This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Stop it.
If you again remove both indents and para breaks from my post, it's ANI time.
You are way out of line. This is your final warning. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
Do you see the last sentence? Do you see the link to MOS:LISTGAP? Do you see the phrase "avoid disruption of screen readers"? That is precisely what I have been doing.Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance) ...
restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible.
At present, I feel flooded by people dying, with no articles or in bad shape, and try to improve for decency. To come Krzysztof Penderecki, which makes me shudder ... too much to do, and in the end he will still be without infobox again ... Perhaps I better write again on a composition, or improve Polish Requiem ... - Before: Thomas Schäfer, prematurely on the Main page - what do we know? - and already vandalized within minutes. Can you please keep an eye on it, and protect if it gets worse? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
FR removed this comment from his talk page. It's his talk page, so that's fine. Except, if he is actively discussing me I feel I have a right to respond, hence this notification. Note this is a different comment then the one you already referenced.
Removed comment Volunteer Marek 01:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why but my comments where removed from FR's page as well: [5], [6]. As such, I think it is impossible to have a discussion in that venue. I am not sure if RexxS will appreciate us coming over here, but I don't know what other place would be better. AN(I) are... not known for being the most friendly places to work such things out. Sigh. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Both that definition and the wording of Wikipedia:broadly construed are clear that the purpose of a topic ban is to remove disruption of that topic, and related topics, from the encyclopedia. I seriously doubt whether it was intended to prevent an editor saying anything about topic bans in general or in a given case. It would be quite difficult for an editor under a sanction to ever come back from that if they were forbidden from discussing the sanction itself. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase " broadly construed".
Regarding the recent discussions you've had with FR and others, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to summarize them, briefly, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GizzyCatBella. Or at least mention that the parties are talking to one another. Errr, if talking is really what is happening here. I don't envy you trying to deal with this. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed in the reference section of Willa Brown there are tiny graphics depicting a government source, and opinion source. I've not seen that before today...or did I drink too much wine for lunch? Atsme Talk 📧 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I wish to point out to you what I'm dealing with.
François Robere just altered his comment after I already replied to it.
[12]. I asked him not to do that
[13] because I honestly worry that other people who read my reply might see it now differntly and they might be deceived... or my answer might be even used by FR in some other case against me he might initiate. So I asked him not to do it, especially because he was just asked the same by you.
[14] Instead, François Robere removes my plea from the entire conversation
[15] with this edits summary:
You made it clear that you don't want to address my questions or take part in the discussion, so what are you complaining about?
I explained what my problem is when I asked him. This is very frustrating and very stressful for me. I'm dealing with persistent block efforts, denunciations and quate a rude behaviour that I don't think anyone deserves. People want to edit is peace and enjoy being Wikipedians, but ever since Icewhiz and François_Robere appearance it is nothing by hell to me, to the point that I'm seriously thinking of retiring.
GizzyCatBella
🍁 22:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the alternation is related to my topic ban.
[16] A few months from now nobody will remember (including me) that I was answering the questions that didn't have any mention of WW2 in Poland and it might be used agains me. See what I mean? These tricks are too much for me to carry. I'm so tired of it... I hope you understand, and sorry for taking more of your time..
GizzyCatBella
🍁
22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
<del>...</del>
for <ins>...</ins>
for insertions. Visually, most browsers will render <u>
and <ins>
the same, but to a screen reader, they are voiced differently because they differ semantically. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk)
13:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
<del>...</del>
and <ins>...</ins>
tags are also special in that they may be used to enclose one or more block elements, such as paragraphs, whereas <s>...</s>
and <u>...</u>
may only be used inline - such as part of a paragraph. See HTML 5.1 spec
section 4.6 Edits. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Hi RexxS. I'm always happy to review my comments for civility and other behavioral issues, and even for tone to help de-escalate a situation. Just let me know. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 17:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines."and despite your contention to the contrary, I believe that in my support !vote I addressed the policies and guidelines of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:DUE. The majority of other editors also took the time to explain their reasoning and the policies they relied on.
"Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.There is an implied onus on both sides of these sort of questions to (
"suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns."I would be content with many alternative formulations and wording which met the goal of accurately summarising in the lead the conclusions of relevant reliable sources as expressed in the body of the article. I would be more than happy to see some wording alluding to simvastatin being placed on the WHO EML because of its cost-effectiveness due to its relatively low cost. Would that be a compromise that the three oppose !voters would accept? But I've yet to see an suggestion from those of you opposed for an alternative solution or compromise that may satisfy all concerned.
"I'd rather just go to ArbCom. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)"to be a constructive comment while an RfC clarifying issues is still ongoing. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"I've made one comment at WT:MED that you don't likeand the same irrelevant comment three times further at Talk:Simvastatin. It's actually difficult to move a discussion forward when there are multiple interjections designed to disrupt the debate. Now you should see why I brought it up. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi RexxS! I have created my own version of {{ ICD11}}, called {{ ICD11 WP}}. It links to chapter pages instead of the WHO's website. I hope you like it!
I have also created ICD-11, {{ ICD-11 MMS}}, and Chapter 1. It's all still in its infancy, but it's on the right track.
It actually took me a while to get {{
ICD11 WP}} to work. I wrote the code in
ZeroBrane Studio, and I thought I could just copy-paste it to Wikipedia with little modification. Alas, it refused to work, and it took me about an hour to discover mw.text.trim
, which I eventually found by carefully inspecting your code of
Module:ICD11. If you want to laugh at my torment, feel free to take a look
here. :-)
What I was wondering: is it possible for Wikipedia modules to invoke the functions of other modules? I'm asking because, currently, {{ ICD11 WP}} does not check if an ICD code is correct. Maybe it could use the database of your module. We could also create some kind of central module which both our scripts use. Like this:
I've made a general thread about the ICD-11 at WT:MED ( link).
Cheers, Manifestation ( talk) 19:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
local code2link = require("Module:ICD11")._code2link
local identifier = code2link(icdcode)
{{#invoke:Error|error|message=This is an error message.}}
→ This is an error message.local err = require("Module:Error").error
local errmsg = err( {message = "This is an error message"} )
-- errmsg now contains the html error message and can be returned to the calling page or whatever
Plate of cookies | |
This is for your work on {{ ICD11}}, your creation of Module:ICD11, and your good help with creating my own little ICD template. Thanks! Manifestation ( talk) 21:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC) |
The IP that changed Uebert Angel's date of birth to 1998 geolocates to Mozambique — a fan, I suppose. What a lot the 22-year-old prophet has achieved in his short life, including founding the Spirit Embassy ministry at the age of nine! Anyway, thanks for still keeping an eye on that pesky article. Bishonen | tålk 21:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC).
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Stop it.
If you again remove both indents and para breaks from my post, it's ANI time.
You are way out of line. This is your final warning. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
Do you see the last sentence? Do you see the link to MOS:LISTGAP? Do you see the phrase "avoid disruption of screen readers"? That is precisely what I have been doing.Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance) ...
restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible.
At present, I feel flooded by people dying, with no articles or in bad shape, and try to improve for decency. To come Krzysztof Penderecki, which makes me shudder ... too much to do, and in the end he will still be without infobox again ... Perhaps I better write again on a composition, or improve Polish Requiem ... - Before: Thomas Schäfer, prematurely on the Main page - what do we know? - and already vandalized within minutes. Can you please keep an eye on it, and protect if it gets worse? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
FR removed this comment from his talk page. It's his talk page, so that's fine. Except, if he is actively discussing me I feel I have a right to respond, hence this notification. Note this is a different comment then the one you already referenced.
Removed comment Volunteer Marek 01:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why but my comments where removed from FR's page as well: [5], [6]. As such, I think it is impossible to have a discussion in that venue. I am not sure if RexxS will appreciate us coming over here, but I don't know what other place would be better. AN(I) are... not known for being the most friendly places to work such things out. Sigh. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Both that definition and the wording of Wikipedia:broadly construed are clear that the purpose of a topic ban is to remove disruption of that topic, and related topics, from the encyclopedia. I seriously doubt whether it was intended to prevent an editor saying anything about topic bans in general or in a given case. It would be quite difficult for an editor under a sanction to ever come back from that if they were forbidden from discussing the sanction itself. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase " broadly construed".
Regarding the recent discussions you've had with FR and others, I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to summarize them, briefly, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GizzyCatBella. Or at least mention that the parties are talking to one another. Errr, if talking is really what is happening here. I don't envy you trying to deal with this. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed in the reference section of Willa Brown there are tiny graphics depicting a government source, and opinion source. I've not seen that before today...or did I drink too much wine for lunch? Atsme Talk 📧 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I wish to point out to you what I'm dealing with.
François Robere just altered his comment after I already replied to it.
[12]. I asked him not to do that
[13] because I honestly worry that other people who read my reply might see it now differntly and they might be deceived... or my answer might be even used by FR in some other case against me he might initiate. So I asked him not to do it, especially because he was just asked the same by you.
[14] Instead, François Robere removes my plea from the entire conversation
[15] with this edits summary:
You made it clear that you don't want to address my questions or take part in the discussion, so what are you complaining about?
I explained what my problem is when I asked him. This is very frustrating and very stressful for me. I'm dealing with persistent block efforts, denunciations and quate a rude behaviour that I don't think anyone deserves. People want to edit is peace and enjoy being Wikipedians, but ever since Icewhiz and François_Robere appearance it is nothing by hell to me, to the point that I'm seriously thinking of retiring.
GizzyCatBella
🍁 22:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the alternation is related to my topic ban.
[16] A few months from now nobody will remember (including me) that I was answering the questions that didn't have any mention of WW2 in Poland and it might be used agains me. See what I mean? These tricks are too much for me to carry. I'm so tired of it... I hope you understand, and sorry for taking more of your time..
GizzyCatBella
🍁
22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
<del>...</del>
for <ins>...</ins>
for insertions. Visually, most browsers will render <u>
and <ins>
the same, but to a screen reader, they are voiced differently because they differ semantically. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk)
13:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
<del>...</del>
and <ins>...</ins>
tags are also special in that they may be used to enclose one or more block elements, such as paragraphs, whereas <s>...</s>
and <u>...</u>
may only be used inline - such as part of a paragraph. See HTML 5.1 spec
section 4.6 Edits. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Hi RexxS. I'm always happy to review my comments for civility and other behavioral issues, and even for tone to help de-escalate a situation. Just let me know. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 17:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines."and despite your contention to the contrary, I believe that in my support !vote I addressed the policies and guidelines of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:DUE. The majority of other editors also took the time to explain their reasoning and the policies they relied on.
"Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.There is an implied onus on both sides of these sort of questions to (
"suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns."I would be content with many alternative formulations and wording which met the goal of accurately summarising in the lead the conclusions of relevant reliable sources as expressed in the body of the article. I would be more than happy to see some wording alluding to simvastatin being placed on the WHO EML because of its cost-effectiveness due to its relatively low cost. Would that be a compromise that the three oppose !voters would accept? But I've yet to see an suggestion from those of you opposed for an alternative solution or compromise that may satisfy all concerned.
"I'd rather just go to ArbCom. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)"to be a constructive comment while an RfC clarifying issues is still ongoing. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"I've made one comment at WT:MED that you don't likeand the same irrelevant comment three times further at Talk:Simvastatin. It's actually difficult to move a discussion forward when there are multiple interjections designed to disrupt the debate. Now you should see why I brought it up. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi RexxS! I have created my own version of {{ ICD11}}, called {{ ICD11 WP}}. It links to chapter pages instead of the WHO's website. I hope you like it!
I have also created ICD-11, {{ ICD-11 MMS}}, and Chapter 1. It's all still in its infancy, but it's on the right track.
It actually took me a while to get {{
ICD11 WP}} to work. I wrote the code in
ZeroBrane Studio, and I thought I could just copy-paste it to Wikipedia with little modification. Alas, it refused to work, and it took me about an hour to discover mw.text.trim
, which I eventually found by carefully inspecting your code of
Module:ICD11. If you want to laugh at my torment, feel free to take a look
here. :-)
What I was wondering: is it possible for Wikipedia modules to invoke the functions of other modules? I'm asking because, currently, {{ ICD11 WP}} does not check if an ICD code is correct. Maybe it could use the database of your module. We could also create some kind of central module which both our scripts use. Like this:
I've made a general thread about the ICD-11 at WT:MED ( link).
Cheers, Manifestation ( talk) 19:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
local code2link = require("Module:ICD11")._code2link
local identifier = code2link(icdcode)
{{#invoke:Error|error|message=This is an error message.}}
→ This is an error message.local err = require("Module:Error").error
local errmsg = err( {message = "This is an error message"} )
-- errmsg now contains the html error message and can be returned to the calling page or whatever
Plate of cookies | |
This is for your work on {{ ICD11}}, your creation of Module:ICD11, and your good help with creating my own little ICD template. Thanks! Manifestation ( talk) 21:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC) |
The IP that changed Uebert Angel's date of birth to 1998 geolocates to Mozambique — a fan, I suppose. What a lot the 22-year-old prophet has achieved in his short life, including founding the Spirit Embassy ministry at the age of nine! Anyway, thanks for still keeping an eye on that pesky article. Bishonen | tålk 21:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC).