerous. Misplaced Pages is supposed to ''follow'' and ''reflect'' reliable sources. And the tone we use should reflect the very best sources. The tail should not wag the dog.
::::You mentioned that ] is only about deletion discussions. That's not exactly true. (You may have been thinking about ].) Regardless, ] is still relevant. (Example: Astrology is labeled "pseudoscience" in the first sentence, and Astrology is a Misplaced Pages article about a pseudoscience-related topic. Ayurveda is a Misplaced Pages article about a pseudoscience-related topic, therefore Ayurveda should be labeled "pseusoscience" in the first sentence.)
::::I see your quote from ], and I realize that Misplaced Pages has its own set of best practices, policies, and guidelines. But that alone doesn't mean much until you can cite ''which'' policies and guidelines encourage first-sentence labeling like the "_______ is pseudoscience" construction in question. I don't know of any, but I can think of a few that discourage that kind of writing. While ] and ] include some oddly specific exceptions for the word "pseudoscience", the bulk of policy makes it clear that it is better to describe ''how'' something is pseudoscience rather than to bluntly state that something ''is'' pseudoscience. To be clear, my concern isn't ''whether'' the topic is pseudoscience (the answer is yes). Nor is it whether we should make it clear in the article that it's pseudoscience (again, obviously yes). My concern is ''how'' we should do that. And based on what I've read so far I think a better way to do that is to avoid the value-laden label and use phrases like "_________ has not been proven to be any more effective than the ] in scientific studies" or "Claims that _______ can actually cure disease go against current scientific knowledge and have not been substantiated by medical research." <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
::::: {{re|Awilley}} You are absolutely right that I've found myself editing for brief periods in controversial medical topics, where I've consistently taken the line that supports the modern, mainstream perspective and opposes efforts to legitimise practices that have no basis in scientific fact. Beside chiropractic, acupuncture and now Ayurveda, I've also been involved in ] and the articles concerning medical marijuana. Those are not alt-med, but are articles where a push has been made at some point by SPAs to swing Misplaced Pages's article away from critical coverage to something anodyne or even positively supportive of superstitious nonsense. You are therefore right that almost 100% of my time on those talk pages will have been spent in arguing the mainstream view and rebuffing the arguments of the SPAs. On the other hand, that makes up a relatively tiny proportion of my contributions to Misplaced Pages as a whole.
::::: I don't think that it's a question of whether Britannica is up to date on Ayurveda. After all, it's difficult to make advances in a fringe theory that's been consistently wrong in its basic tenets for 5,000 years. The problem with all of the Britannica articles is that they are all too often written by a single author. There are some exceptions whose byline given as "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica" (which links to a page that is "unavailable"). Consequently, its Ayurveda article devotes a meagre 5 paragraphs to the subject, and a reader could easily come away with the impression that it is a functional medical system, equipped to deal with medical conditions in just the same way as our modern medical system does. It lacks any criticism of the practices, so many of which are well documented as dangerous. The one paragraph on chiropractic neglects to mention that the system is founded on the principle of treating "]" (a non-existent condition), nor that there is no evidence for any effect beyond placebo, with the exception of chronic lower back pain, where it is as good as any of several other interventions. The Britannica article on acupuncture is considerably larger and does at least mention that it defies clinical practice, but still credulously repeats the nonsense about Qi flowing through 12 meridians, and fails to report any of the trials showing that sham acupuncture is just as effective. And so on. Britannica quite clearly has cursory content on those topics and fails to place them in the modern perspective, or to give anything other than an "in-universe" narration for much of the time. You may well feel that treating a topic from within its own perspective is the right thing to do, but that fails to adequately cover what we know about so many fringe topics.
::::: If you take the time to examine these RfCs, guidelines and policies, I believe there is an inescapable imperative to describe Ayurveda as pseudoscience, at least within the first paragraph:
:::::* ] – "There is clear support here for adding Category:Pseudoscience to this article as a result of the reliable source coverage of it as a pseudoscience. The primary opposing argument is that Ayurveda is old and therefore shouldn't be labelled pseudoscience for its entire history - there have been strong arguments against this on the basis that it makes testable claims today which have been regarded as pseudoscientific in reliable sources."
:::::* ] – "Consensus is that Ayurveda's status as pseudoscientific is well documented enough that it does not need to be ascribed to a particular source or sources."
:::::* ] – "Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
:::::* ] – "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not ] the description of the mainstream views of the ]. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them ]. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such."
:::::* ] – " serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."
:::::* ] – " should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."
:::::* ] – "he first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a ], provide the context as early as possible" and "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."
::::: Nobody in all of the discussions has produced a single policy-based reason why we should not follow Misplaced Pages's established practices, as documented in our policies and guidelines, and implement the consensus that we should describe Ayurveda as a pseudoscience, and do that prominently. Misplaced Pages has greater depth of coverage than Britannica and chooses to examine topics with a critical eye, rather than pander to the topic's own view of itself. The body of the article is the place to explain how Ayurveda falls well short of any acceptable standards of verifiability, as it does. The lead is not intended to go into the detail of its subject, but to present to the reader the important facts about it. In my opinion (and that of many other editors), one of the key facts about Ayurveda is that it claims to make use of an internally-consistent theory having the veneer of being scientific (vata, pitta, and kapha) to produce results, while being completely unable to demonstrate the truth of that theory. That is a classic definition of pseudoscience and we should not shirk from saying so. --] (]) 13:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::I said above, {{tq|Nor is whether we should make it clear in the article that it's pseudoscience (again, obviously yes)}}. Let me clarify that I too think that should be in the Lead as well as the body. First paragraph is reasonable. I think we're in complete agreement through the first 6 of the 7 bullet points above. But I read your 7th point (MOS:FIRST) as saying we should not be cramming the word "pseudoscience" into the first sentence. "Pseudoscience" is a ] that requires some unpacking. It's useful for categorization, but we tend to overuse it in our prose on Misplaced Pages. Here's a completely unrelated example of a poor lead sentence that uses too much jargon: {{tq|"''']'' is a ] ] ] with ] beliefs distinct from mainstream ]."}} We're using specialized words like "nontrinitarian", essentially giving the genus and species, but without actually giving the reader much useful information. It would be more clear to say later in the paragraph something like, {{tq|"Jehovah's Witnesses use the ] and identify as Christians, but reject some mainstream Christian doctrines like the idea that ] is one of ] that constitute God."}} ("Nontrinitarian" is another word like "Pseudoscience" that Wikipedians like to use.)
::::::To answer another implied question above, no, I don't think that treating a topic from within its own perspective is the right thing to do. I've spent a good deal of time editing articles about religion, and I'm constantly using phrases like "Adherents believe that ____________." I would never support making unverifiable statements in Misplaced Pages's voice. Although with religious belief it's a bit different than pseudoscience in that we would never go over to the ] article and write "Catholics believe that God created the universe from nothing, which is incompatible with modern scientific knowledge." The reader already knows that religious belief isn't verifiable by science and doesn't need to be reminded in every other sentence. And most religions don't claim that their beliefs are scientific. But I'm way off topic.
::::::Anyway, I have probably bothered you enough. Thank you for discussing. I hope I've swayed you a bit on the question of directly labeling topics as "pseudoscience" in the first sentence vs. explaining ''how'' it's pseudoscience later on in the paragraph. And I hope you don't walk away from this thinking I'm just another "pro-fringe" editor. My interest is in having an encyclopedia that's accessible, professional, and, well, encyclopedic. And speaking to your concern about having SPAs constantly coming out of the woodwork to criticize the article, in my experience that problem subsides dramatically when you are able to write an article not just accurately, but with the neutral tone that people expect from an encyclopedia. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 17:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


I wanted to give you this for '''your passion for accessibility'''. I wrote a little article today (to nourish and grow) about ], and wish you all the best for yours. Miss your help, and - more - ]. --] (]) 12:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
== September ==
:I hope ] doesn't mind me adding to this - in real life, I have a passion for accessibility features when they are ''feasible'' - unlike most who seem to only "like" them when they are ''easy and cheap''. When I began on Misplaced Pages, I didn't realize just how much thought went into accessibility on Misplaced Pages - but I still remember you introducing me to ] which I attempt to follow completely in articles and everywhere else where feasible now. Sure, it takes more time to follow DTT guidance, and it takes more time to attempt to comply with ] and other guidelines, but that time is worth it because it is ''feasible'' to do so (i.e. doesn't require intensive coding of each instance). It still pains me to think that some people may be virtually unable to contribute to talk pages and articles because they would need to deal with sloppy code which is unintelligible to screen readers and other assistive software/devices... but I do my best now to fix problems when I see them and can. I worry that if we lose you permanently we may lose one of the most accessibility-focused administrators on Misplaced Pages - but after having seen the arbitration case and how it seems that some negative things are being given undue weight given all the good. In my opinion, people are treating you worse than the AstraZeneca vaccine is in some media right now - and that is an issue in which life/death can be invoked - yet they're still treating you worse for things much more minor. If you happen to see this, please just know that your dedication to accessibility has left a mark on me for the duration of my Misplaced Pages editing - since you showed me ] I've actively searched for accessibility guidance on this website and attempted to assist with more - and intend to continue to do so. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 03:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
::I would also like to say that Rexx's accessibility work has been great. He did a really good job of explaining accessibility and alt image texts at a London meetup a few months ago, which encouraged me to go back through articles I'd create to add alt text for accessibility. ]] (] 12:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
::: ], please tell us the secret of how to make a thread not fall victim to archiving. Newcomers: look in the archives, especially ] and the complete ]. --] (]) 21:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
=== May corner ===
{{User QAIbox {{User QAIbox
| title =
| title = ]
| image = Dahlias, Walsdorf.jpg | image = Chamomile, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8 | image_upright = 0.8
| bold = Dahlias in Walsdorf | bold =
| normal = | normal =
}} }}
Today: ], the German character voice of Diego in ]. I wonder how I could make my 12 calendar pics change automatically when the new month comes, such in my edit notice. - As said before, I wrote ] thinking of you, RexxS, and was pleased to hear it sung again in a livestreamed service, opening the service opening the {{ill|Ökumenischer Kirchentag|de}} in Frankfurt, open air, with the skyline in the background. It seems the melody of the year, with "]" (Now come, you Spirit of Truth) sung to the same. Today is Pentecost Monday here, traditionally the day for ecumenical togetherness. Miss you. --] (]) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I like ], with the TFA (thank you for help with the image questions!) on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, ], - more , mostly about the tribute to ] who shared his sources. --] (]) 20:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


In contrast: to the Dahlias, "brute loud and secretly quiet". - The music (specifically "Meermenschen") was given to me for my birthday. A funeral in 2 days. Brute. - Good points about the alt-texts for DYK images, btw, thank you! --] (]) 14:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC) See , - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. --] (]) 10:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


=== June corner ===
== WikiProject Medicine Newsletter – September 2020 ==
{{User QAIbox
<div style="border:2px solid #000080; background:#FFFFFF; width:99%; padding:4px">
| image = Daisy, Ehrenbach.jpg
]
| image_upright = 0.8
;{{big|Issue 4&mdash;September 2020}}
}}
Thinking of you, with some ]. --] (]) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


... and of ], whose last reply to me was in a thread ] --] (]) 06:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
=== July corner ===
{{User QAIbox
| title = ]
| image = Foxglove, Hausen.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
}}
Still thinking of you, and these flowers go well with the image on SlimVirgin's user page. I also think about making the template reminding of Precious a bot, in order of surviving me. How would I code questions such as:
* Which users have an anniversary of the award, and how many years? Then for each one:
* Did a user edit during the last year? (if not, no reminder necessary.)
* Is the user banned or blocked? (if yes, possibly better no reminder, although I know cases where I'd defiantly do it anyway.)
* Did the user opt-out being reminded? (which would have to be coded, and while some openly say so, some show just by deleting so it should be somewhat invisible/private)


I guess we'd need a better organisation of a table. Just thinking ... --] (]) 06:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


]. --] (]) 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
;'''{{huge|WikiProject Medicine Newsletter}}'''


More music: , the morning song - about rising from being down, in more than one sense - is a GA, - there should be more given my initials, but I also want to care for articles of ] (now ]), and ] in memory of Yoninah, - more missing than there. --] (]) 17:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
=== 28 August ===
{{User QAIbox
| title = ]
| image = Goldenrod, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
}}
Today, ], the second soprano to impress me on stage, died, - long live the memory of her beautiful singing, . 28 August 2013 was a special concert day: ]. After Hillbillyholiday ]. --] (]) 21:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


=== Gerda's September corner ===
Greetings! A relatively quiet month yields a shorter newsletter. The featured section is taking the month off, but please continue to drop comments and ideas at the ]. Here is what's happening this month:
{{User QAIbox
| title = ]
| image = Grapes with coloured leaves, Johannisberg.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
}}
- enjoy strong women! I thought of Yoninah on the first day of ]. --] (]) 21:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


today: , for Dante who died 700 years ago, and Peter Fleischmann who died recently, leaving us films full of vision. Dante: just heard ], imagined by a woman, the main character both speaking and singing with an inner 4-part voice! --] (]) 19:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
{{clear}}<!--GA/FAs checked September 1-->
{| class="wikitable" style="display: inline-table; width: 50%; background:#F3F3FF"
|+'''Newly recognized content'''
|-
|
{{icon|GA}} ] <small>nom. {{noping|Larry Hockett}}, reviewed by {{noping|Ajpolino}}</small><br>
{{icon|GA}} ] <small>nom. {{noping|David notMD}}, reviewed by {{noping|Ajpolino}}</small><br>
{{icon|GA}} ] <small>nom. {{noping|Tom (LT)}}, reviewed by {{noping|Dunkleosteus77}}</small><br>
{{icon|GAN}} ] <small>nom. {{noping|Tom (LT)}}, reviewed by {{noping|Dunkeosteus77}}</small>
<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
|}
{| class="wikitable" style="display: inline-table; width: 48%; background:#F3F3FF"
|+'''Nominated for review'''
|-
|
{{icon|FAC}} ] <small>nom. {{noping|Spicy}}</small><br>
{{icon|FAR}} ] <small>at ]. Discussion ]</small><br>
{{icon|GAN}} ] <small>nom. {{noping|Tom (LT)}}</small><br>
{{icon|GAN}} ] <small>nom. {{noping|Tom (LT)}}, under review by {{noping|Larry Hockett}}</small><br>
{{icon|GAN}} ] <small>nom. {{noping|G. Moore}} and {{noping|Dormskirk}}</small><br>
{{icon|GAN}} ] <small>nom. {{noping|Pi.1415926535}}, under review by {{noping|The Most Comfortable Chair}}</small><br>
{{icon|GAN}} ] <small>nom. {{noping|Larry Hockett}}</small><br>
{{icon|GAN}} ] <small>nom. {{noping|Larry Hockett}}</small><br>
{{icon|GAN}} ] <small> nom. {{noping|Doug Coldwell}}</small><br>
{{icon|GAN}} ] <small> nom. {{noping|Berchanhimez}}</small>
|}


On ], I thought of your ] and wonder how you'd apply them to Mahler's ]. --] (]) 20:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
<big><strong>News from around the site</strong></big>
*A few ] are being gently phased in to make signatures consistently machine-identifiable. This will enable the development of new talk page tools (and fix some holes in our current tools). Affected editors (~ 900 at English Misplaced Pages) will be contacted. You can see if you're on the naughty list .


=== October songs ===
<strong><big>Discussions of interest</big></strong>
{{User QAIbox
*There are numerous ongoing discussions regarding notability/deletion. Open disucssions focus on ], ], and the ].
| title = ]
*An ] considers deprecating in-line parenthetical citations.
| image = Fall colours reflected in pond, Oberauroff.jpg
*At ] editors are catching their breath and ] thus far.
| image_upright = 0.8

}}
<small>For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see ]</small>
Thank you for <nowiki>{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Six}}</nowiki> which I call daily, several times. I'd like to control that the right image is not forced below something else on the right, such as an archive box. What can I do to avoid a separation of header and image in such cases. Anybody? --] (]) 07:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
<br/>
:Hello, ]. As I thought about this question it reminded me of another question you asked (in March, as it turns out), because I thought I remembered ]. Although the questions are actually somewhat different, the conclusion is, I fear, the same, as is the explanation. {{User QAIbox/auto}} is implemented as an infobox, which is designed to (adamantly) be on the right (which puts it below any other elements trying to adamantly do the same thing). I know of no way to fix this, other than to rewrite or replace QAIbox. Sorry, but maybe somebody else stalking this page can help you more. <small>(Edited)</small><i>&mdash;&nbsp;] (] / ])</i> 00:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
<small>Also, a reminder to see ] for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!</small>
: Thank you, answered, and sorry I didn't remember March. What I do is adamantly place a "clear" template before the QAIbox template if I see a right TOC or similar stuff. In the longer run - and I had hoped for help by RexxS - I want to no longer send the reminders manually. My idea is to send one for ten years (with a different image, not as large as for nine years), which produces the option of being notified in future years or not. In a longer run, all reminders might be sent automatically, and what would that take? Brainstorming. I miss RexxS much. And LouisAlain. --] (]) 07:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

::The automatic sending sounds like a neat idea, and I think it's a job for ], which is something I've never worked with. I've never even requested a bot run, but {{em|you}} could. Got to ] and click the "Make a new request" button to add your request to the list. <i>&mdash;&nbsp;] (] / ])</i> 16:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
{{icon|Project}} ''']'''
::: Good idea but would need preparation, for example by a better table, and probably some eyes on how it would be useful. --] (]) 17:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

::: Working on the better table. --] (]) 06:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
<small>You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine ]. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please ].</small>
{{-}}</div> ] (]) 02:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

== IP 162.238.56.66 following user edits ==

Hi RexxS, I appreciate the warning you offered in response to my complaint .

However, you didn't address the other issue in my complaint, which is that fully half of this IP's edits since late July () were made to support a dispute that ] was involved in, as my post showed here . This is strong evidence of IP socking or meatpuppetry, which has also been a big problem at ], as {{u|Hipal}} mentioned on that Talk Page . {{u|ToBeFree}} blocked the IP in that case, but it's a huge pain to contend with IPs being used to remove content from multiple academic sources across different pages on this encylopedia . -] (]) 16:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
:Thanks for the note, {{u|Darouet}}, but I'm up to my armpits in alligators at ] and ], so I'm trying not to take on any more investigations where other admins like ToBeFree are already familiar with the issues. Hipal is a very experienced editor and looks to be working to finding solutions to those issues as well. If the problems don't abate, then please ask me again and I'll look for ways of helping, even if I'm short of time. Cheers --] (]) 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
::OK, I remember and very much appreciate your COVID-19 work. Do you happen to follow the "This Week in Virology" podcast? I have really liked those, and they provide a nice overview of much of the scientific and clinical work being done in the area of COVID. This week they brought back Christian Drosten of Germany.
::{{ping|ToBeFree}} if you had time to look into this, I'd appreciate it. -] (]) 16:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I currently can't thoroughly investigate the situation, and I prefer the central noticeboards ] (or ], if there is no ANI thread already, and if applicable) for this kind of requests. You have correctly created an ANI thread; I can't close it earlier than others. ] (]) 17:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::This isn't even my IP address, There are a lot more people who disagree with you than you think. ] (]) 20:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

== WLM Wikidata to Commons ? technical solution ==

I am currently looking at walking to add some photos to commons as part of & looking at . Many of those showing in red (ie we do not yet have a photo) already have pics in commons but the WLM map does not know this as, although wikidata has the "National Heritage List for England number" (Property:P1216), the entry on commons does not include (and presumably other UK countries).

In the light of this I have been doing this manually, but will only be able to do a few hundred and there must be thousands (or tens of thousands) of cases where this applies, therefore I wondered if a bot or similar technology would be able to add the template and relevant NHLE number to the commons entry which would then, 24 hrs later, turn the WLM map from red to blue. This is beyond my technical capabilities but I thought you, or your talk page stalkers, with knowledge of wikidata might be able to assess whether this would be possible and how difficult it would be.

A worked example that I have done manually:
* The WLM map showed red for "Arlington Mill (Including Cottages Previously Listed As Abutting Arlington Mill) Arlington Mill Cottages (Including Cottages Previously Listed As Abutting Arlington Mill)" in the village of ]
*
* for this building. It includes the NHLE identifier 1303546 - if you click on this it takes you to the
*I edited the commons page and added <nowiki>{{Listed building England |1=1303546 }}</nowiki> ( using the template and adding the NHLE number)

Would it be possible to get a bot (or other technical solution) to replicate the process I did manually for several thousand entries in this situation?&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 07:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
: (talk page stalker) {{ping|Rodw}} I think the maps work on whether {{WDP|P18}} is set in the Wikidata entry, not whether the image is tagged on Commons. A while ago I put together a list of NHLE items with Commons categories but no image, see ], currently around 3500 entries. I was trying to figure out a way to bot-add the images, but the problem is that it often needs human choice to decide which image is the most relevant one to add. Thanks. ] (]) 10:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

== Roger Moore ==

Hello.
You recently added comments when you restored an Edit of mine, on Roger Moore's Page.
Since then, that Contribution about Moore's record releases has again be removed.
I made a comment upon this at the bottom of Moore's Page, where it says, from memory, something like, "Discus this page", etc., (Sic); it's the one just under 'Edit History'.
Could I ask you, please, to add to your interest in this subject by considering making an observation upon the act of reomoving the Entry, again, whether you hold the same opinion as before, when you restored it ? The Discussion can be found under: 'Interesting Inconsistent Editorializing'.
Thanks very much.
Heath St John. ] (]) 20:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
:
: Hi, {{u|Heath St John}}. I saw the discussion, but I don't have much to add beyond the comment I already made. I restored your original edit because it was removed as a result of being unsourced, and I thought it would be easy to source (and it was). The second removal was on account of "''This stuff is unimportant, exciting no comment in WP:SECONDARY sources''". In other words, the other editor found it ] for the article. I'm afraid that I don't have enough familiarity with the topic to be be able to dispute that judgement. It's probably no more trivial than his books, but unfortunately{{snd}} unlike his books{{snd}} the record was released over 50 years ago, so contemporary secondary sources are going to be difficult to find. I apologise for not being of more help. --] (]) 12:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello.
Thanks.
To me, we create so many complications for ourselves.
The Site is supposed to be a source of factual proof, however boring another might find it. If they find it so, the, they move on, and the truth remains true. Many truths are not found interesting by many people; they remain truel especially unacknowledged truth, which doesn't seek or require approval.
This is a good example. It's true; someone finds it tedious: fine; it's removed, yet remains true, but being so still doesn't allow it to be included on a Site that's supposed to be dedicated to it.
People reading this in the future shall then know that a Site to which they've turned for information has some Editors who've 'Edited' the complete truth from the Record because they've not found it personally entertaining.
A great shame.
Thanks for your time.
] (]) 13:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

== Image issue ==

Hi, RexxS - there's an image issue ] that is leaving a lot of white space after the lead. I can't figure out and would appreciate some guidance here. I'm thinking it's either in the template defaults or an image size I'm not finding, or did the center command do it? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 18:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
:
: {{re|Atsme}} it's the use of {{tl|clear}} that causes most of the whitespace on wide screens{{snd}} I've just removed two of them. The real problem is that the infobox is too big and there are far too many images, tables, etc. for the amount of text, so there will be screen widths where it doesn't look right, no matter what you do. --] (]) 01:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

== Wikidata link goes to wrong place ==

Hi RexxS. Go to ], click on the 'Francais' language link, it takes you to ] which seems correct. Once there, click on 'English' in the left column and it takes you to ], a biographical page. Expected behavior would be to take you back to ]. This problem doesn't occur if you go to and from the Spanish Misplaced Pages; it appears specific to French. But how could it be? The Wikidata item at {{url|https://www.wikidata.org/Q13429672}} seems to have all its entries correct. ] (]) 03:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
:A section had the code {{code|]}} - which I presume is coded on frwp to override a Wikidata link - but I'm not sure. Regardless, removing it and purging the page seems to have re-linked it appropriately ] - regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 03:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
::The fix was on frwp to change ]. The next mystery is *why* that worked but I'll go quietly away now! Thanks, ] (]) 03:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
:::Same here - my understanding is that interlanguage links on enwp only override the wikidata links if they're ''unpiped'' - but apparently that piped link was overriding it on frwp. I posted on their non-french community portal regarding the issue, so maybe someone there can investigate it - it was honestly just a hunch I wasn't 100% sure would work to begin with haha. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 03:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
== Nomination for merging of ] ==
]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> ] (]) 12:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

== Another LUA question: pulling out qualifiers ==

I've done quite a bit of work on ] and it's almost fully up and running (see example at ]). There's one feature I need a quick assist on: once I've pulled out a value, how do I also pull out a qualifier for it? Within the <code>getEditors</code> function, I've managed to pull the editor's roles (e.g. for ], the role of the editor 'Eric Youngstrom' is as the 'statistician'). Thanks in advance! ]<sup>]</sup> 02:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
:
: {{re|Evolution and evolvability}} the structure of value and qualifiers in the Wikidata database simply stores qualifiers along with each value, so you need to read and store the qualifiers at the time you read and store each value. In ]. I handle that by passing a qual parameter that can be "ALL" or a list of property-IDs. Most of the handling is around lines 1250 onwards in the module.
: I've added a rough version of the qualifier functionality to ] and demonstrated it at ]. You can check my additions by examining and then it should be fairly straightforward to amend the output to whatever you want. Give me another shout if you need any help with that. Cheers --] (]) 12:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
::Perfect - thank you. Even more flexible that I'd initially thought of but definitely a good implementation. I find learning first principles of a language much easier after doing a bit of copy-paste-edit coding to get a feel for it. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
::A follwup question on it: it seems to require the {{para|qid}} to be explicitly set. When the qid is pulled for the current page by <code>mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForCurrentPage()</code>, then the quals aren't pulled by <code> mw.wikibase.renderSnak(val)</code>. Any fix ideas? ]<sup>]</sup> 05:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
::: {{re|Evolution and evolvability}} I think the problem is this: when the call is used without a qid parameter passed, line 19 becomes true and so it fetches args from a parent call. That is there to allow the module function to be called by a template (which becomes the parent) - so you could make a template to get authors called WJA that contains <code><nowiki>{{#invoke:Module:WikiJournal|getAuthors}}</nowiki></code> and just use it like this: <code><nowiki>{{WJA|Q123456|qual=ALL}}</nowiki></code>.
::: Anyway, when the qid parameter is omitted, the code thinks it's being called from a parent so makes args an empty table, and therefore it never finds the qid parameter you passed directly. The code you copied for lines 18-21 worked in the original setting because it had to have a qid parameter there. I've modified the test in line 19 to simply check whether args is an empty table instead. See if that works for you now. --] (]) 13:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

== somewhat complicated paragraph breaks and accessibility ==

From observing previous discussions, it seems to me that either you will know this, or will know who knows.

I understand the philosophy and general idea behind being careful about list elements (I may be using wrong terminology, but I think I understand the idea).

I understand about using {{tl|paragraph break}} instead of "*Lorem ipsum" on one line and ":Lorem ipsum" on the next. I mean, I understand that:

*Line one (*Line one)
:Line two (:Line two)

is wrong, but

*Line one {{pb}}Line two (*Line one <nowiki>{{pb}}</nowiki>Line two)

is OK.

What I can't figure out how to achieve - and am concerned is impossible - is a legitimate syntax for:

*Line one
*#numbered item under one
*#numbered item under one
:Line two (a paragraph break from line one, but no bullet, and NOT on the level of the numbered items.

Is there a way to achieve that without causing screen reader headaches? --] (]) 20:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible, with actual HTML for the numbered lists.
<pre>*Line one<ol><li>Item 1</li><li>Item 2</li></ol> Line two</pre>
Yields:
*Line one<ol><li>Item 1</li><li>Item 2</li></ol> Line two
--] (]) 21:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Basic wikitext syntax doesn't support this; there's no way to continue a list item from an earlier level. {{section link|Help:List|Continuing a list item after a sub-item}} shows how you could use the {{tl|ordered list}} or {{tl|bulleted list}} templates to achieve this, if you'd rather not use the raw HTML (which has its own challenges when combined with how line breaks and white space get handled by the parser). ] (]) 21:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
:I forgot Possibility #3 - a talk page watcher would know. Thank you, ], I'll play around with {{tl|ordered list}} and the like, and see if I can reach a point where it's marginally intuitive. But I have a bad feeling that if I'm already replying with an indent to someone else's comment, that maybe I won't be able to mix and match their wiki-markup and my html or template magic. Sandbox, here I come! --] (]) 01:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
::Oh, I'm sorry ], I missed that there were '''two''' signatures. Thank you, as well. I'll do some playing. --] (]) 01:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
::Yeah, in threaded discussions, sometimes I'll just resort to outdenting my reply so I can better manage the internal formatting. Like the help section says, it's a design tradeoff to make wikitext format simpler. ] (]) 05:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

== Double archives ==

I just noticed at ] that there are two archive areas, one within all the talkpage templates (which apparently is the “real” one) and another (which says there are no archives) underneath all the project template boxes. I don’t know how to fix that without screwing it up, plus I’m kind of invested in the topic, so could you do a little gnoming over there?]<sup>]</sup> 02:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
:The lower box says "No archives yet." because ] doesn't exist. --] &#x1f339; (]) 10:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
:: {{re|Montanabw}} I never use ClueBot to do archiving, so I'm unfamiliar with its requirements. {{ping|Redrose64}} can you fix it and save me from having to research all the issues, please? --] (]) 13:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
::: sorted it all out. Put simply: before that lot, ClueBot III had never archived the page, so didn't know that ] already existed. Whilst that was created more than ten years ago, the threads archived there were due to: {{user|MiszaBot I}}; {{user|lowercase sigmabot III}}; and ]. In addition, an IP had decided to add two threads somewhere in the middle. Quite a wide variety. --] &#x1f339; (]) 20:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
:::: Thanks, {{u|Redrose64}}. I assume that the problem arises when the archiving bot is switched from one to another without giving the latest bot a chance to initialise itself. Cheers --] (]) 01:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

== URLs ==
Please answer question on my talk page about if URL is the same as DOI, and doi-access=free is set. ] (]) 15:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

== Ayurveda and blocks ==

Hi RexxS, when I was looking into the history of ] as part of ], I came across a number of users that I wanted to ask you about. These editors were each blocked per ], a determination which you appear to have made based on a single talk page post with which you have expressed disagreement.

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


== Hoping you will come back ==
I was wondering if you would be able to comment on these blocks. I'm particularly looking for your perspective on how you were able to make this determination, your perspective on whether you were the right person to make these blocks, and whether there were any mitigating factors or other explanations that I am missing when looking at these. I have some deep concerns about a single administrator possibly being able to affect a consensus decision about controversial topics, and I thought I would start by asking you for comment. Thank you for your time. – ]] 16:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
<!-- ] 02:57, 1 April 2031 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1932778655}}
:Why would you want to help an off-wiki campaign push anti-science in Misplaced Pages? Since you had the time to investigate the above, perhaps you noticed that the list shows 17 users created within a few days at the end of August, all of whom were obviously recruited to vote on whether Misplaced Pages should promote Ayurveda. Are you suggesting that RexxS should have spent two hours negotiating with each of them in an attempt to inform them of Misplaced Pages's values so they could blossom as useful editors? Or that obvious meatpuppets should be free to derail discussions because RexxS might favor the scientific method? Campaigners are the definition of NOTHERE. ] (]) 23:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I sincerely hope that you will come back to Misplaced Pages. The very significant good things that you have done for the project, for which you deserve abundant thanks, really have very little to do with adminship, and much more to do with what you have to offer as the person you are. Please take as much time as feels right, but when you are ready, I hope to see you back here again. --] (]) 23:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
<strike>::This was vandalism of the article talk page. These were, except for two, single edit accounts with a singe purpose that appeared after a Twitter account and subsequent recruitment. Brad. Note that multiple "legitimate" editors on both sides of a debate voted and commented with out a problem. ] (]) 03:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
*Sadly, that seems most unlikely. Misplaced Pages gets to keep the editors it deserves. What passes for Arbs these days, will realise, if and when they grow up, that “what goes around comes around,” which no doubt they will think is a Justin Timberlake song. Assuming one cares, it’s really quite concerning. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 00:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
::Add: When multiple, single-edit accounts bombard a talk page in a relatively short period of time, probably faster than any single editor can deal with them, and with a single position, sometimes demanding change, while editors are laboriously slugging through an RfC and discussion, then the talk page has been damaged, and damage equals vandalism. No, not in the traditional sense we use in many places on Misplaced Pages, but then again I've never seen this kind of concerted effort from this many single edit editors over a short period of time who clearly are not interested in ongoing talk page collaboration. I'm not sure what to call it. Disruption is not descriptive of the situation, I as an editor, saw on that talk page. Nor did I see a traditional way of dealing with it, but then I'm not an admin. ] (]) 10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)</strike>
*I dunno what to say, RexxS. Others will come here and say it for me. ] (]) 01:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*] ] ] ] 03:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*I'm very much saddened to find out what's happened here. Please know that I deeply appreciated your accessibility work and advocacy over the years. It was also great to get the chance to meet you in person at Wikimania back in 2012. I wish you the best for whatever you decide to do in the future. ''']'''] 07:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*Such a disappointing outcome, but totally expected from that ]. You've been a great editor and hopefully at some point you'll be back helping fix the accessibility issue on here. ]] (] 09:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*Come back when you're ready. Being an admin is a worthless, thankless, pointless overhead on improving Misplaced Pages. The place is worse off without you. ] <small>(])</small> 09:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
* Quoted from ]: "May our lives be about kindness. ... You know what I like most about Misplaced Pages, ultimately? It gives stuff away for free. All our little ego-battles blow away in the wind. They're nothing. The articles remain." (February 2021) - ] Why would you? I said before this last ego-battle that it wouldn't improve kindness, nor an article. So I'm . See also, . --] (]) 10:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*I...was not expecting this. :( I hope you come back. Been fortunate to interact with you in person and I know what a great person and fantastic editor you are. ] 10:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*I'm not happy about this. Yesterday I was improving ], thinking "This could do with an infobox to be consistent with similar articles, what's the best one to use and how should I mark it up. I'll ask .... oh wait, I can't, he's left". :-( I don't mind Arbcom trying out new things to make the overall arbitration experience better, but not putting ProcrastinatingReader as a party to the case was a major error, as it gives people the impression they can now dig up dirt on admins they don't like and haul them off to Arbcom without fear of boomerangs. And I don't even think . ] ] ] 12:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*Yes, of course. Not holding my breath, though.... ] (]) 13:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*Take care. ] (]) 14:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*Wishing you the best - and I completely understand why you don't come back if you don't - nobody should ''ever'' have to be dragged through what you were and you will be missed. I'll do my best to try and keep editing because I don't think you'd want people to leave over your treatment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 14:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*I do so hope that we shall see you restored to us. You really must not take these things too much to heart. The world is run by some very sad people, one just has to rise above. When one obstacle pops up, one just finds a way of overcoming it. ] (]) 21:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*Much has been said which I cannot phrase any better. When and if you return, it will not only be appreciated by fellow editors who understand what value is yours to add to the encyclopaedia, but also by its readers, unbeknownst of what goes on within. Peace, RexxS. —] ] 23:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*Miss your level head and helpful guidance. You are missed and I hope you will return soon. The ArbCom case was a complete mess and there was absolutely no rhyme or reason to it. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*And ''that's'' why I don't like ArbCom. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp; <sup>''<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">]</span>''</sup> 10:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*So sorry it has gone this way. I hope we see you back again. Meanwhile stay safe. ]] 15:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
* There was a time, some years ago, when I thought that the arbitration committee, while not perfect, was substantially a constructive and reasonable group of people, doing on the whole a good job. However, times move on, and there is a turnover of members of the committee, and over the last few years they have, in my opinion, become more and more a bunch of useless fools. Maybe not yet all of them deserve that description, but any exceptions there may be are gradually disappearing. The RexxS case is just one more nail in the coffin of the respect that I once had for the arbitration committee. Stupid. Stupid. ] (]) 19:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*I'm also sorry about the whole thing, but would like to remind you that most productive editors aren't admins and don't need to be. As an admin or not, it doesn't affect my view that you did a lot of useful work and still could if you decided to edit again. In any case, thank you for your contributions and I hope to see you around in the future. Meanwhile, have a happy break, —]] – 23:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
*Very sad to see this whole business. You are missed. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
*I wish you happiness whether here or somewhere else. ] (]) 03:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
*I can't say it better than ]. Getting rid of one of our most dedicated and most valuable contributors and educators, for pushing back against individuals stubbornly refusing to adhere to consensus, is one of the most damaging things ArbCom has done for some time. RexxS, you've done far more for this project than most of those clowns will ever do in their lifetimes, and you certainly have my thanks for that. ] (]) 11:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
*Yeah, we need people here who make things better - like {{u|RexxS}}. As Churchill wrote, sometimes it's a matter of KBO (for the greater good). ] (]) 17:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
*In the days since the ArbCom case closed, multiple members of ArbCom have, themselves, drawn attention for having done various things that were ill-considered and, arguably, not the best use of admin privileges. Oh, the irony! I hope that RexxS has the occasion to look in here, and see that. Maybe, some utopian day, Misplaced Pages will come to learn that everyone loses their cool on occasion, and ''that'' is not sufficient reason to make a federal case out of it. It's sufficient reason to calm the f—k down. But that probably won't happen. In any case, I think that recent events say more about other people, ''a lot'' of other people, than they do about RexxS. --] (]) 17:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
* ]--] (]) 14:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
* Hope we'll see you back soon, RexxS. You are one of the good guys around here. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
* Sorry to see this, You were a great admin and didn't deserve this. I hope you'll come back one day, In the meantime take care and I wish you all the very best. –]<sup>]</sup> 10:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
* What a shame. Now, I can only recommend you to drop the negative thoughts, and then, focus on enjoying, relaxing and getting comfy, rather than trying to keep that attitude when it comes fixing others' wrongs, let alone ] tier typos. By the way; as promised (in COVID Positive section), I took 2 Gam-COVID-Vac jabs before 2021 started. I also managed to quit coffee addiction somehow. But! As for the possible reasons... I remember the heated discussions in ] on Fall 2020 and I feel ''comme ci comme ca'' about the de-adminization, to be honest.
** ''Rex'', you indeed was ''X-S''essive a little: you showed an astronomical amount of determination to fix others' wrongs you have been showing before falling ill of COVID. I mean, you even had lengthy discussions on mere "a" vs "the" articles, on whether one should say "a spokesperson" or "the spokesperson" and such back then; that's a lotta energy you have been spending; let alone telling me and Motin how annoying WP:IDHT is.
Just treat this crisis as an opportunity to take a rest from many annoying accounties, and, plz, take it easy. ] (]) 12:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
*I have not clocked whatever it was that led RexxS to leave Misplaced Pages – yet another nasty ''ad hominen'' attack of the type that has driven so many top-flight editors away? – but whatever it was, I should like to add a belated comment that I found Rex thoughtful, helpful and kind and though we didn't agree about everything I shall miss him, as will so many other editors, as seen above. Please come back! '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 20:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Tim riley}} this particular ad hominem attack came from ]. A very unfortunate business, but I remain hopeful that RexxS will be back to resume what he does best before too long. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 20:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
*::Good grief! How wearingly familiar! Like Fram, Kudpung and other much needed star editor/admins felled by the ]. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 21:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
*::: yes, {{diff|User talk:Hammersoft|1008526593|1008526056|see}}? "If ArbCom want to review my administrative actions seriously and dispassionately, I'm willing to discuss and try to learn any lessons. But if they want to simply provide a forum for everybody who has ever disagreed with me to sling mud, and then take on the role of civility police, it's not a game I'm willing to play." --] (]) 21:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
*:::: What a shame. Yet another case of the ArbCom destroying an amazing editor. I'm seeing a pattern form with regard to these cases. I have read enough of them to know that not a single person involved in any of them can claim the high road. I've even had some "discussions" with a few involved in this case (not about this case) and can say, unequivocally, they think they are the Universe's gift to this Earth and nothing matters more than their own ego. I shall leave them unnamed because my intention is not to attack them, only write the truth as it is observed through actions. --]] 13:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
*Just found out you're no longer editing. Do whatever's best for you, but you're very much missed; you're one of the most knowledgeable and helpful people here. I hope to see you here again one day. All the best. ] (] - ] - ]) 14:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
*It was established on ] that Anthony Appleyard, who was with RexxS in Manchester (), was no longer with us since February 2022. I just hope the same has not happened to RexxS here at this moment. ] (]) (]) 11:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
*Just stopping by to say Hi after editing one of the articles you started in the dim and distant past. Just in case you stop by sometime to catch up on anything. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 15:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)


==MfD nomination of ]==
:], our processes, including talkpages, are always vulnerable to off-wiki canvassing as well as plain old sockpuppetry. The users you list are obvious meatpuppets, or as John says "obviously recruited to vote on whether Misplaced Pages should promote Ayurveda". I didn't know there was a Twitter post; are we disallowed from linking to Twitter? If not, perhaps Olive could provide the link. Only one of the listed voters has actually voted (or !voted, whatever) in the RfC "Should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence?", namely ]. I'm not sure if the RfC is the "consensus decision" you're talking about, that RexxS might have affected with his blocks? All the rest on your list have posted to the talkpage generally, several of them in the form of edit requests, with varying competence and civility. A few of them politely, but many on the lines of "Foreigners nothing know about Ayurveda so don't talk about Ayurveda like fool". Perhaps an immediate block of wasn't strictly necessary. It's a fine point, though, since I don't doubt they came because of the canvassing. Anyway, I agree with you that RexxS was not the ideal admin to take care of this influx, and if I'd been following the Ayurveda issues, I would probably have suggested that to him. Mostly because of the optics, though, and I don't see it as a big deal. Per ], "In straightforward cases (e.g., ]), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator&nbsp;– even if involved&nbsp;– on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". This is not a matter of vandalism, except in the odd case, but it's nevertheless straightforward: those users are not here to build an encyclopedia. I would have thought any reasonable administrator would have come to the same conclusion. ] &#124; ] 09:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC).
] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:Mfd notice --> ] (]) 21:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::The link was posted by another editor on the Ayurveda talk page. I don't like to look off-Misplaced Pages for discussions but eventually did. I don't see that link now. I'll look again later. ] (]) 10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
:::It may be gone because it was considered inappropriate to link to Twitter, ], so please don't bother, I'm good. ] &#124; ] 11:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC).
*Yes, there was an off-wiki organised campaign by some Indian nationalists to edit the Ayurveda article to make it sound like proper medicine (I don't have any links now). And these accounts were clearly all part of it. While policy <s>says</s> <u>might perhaps (it's debatable) suggest</u> best practice would be for a different admin to make the blocks, I think this reasonably falls under the "any reasonable administrator" clause - especially as we had ongoing disruption. I would certainly have made the same blocks myself, and I consequently endorse them. ] (]) 11:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC) <small>(Updated. ] (]) 12:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC))</small>
*:I'll also add that Misplaced Pages has been under an especially heavy onslaught from pushers of quackery and pseudoscience since the Covid-19 pandemic hit, and getting rid of such nonsense (and the people who push it) can be literally life-saving. RexxS is one of the few at the forefront of fighting off these dangerous idiots, and he has my personal thanks and appreciation for his invaluable work. ] (]) 11:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
:
: {{re|Bradv}} I blocked each of those meatpuppets as "not here to build an encyclopedia". If you feel that any of them actually were here to build an encyclopedia, please feel free to unblock them. As for the INVOLVED accusation, you're again failing to distinguish between "dispute" and "disruption". My involvement in Ayurveda is simply in upholding Misplaced Pages policies and consensus decisions. The community has consistently agreed that Ayurveda is pseudoscience. I uphold that. ] states that {{talkquote|1=by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such.}} I have upheld that policy. There is no content dispute about pseudoscience, nor is there any content dispute about the prominence we should give to the scientific viewpoint. If you feel otherwise, you are entitled to start an RfC to change our policy and current consensus. Until you do that, I'll continue to uphold our status quo. It is unfortunate that only a couple of admins have found the time to try to stem the attack on Misplaced Pages from Opindia's twitter campaign, but now that you're aware of it, perhaps you'd like to join in our efforts to keep Misplaced Pages free of deliberate attempts at distorting our normal mechanisms for decision-making?
: For what its worth, I just checked the 17 editors whom I blocked and 15 have not made any comment. One has replied "Thank you for blocking me .....I am not interested to be with fools". I hope you won't take that as an indication that they are here to build an encyclopedia. The other, {{noping|VigneshApthi}}, has made two attempts at an unblock request. The latter one seems reasonable and I've accepted the request and unblocked them. --] (]) 11:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
::Thank you for reviewing these blocks, and for your explanation. However, ] is a content policy, and no part of that policy justifies immediate blocks of those who do not comply with it. Blocks are governed by the ], and in this case, in my opinion, they did not comply with ] or ]. While it's certainly possible that these editors were not here in good faith, they should still have been given a chance, or at least a warning, before receiving an indefinite block. Furthermore, as an editor on that article and a prolific contributor to the talk page, you were not in a position to make that determination or to take administrative action. – ]] 16:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
:::Completely ignoring that three admins and multiple (if you include me) other users have said these were obviously appropriate thus exempt from involvement as you’re trying to claim RexxS is... I’ve seen RexxS tirelessly attempt to fight against this campaign to abuse Misplaced Pages. Preventing abuse is not a content dispute and doesn’t even make RexxS involved in my opinion. Maybe instead of trying to find some fault in someone who is invaluable to the accuracy and reliability of the articles on these topics, you step in and help fight such campaigns, not just on Ayurveda but other pseudoscience as well? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 16:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
:::{{re|Bradv}} I wonder if you bothered to read anything that any of the rest of us said here? Sticking your oar in where you're clearly clueless because "da roolz" does not paint you as either understanding or helpful. How about you get out of your ivory tower and come and help those of us on the front line dealing with this crap day in and day out, rather than condescendingly scolding the hardest workers?! ] (]) 17:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:31, 18 December 2024


Archives
Archive Wikimedia UK
Archive 01: Jan '08 – Jan '09
Archive 02: Jan '09 – Jul '09
Archive 03: Jul '09 – Jan '10
Archive 04: Jan '10 – Mar '10
Archive 05: Mar '10 – Jul '10
Archive 06: Jul '10 – Sep '10
Archive 07: Sep '10 – Nov '10
Archive 08: Nov '10 – Dec '10
Archive 09: Jan '11 – Feb '11
Archive 10: Feb '11 – Mar '11
Archive 11: Mar '11 – Jun '11
Archive 12: Jun '11 – Oct '11
Archive 13: Oct '11 – Nov '11
Archive 14: Nov '11 – Jan '12
Archive 15: Jan '12 – May '12
Archive 16: May '12 – Jul '12
Archive 17: Jul '12 – Aug '12
Archive 18: Aug '12 – Sep '12
Archive 19: Sep '12 – Nov '12
Archive 20: Nov '12 – Feb '13
Archive 21: Feb '13 – Apr '13
Archive 22: Apr '13 – Sep '13
Archive 23: Oct '13 – Mar '14
Archive 24: Mar '14 – May '14
Archive 25: May '14 – Jan '15
Archive 26: Jan '15 – Apr '15
Archive 27: Apr '15 – Jul '15
Archive 28: Jul '15 – Dec '15
Archive 29: Dec '15 – Apr '16
Archive 30: Apr '16 – Jun '16
Archive 31: Jun '16 – Aug '16
Archive 32: Aug '16 – Sep '16
Archive 33: Oct '16 – Dec '16
Archive 34: Dec '16 – Jan '17
Archive 35: Jan '17 – Mar '17
Archive 36: Mar '17 – Jun '17
Archive 37: Jun '17 – Aug '17
Archive 38: Aug '17 – Oct '17
Archive 39: Oct '17 – Dec '17
Archive 40: Dec '17 – Jan '18
Archive 41: Jan '18 – Mar '18
Archive 42: Mar '18 – Apr '18
Archive 43: Apr '18 – Jun '18
Archive 44: Jun '18 – Sep '18
Archive 45: Sep '18 – Nov '18
Archive 46: Nov '18 – Dec '18
Archive 47: Dec '18 – Mar '19
Archive 48: Mar '19 – Apr '19
Archive 49: Apr '19
Archive 50: Apr '19 – May '19
Archive 51: May '19 – Sep '19
Archive 52: Sep '19 – Nov '19
Archive 53: Nov '19 – Jan '20
Archive 54: Feb '20 – Mar '20
Archive 55: Mar '20 – Apr '20
Archive 56: Apr '20 – May '20
Archive 57: May '20 – Jun '20
Archive 58: Jun '20 – Jul '20
Archive 59: Jul '20 – Aug '20
Archive 60: Aug '20
Archive 61: Aug '20 – Sep '20
Archive 62: Sep '20 – Oct '20
Archive 63: Oct '20 – Dec '20
Archive 64: Dec '20 – Feb '21
Archive 65: Feb '21 – Mar '21
Archive 66: Mar '21 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

St Lucy's day for you


Bishonen (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Impact

Impact
Thank you for your impact
in a reasoned approach,
fresh wind to an emotional topic

(repeated from User talk:RexxS/Archive 40#Impact)

I wanted to give you this for your passion for accessibility. I wrote a little article today (to nourish and grow) about the new ways, and wish you all the best for yours. Miss your help, and - more - you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I hope User:Gerda Arendt doesn't mind me adding to this - in real life, I have a passion for accessibility features when they are feasible - unlike most who seem to only "like" them when they are easy and cheap. When I began on Misplaced Pages, I didn't realize just how much thought went into accessibility on Misplaced Pages - but I still remember you introducing me to WP:DTT which I attempt to follow completely in articles and everywhere else where feasible now. Sure, it takes more time to follow DTT guidance, and it takes more time to attempt to comply with MOS:LISTGAP and other guidelines, but that time is worth it because it is feasible to do so (i.e. doesn't require intensive coding of each instance). It still pains me to think that some people may be virtually unable to contribute to talk pages and articles because they would need to deal with sloppy code which is unintelligible to screen readers and other assistive software/devices... but I do my best now to fix problems when I see them and can. I worry that if we lose you permanently we may lose one of the most accessibility-focused administrators on Misplaced Pages - but after having seen the arbitration case and how it seems that some negative things are being given undue weight given all the good. In my opinion, people are treating you worse than the AstraZeneca vaccine is in some media right now - and that is an issue in which life/death can be invoked - yet they're still treating you worse for things much more minor. If you happen to see this, please just know that your dedication to accessibility has left a mark on me for the duration of my Misplaced Pages editing - since you showed me WP:DTT I've actively searched for accessibility guidance on this website and attempted to assist with more - and intend to continue to do so. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I would also like to say that Rexx's accessibility work has been great. He did a really good job of explaining accessibility and alt image texts at a London meetup a few months ago, which encouraged me to go back through articles I'd create to add alt text for accessibility. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Bish, please tell us the secret of how to make a thread not fall victim to archiving. Newcomers: look in the archives, especially User talk:RexxS/Archive 65#LocalPunk and the complete User talk:RexxS/Archive 66. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

May corner

Today: Thomas Fritsch, the German character voice of Diego in Ice Age. I wonder how I could make my 12 calendar pics change automatically when the new month comes, such in my edit notice. - As said before, I wrote Vertraut den neuen Wegen thinking of you, RexxS, and was pleased to hear it sung again in a livestreamed service, opening the service opening the Ökumenischer Kirchentag  in Frankfurt, open air, with the skyline in the background. It seems the melody of the year, with "O komm, du Geist der Wahrheit" (Now come, you Spirit of Truth) sung to the same. Today is Pentecost Monday here, traditionally the day for ecumenical togetherness. Miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

June corner

Thinking of you, with some impressions of places, flowers and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

... and of User:SlimVirgin, whose last reply to me was in a thread Green for hope --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

July corner

July

Still thinking of you, and these flowers go well with the image on SlimVirgin's user page. I also think about making the template reminding of Precious a bot, in order of surviving me. How would I code questions such as:

  • Which users have an anniversary of the award, and how many years? Then for each one:
  • Did a user edit during the last year? (if not, no reminder necessary.)
  • Is the user banned or blocked? (if yes, possibly better no reminder, although I know cases where I'd defiantly do it anyway.)
  • Did the user opt-out being reminded? (which would have to be coded, and while some openly say so, some show just by deleting so it should be somewhat invisible/private)

I guess we'd need a better organisation of a table. Just thinking ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Music happens. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

More music: 2 songs, the morning song - about rising from being down, in more than one sense - is a GA, - there should be more given my initials, but I also want to care for articles of those who recently died (now Esther Béjarano), and psalms in memory of Yoninah, - more missing than there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

28 August

August songs

Today, Teresa Żylis-Gara, the second soprano to impress me on stage, died, - long live the memory of her beautiful singing, remembered with thanks. 28 August 2013 was a special concert day: look. After Hillbillyholiday gave me a tree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Gerda's September corner

September songs

Omas gegen Rechts - enjoy strong women! I thought of Yoninah on the first day of Rosh Hashanah. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

today: the day of bold red and black, for Dante who died 700 years ago, and Peter Fleischmann who died recently, leaving us films full of vision. Dante: just heard Inferno, imagined by a woman, the main character both speaking and singing with an inner 4-part voice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

On Peace Day, I thought of your User:RexxS/Infobox factors and wonder how you'd apply them to Mahler's Eighth Symphony. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

October songs

October songs

Thank you for {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Six}} which I call daily, several times. I'd like to control that the right image is not forced below something else on the right, such as an archive box. What can I do to avoid a separation of header and image in such cases. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gerda. As I thought about this question it reminded me of another question you asked (in March, as it turns out), because I thought I remembered answering you. Although the questions are actually somewhat different, the conclusion is, I fear, the same, as is the explanation.
Precious
years!
is implemented as an infobox, which is designed to (adamantly) be on the right (which puts it below any other elements trying to adamantly do the same thing). I know of no way to fix this, other than to rewrite or replace QAIbox. Sorry, but maybe somebody else stalking this page can help you more. (Edited)— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, answered, and sorry I didn't remember March. What I do is adamantly place a "clear" template before the QAIbox template if I see a right TOC or similar stuff. In the longer run - and I had hoped for help by RexxS - I want to no longer send the reminders manually. My idea is to send one for ten years (with a different image, not as large as for nine years), which produces the option of being notified in future years or not. In a longer run, all reminders might be sent automatically, and what would that take? Brainstorming. I miss RexxS much. And LouisAlain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
The automatic sending sounds like a neat idea, and I think it's a job for a bot, which is something I've never worked with. I've never even requested a bot run, but you could. Got to Misplaced Pages:Bot requests and click the "Make a new request" button to add your request to the list. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Good idea but would need preparation, for example by a better table, and probably some eyes on how it would be useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Working on the better table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hoping you will come back

RexxS, I sincerely hope that you will come back to Misplaced Pages. The very significant good things that you have done for the project, for which you deserve abundant thanks, really have very little to do with adminship, and much more to do with what you have to offer as the person you are. Please take as much time as feels right, but when you are ready, I hope to see you back here again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Sadly, that seems most unlikely. Misplaced Pages gets to keep the editors it deserves. What passes for Arbs these days, will realise, if and when they grow up, that “what goes around comes around,” which no doubt they will think is a Justin Timberlake song. Assuming one cares, it’s really quite concerning. Giano (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I dunno what to say, RexxS. Others will come here and say it for me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ;,( Atsme 💬 📧 03:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm very much saddened to find out what's happened here. Please know that I deeply appreciated your accessibility work and advocacy over the years. It was also great to get the chance to meet you in person at Wikimania back in 2012. I wish you the best for whatever you decide to do in the future. Graham87 07:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Such a disappointing outcome, but totally expected from that kangaroo court. You've been a great editor and hopefully at some point you'll be back helping fix the accessibility issue on here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Come back when you're ready. Being an admin is a worthless, thankless, pointless overhead on improving Misplaced Pages. The place is worse off without you. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Quoted from Antandrus: "May our lives be about kindness. ... You know what I like most about Misplaced Pages, ultimately? It gives stuff away for free. All our little ego-battles blow away in the wind. They're nothing. The articles remain." (February 2021) - My expectation for your return is slim. Why would you? I said before this last ego-battle that it wouldn't improve kindness, nor an article. So I'm with Bish here. See also, for diving in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I...was not expecting this. :( I hope you come back. Been fortunate to interact with you in person and I know what a great person and fantastic editor you are. Acalamari 10:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not happy about this. Yesterday I was improving Rocky Mount Instruments, thinking "This could do with an infobox to be consistent with similar articles, what's the best one to use and how should I mark it up. I'll ask .... oh wait, I can't, he's left". :-( I don't mind Arbcom trying out new things to make the overall arbitration experience better, but not putting ProcrastinatingReader as a party to the case was a major error, as it gives people the impression they can now dig up dirt on admins they don't like and haul them off to Arbcom without fear of boomerangs. And I don't even think PR wanted this, anyway. Ritchie333 12:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. Not holding my breath, though.... Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Take care. PackMecEng (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Wishing you the best - and I completely understand why you don't come back if you don't - nobody should ever have to be dragged through what you were and you will be missed. I'll do my best to try and keep editing because I don't think you'd want people to leave over your treatment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I do so hope that we shall see you restored to us. You really must not take these things too much to heart. The world is run by some very sad people, one just has to rise above. When one obstacle pops up, one just finds a way of overcoming it. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Much has been said which I cannot phrase any better. When and if you return, it will not only be appreciated by fellow editors who understand what value is yours to add to the encyclopaedia, but also by its readers, unbeknownst of what goes on within. Peace, RexxS. —Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Miss your level head and helpful guidance. You are missed and I hope you will return soon. The ArbCom case was a complete mess and there was absolutely no rhyme or reason to it. Montanabw 07:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • And that's why I don't like ArbCom. 🐔 Chicdat  10:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • So sorry it has gone this way. I hope we see you back again. Meanwhile stay safe. PamD 15:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There was a time, some years ago, when I thought that the arbitration committee, while not perfect, was substantially a constructive and reasonable group of people, doing on the whole a good job. However, times move on, and there is a turnover of members of the committee, and over the last few years they have, in my opinion, become more and more a bunch of useless fools. Maybe not yet all of them deserve that description, but any exceptions there may be are gradually disappearing. The RexxS case is just one more nail in the coffin of the respect that I once had for the arbitration committee. Stupid. Stupid. JBW (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm also sorry about the whole thing, but would like to remind you that most productive editors aren't admins and don't need to be. As an admin or not, it doesn't affect my view that you did a lot of useful work and still could if you decided to edit again. In any case, thank you for your contributions and I hope to see you around in the future. Meanwhile, have a happy break, —PaleoNeonate – 23:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Very sad to see this whole business. You are missed. SarahSV 01:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I wish you happiness whether here or somewhere else. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I can't say it better than JBW. Getting rid of one of our most dedicated and most valuable contributors and educators, for pushing back against individuals stubbornly refusing to adhere to consensus, is one of the most damaging things ArbCom has done for some time. RexxS, you've done far more for this project than most of those clowns will ever do in their lifetimes, and you certainly have my thanks for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we need people here who make things better - like RexxS. As Churchill wrote, sometimes it's a matter of KBO (for the greater good). Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • In the days since the ArbCom case closed, multiple members of ArbCom have, themselves, drawn attention for having done various things that were ill-considered and, arguably, not the best use of admin privileges. Oh, the irony! I hope that RexxS has the occasion to look in here, and see that. Maybe, some utopian day, Misplaced Pages will come to learn that everyone loses their cool on occasion, and that is not sufficient reason to make a federal case out of it. It's sufficient reason to calm the f—k down. But that probably won't happen. In any case, I think that recent events say more about other people, a lot of other people, than they do about RexxS. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Desiderata--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hope we'll see you back soon, RexxS. You are one of the good guys around here.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry to see this, You were a great admin and didn't deserve this. I hope you'll come back one day, In the meantime take care and I wish you all the very best. –Davey2010 10:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What a shame. Now, I can only recommend you to drop the negative thoughts, and then, focus on enjoying, relaxing and getting comfy, rather than trying to keep that attitude when it comes fixing others' wrongs, let alone Runglish tier typos. By the way; as promised (in COVID Positive section), I took 2 Gam-COVID-Vac jabs before 2021 started. I also managed to quit coffee addiction somehow. But! As for the possible reasons... I remember the heated discussions in Gam-COVID-Vac on Fall 2020 and I feel comme ci comme ca about the de-adminization, to be honest.
    • Rex, you indeed was X-Sessive a little: you showed an astronomical amount of determination to fix others' wrongs you have been showing before falling ill of COVID. I mean, you even had lengthy discussions on mere "a" vs "the" articles, on whether one should say "a spokesperson" or "the spokesperson" and such back then; that's a lotta energy you have been spending; let alone telling me and Motin how annoying WP:IDHT is.

Just treat this crisis as an opportunity to take a rest from many annoying accounties, and, plz, take it easy. Uchyot (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I have not clocked whatever it was that led RexxS to leave Misplaced Pages – yet another nasty ad hominen attack of the type that has driven so many top-flight editors away? – but whatever it was, I should like to add a belated comment that I found Rex thoughtful, helpful and kind and though we didn't agree about everything I shall miss him, as will so many other editors, as seen above. Please come back! Tim riley talk 20:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Tim riley: this particular ad hominem attack came from from on high. A very unfortunate business, but I remain hopeful that RexxS will be back to resume what he does best before too long.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Good grief! How wearingly familiar! Like Fram, Kudpung and other much needed star editor/admins felled by the Committee of Public Safety. Tim riley talk 21:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    yes, see? "If ArbCom want to review my administrative actions seriously and dispassionately, I'm willing to discuss and try to learn any lessons. But if they want to simply provide a forum for everybody who has ever disagreed with me to sling mud, and then take on the role of civility police, it's not a game I'm willing to play." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    What a shame. Yet another case of the ArbCom destroying an amazing editor. I'm seeing a pattern form with regard to these cases. I have read enough of them to know that not a single person involved in any of them can claim the high road. I've even had some "discussions" with a few involved in this case (not about this case) and can say, unequivocally, they think they are the Universe's gift to this Earth and nothing matters more than their own ego. I shall leave them unnamed because my intention is not to attack them, only write the truth as it is observed through actions. --ARoseWolf 13:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just found out you're no longer editing. Do whatever's best for you, but you're very much missed; you're one of the most knowledgeable and helpful people here. I hope to see you here again one day. All the best. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It was established on that Anthony Appleyard, who was with RexxS in Manchester (per this photo), was no longer with us since February 2022. I just hope the same has not happened to RexxS here at this moment. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Just stopping by to say Hi after editing one of the articles you started in the dim and distant past. Just in case you stop by sometime to catch up on anything. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 15:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:Randy in space

Misplaced Pages:Randy in space, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Randy in space (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:Randy in space during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Daask (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Category: