Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 5 August 2009

Archives

January 2008 | February 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | April 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I use WikiBiff to monitor my watched pages. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch the page. When you reply, WikiBiff will pop up an alert letting me know!

Mill Hill external links

Several unregistered users keep adding external links to Mill_Hill#External_links which i think are spam. Could you have a look at the history and see if we can do something about it. Grim23 (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 18:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Grim23 (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

De Baca County

What happened here: were there parallel De Baca County and DeBaca County articles? Thanks for fixing it, whatever was going on. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Back in November of 2006, someone started De Baca County, New Mexico by cutting and pasting the text from DeBaca County, New Mexico, and then turning that page into a redirect. What I did was a history merge, which merges the histories of the two pages together, so that all of the history of the page is in one place, and all of the authors are properly attributed. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 17:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Tothwolf

The user in question has "disinvited" me to post on his talk page but continues to post on mine. He's trolling me and he can go fish. Yworo (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, missed that one. Have you thought about seeking an outside opinion on the matter? Mikaey, Devil's advocate 02:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, there really is no "matter" at all, if you mean the POV pushing by Grandscribe, something with which Tothwolf is completely uninvolved (as I said, he's trolling). That case is pretty cut and dried. There is no problem whatsoever with describing Linux distributions as Free software. The problem is the context in which GS is doing it. There is a template which has a source model field. Source models are primarily open source and closed source. A source model only has to do with whether the source is released or not. Another related but distinct property of software is its license. The terms public domain, free software and proprietary software describe the license. These are license models, not source models. GS misrepresents me as removing material without support, but in reality GS is adding without either support or citation. He's also been making POV changes to related templates, etc. So... whatever... Yworo (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you look through the history of say Ubuntu, you will see that GS has been for days (weeks?) adding this, only to have one or another editor remove it with the explanation that it is not a source model. He's not attempted to discuss it on the talk page, but simply puts it back the next day, and the next, and the next, despite a clear consensus (based on the number of different editors reverting him on different days) that the placement of the term is not appropriate. Yworo (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you from what I've seen that you both are seeing each other as trolling the other one. I suspect, since you both seem to have similar interests, that you both have a lot of the same pages watchlisted, but Tothwolf sees it as you stalking him and edit warring on pages that he's worked on. I'd like for the two of you to be able to cooperate, and Tothwolf has admitted to me that he sees a lot of good edits in your contribution history, so I'm looking for ways to try to mend the differences between the two of you -- that's why I suggested using 3O to help settle those disputes. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 03:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer he just leave me alone. Yworo (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Substituting surname

As I noticed you seemd an expert with with listbot and defaultsort bot, any idea how you can {{subst: a surname in the page title to DEFAULTSORT sort the categories? Its just I have a large batch of biographies to transwiki and I want to do it more quickly. So basically when you create the page it automatically places e.g Fritz Baier as Baier, Fritz in the categories. If not I gather there is a bot that can default sort the categories by surname and fix it afterwards?

I'd imagine it is something like {subst:PAGENAME} but with a little programming to read the last word of the title and place it first. It would save a great deal of time anyway. WOuld you able to make a Template:REVERSEPAGENAME or something which places the last word of the title first? Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It theoretically could be done, but it would require the StringFunctions extension, which apparently isn't included in the version of the MediaWiki software that Misplaced Pages is using just yet. So, for the time being, I'd have to say "sorry, you're gonna have to do it by hand". Mikaey, Devil's advocate 09:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks, maybe they could do something about that.. Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the StringFunctions extension has been included in the current version of the MediaWiki software; my guess would be that it's disabled because it's too CPU-intensive. Oh well. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 09:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor then and ask BrionVibber if he could do something about it? Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Belated congratulations

Hi Matt. I wanted to belatedly congratulate you on becoming an admin! If I'd been aware of your RfA, I would've definitely offered my support. Just as well, though, since "66/6" is a much cooler statistic than "67/6", especially for someone who's apparently the Devil's advocate. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

hehehe, much appreciated. Thanks. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 01:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to XQuery page

I'm very confused by the changes you've made to the XQuery page. You seem to have reinstated an old version that's rubbish - it contains blatantly false statements like that XSLT 2.0 was developed by the XQuery Working Group, and has far less information that we had on the page until a couple of days ago. But I can't relate the current content of the page to the history - not being a Misplaced Pages expert, I really can't see what's going on. Mhkay (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was performing a history merge -- basically, taking the history of one page and merging it into another page. What happened is that someone cut the text out of XML query language and pasted it into XQuery. This splits the information about who contributed to the article into two different places, and is undesirable. Unfortunately, part of the process of performing a history merge involves moving one page on top of the other -- this makes the most recent version of the old page into the most recent version of both pages -- therefore, once the history merge is complete, the last step is to revert to the most recent version of the page before the history merge was started -- this is what you are seeing in the page history. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 04:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

I have posted on the Peter Damian 1 month block. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Well if I appear to be edit warring I apologize. I am doing my best to retire from wikipedia. REALLY. The article Libertarian (metaphysic) however could use some help. Since I can not find the term Libertarian (metaphysic) or Metaphysical libertarian anywhere in common use. Except here on wikipedia that is. If that is not Original Research then what is the proper Wiki term for such a phenomenon? LoveMonkey (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps neologism? I might suggest that, if you feel the way you do about the issue, that perhaps you submit the article to AfD. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 21:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thats it. THANK YOU. Again sorry for the other stuff.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey that got removed by the editor again. I tried to add an Afd but it appears to be messed up. Sorry...Could you please help, I dont think I have ever done AFD on an article before. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Hope this is the right one. Thanks for your help, you are most kind. And a good reflection on the community. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Mikaey, Devil's advocate 03:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey it looks like I lost the AFD. I tried, I was pushing for uniformity. Oh well win some, lose some. Thanks again.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

SC Vaslui

Hi! When you moved SC Vaslui to FC Vaslui, you apparently forgot to move the talk page in the process. I also noticed that there's another talk page for the same article at Talk:Sporting Club Vaslui. To make matters even move confusing, the Sporting Club Vaslui article itself was copy-paste moved into the current FC Vaslui article on 12 October. Would you mind taking a look at this mess? I think the two articles need a history merge, and the talk pages should be moved to the correct location. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well...whoops on my part. In my defense, it was 2 in the morning. I think I've got the histories sorted out, so all should be good to go. Thanks! Mikaey, Devil's advocate 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Subpage

Re the subpage you created, it contains a number of mistakes and some things are linked grossly out of context. I feel you are drawing premature conclusions from incomplete facts and I'm not sure that it is really fair or appropriate to do so. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf, I'm here to look at the facts. The fact is, you dug up an old version of someone's userpage and used it against them in an AfD, even though it had nothing to do with the AfD, and you didn't back away from that position, even after everyone else told you that you were wrong. The fact is, you made an issue out of a perfectly valid CfD, you accused the nominator (out of nowhere, I might add) of being POINTy, and even after everyone else told you to go through the proper channels, you instead went shopping for a better opinion. The fact is, you've had issues with multiple people (more than I had time to document), and there's a point at which, after you've had run-ins with so many people, that you have to stop looking at the other people as the problem, and instead look at you as the problem. I'll tell you straight out that you are not in good standing with the community, at least in my view. Your behavior needs to change, now. Here's my advice:

• Assume good faith. Not everyone is here to destroy the encyclopedia. If you come across an action that you think is questionable, assume that they did it for the right reasons and go from there.
• Stay civil. Even if someone has done something wrong, focus on helping them understand and improve on what they did wrong. Don't start name calling, even if it's not specifically directed at any one person.
• Use the proper channels. During the whole discussion on the WP user categories, I couldn't help but notice how many times people were telling you to go to DRV, and yet you never did. That really made me question what your motives were. If you want to get something done, most times, there are channels to get it done -- use them. Don't go forum shopping for a better opinion.
• And finally, don't be paranoid. I highly doubt that anyone is stalking your edits. Even if they are, it's not necessarily a bad thing. It would only be a bad thing if they were doing it to harass you, which they're not.

Mikaey, Devil's advocate 19:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mikaey, as much as I've always valued your objectivity, I believe you still do not have the full picture in regards to some of the things you included on the subpage and there really are a few mistakes in there as well.
I always Assume good faith initially but I will not blindly AGF when an editor has an obvious history of edit warring or disruption. Here is a recent example of where it absolutely made sense to AGF when a well meaning editor reverted an edit I made. However when an editor does things such as what I documented here then there is little to be gained by blindly AGF when it is quite clear that the editor is not willing to work with others. Note that I absolutely did initially AGF when this began, even after he and another editor had previously been edit warring (17 June - 30 June). The bottom line is I'm here to improve Misplaced Pages– not be a Fluffy bunny. It's unfortunate, but I do step on a few toes once in awhile, and I won't hesitate to call things the way they really are. This can make some people unhappy at times, but in the end I'm here to improve Misplaced Pages and that is what ultimately matters.
In regards to the AFD you mentioned, I noticed the stuff on their userpage because it was blank and I clicked on the last revision in the edit history. When someone includes what amounts to a manifesto on their userpage stating how much they dislike Misplaced Pages, how Misplaced Pages contains nothing but "misinformation", and contains statements such as "So, with that in mind, you will be unsurprised that I have no interest in moving up to administrator status, nor do I have a lot of concern over whether my edits or comments comport to any wikipedia-specific rules of etiquette. I really have no loyalty to the Misplaced Pages "community" whatsoever." then yes, that is absolutely going to raise some red flags. You really should read these two edits however, specifically points 3 and 4 of the second diff.
As for the WP user cats, there is a very good reason I dropped the issue when I did and did not pursue a DRV at that time. I did actually write up a DRV for these and I still have it saved away to eventually get those resolved. Because I feel this is still a sensitive issue for another editor, I do not wish to elaborate too much more on-wiki but I would be happy to discuss it off-wiki or via email.
Regarding stalking of edits, there was a very involved case of one editor doing just that to me not too terribly long ago (and we can always bring the admins who handled it into this discussion if need be) and that particular case happens to be very well documented. The most recent "edit stalking" I absolutely do believe was meant to harass, as there was little to be gained otherwise from either of these two edits: That said, I am hopeful that given the outcome of the AFD related to the first and the ANI drama related to the second that this particular editor has learned that following another editor around in this manner in an attempt to stir things up is probably not a very good idea. The second edit in particular to the talk page is absolutely in no way constructive towards resolving the issues that were being discussed and I stand firm in my assertion that it was solely meant as an assault to my character.
Btw, I would very much appreciate it if you would add a {{NOINDEX}} template to that subpage so that Google will not index it.
--Tothwolf (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf, stop trying to justify your actions. What you did was wrong, you were told it was wrong. Fix it. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 04:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mikaey, let's not start an argument over this, I'm simply describing it how it really is. You appear to be claiming that I do not assume good faith and that I'm uncivil but that most certainly is not true. While I occasionally make a mistake (we all do), each of the summaries you created as examples where you claim I "did wrong" are incomplete, appear to be quite once sided, and contain a number of errors. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, my perception of you are that you is precisely what you say above, that you "do not assume good faith and that uncivil". Yworo (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

May I point out that before you start pestering Tothwolf over some of this, you might want to address Theserialcomma (talk · contribs), who's been harassing and stalking him, at the same time. Whatever behavioral problems are there are aggravated specifically by TSC. Remove him from the equation and see if Tothwolf is as evil as you would believe. -Jeremy 21:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Histmerge list

I would like you to add an other condition to the list of conditions for the history merge list: That the xource page, prior to being redirected, had at least one author who did not create the first non-redirect version of the target. If this isn't the ase, then the target page would correctly be attributed to the author of that version even without the history merge, making it unnecessary. For eample, Aircraft '150' doesn't need to be history-merged into Aircraft 150. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought about this, but the problem with that (which I talked about here) is that, in some cases (and I'll admit, not very often), chain cut-and-pastes are performed -- e.g., article A gets cut-and-pasted to article B, then later on, article B is cut-and-pasted to article C. If I were to overlook cases such as the one you described, then the chain cut-and-pastes would be overlooked. However, with the way the bot matches articles currently, it would match article B being cut-and-pasted to article C; once that were fixed, it would later match article A being cut-and-pasted to (what is now) article C. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 07:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)