Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 3 June 2012

If it is more appropriate to comment on another talk page please do so and let me know. If possible can you please supply links to the topic in question. That will make it easier for me to follow up your comments. And please use a neutral tone when posting on this page otherwise the comments will be ignored.

The time here in Christchurch, New Zealand is: 12:09, 10 January 2025 NZDT .

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

George Gardiner (politician)

Where is the discussion that led to the removal of the "find an image" placeholder? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Here. Seems like a good idea to me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

space in line line with articles

I do not know why you added a space, but I've removed it here.Curb Chain (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I helps with sstyle and readability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends

• Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Misplaced Pages's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph

• WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology

• Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese

• Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits

• Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Uranium

Please reconsider your deletion, Rosie and I have moved it to Uranium mining in Namibia and removed most of the essay. Best solution would now be to delete the capital letter original title and close AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the night shift has been busy! The Afd is now closed and the original article name is deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

rm File:Replace this image male.svg per discussion using AWB

Hey Alan, can you point me in the direction of the discussion to remove the "Replace this image male" pics. Don't have a problem with it, just interested in the discussion! Ta. Mattlore (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is over here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, just after I asked that I noticed that link up in your earlier George Gardiner (politician) conversation. It looks like a conversation from 2008, so I'd be a little careful as using it as justification, especially as the conversation looked like it didn't end in a consensus. There is also a warning against using AWB to do these edits as they may be controversial. Like I said, I don't object to the changes but food for thought. Mattlore (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I was coming here with the same question (and remarks): could you, if you intend to continue with these edits, at least link to the discussion in your edit summary? Thanks. Fram (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been linking to the file which has the link. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather a user-unfriendly way of linking. Why not a direct link to the discussion you believe suppports these removals? Fram (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused why Alan wants to suddenly implement a proposal that gained some level of consensus over four years ago. And why, if he's so confident that it's what the community still wants, he doesn't request a bot to perform the changes rather than spend hour after hour making these changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tag moving

Hi, please can you explain a couple of aspects of this edit? Specifically, the moving of the {{more footnotes}} maintenance tag and the removal of the {{clean up}} tag. I recall seeing a discussion regarding whether the latter should be binned but have no idea of the outcome. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved the footnotes tag to the references section so it is less intrusive and removed the cleanup tag because I did enough of a clean-up of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. For India-related articles, experience tells me it is better that tags are as intrusive as possible, otherwise they almost never get improved and indeed often slide further backwards. As far as the clean up goes, yes, I noticed that you removed a lot of images etc. One of the problems with that tag is that it is pretty vague but in this instance the article probably needs to be stubbed. The tag was placed as a "shot across the bows", given discussions on the talk page and elsewhere. I may stub it later today because nothing has really improved since my efforts, other than your own, and I rather think that the major contributor has given up due to the extensive failure to comply with policy etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In my experience tags are ignored on all but the most watched pages on Misplaced Pages, regardless of topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Not by me, they don't! ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. You need a consensus to start summarily removing maintenance tags where they clearly still apply. Your opinion ("my experience") is entirely irrelevant. Leave the maintenance tags or cure the problems, don't just remove the tags. You should know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Category TOCs, etc.

What good reason do you have for removing helpful features such as tables of contents and category trees from large-ish Misplaced Pages categories? Your recent campaign to remove these features is not helping to improve the encyclopedia, and your edit comments at Category:Real estate even suggest that you are trying to make war. Please cease and desist -- all the better if you would self-revert your unconstructive edits. --Orlady (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. These are consensus supported. If you have a valid reason criticism of them, start a discussion somewhere centralized, but simply mass-removing it (particularly without an edit summary) is not acceptable. postdlf (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing TOCs is completely unnecessary. Just because you "like" it that way. I'd like to see a consensus on removing TOCs before you continue to blanket remove them with your mass edits. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I might reply once I recover from my fit of gasping disbelief. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure. Gasp away. But "your" version of Misplaced Pages needs people to believe in it. So far, so bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So why do I need consensus to do something that is a blindingly obvious improvement to WP? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Because, as I'm sure you know, your version of "blindingly obvious" isn't necessarily the same as everyone else. You have this weird tendency to find "something to correct" and go at it like a tramp on chips. It'd be better if you went with caution and when asked to stop or explain your actions, do so, rather than react petulantly with no regard to the project, other than your "interpretation" of what is right or wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Add me to the chorus. Alan informed me on my talk page that the cut-off for using Template:category TOC is 400 articles, which I disagree with. It makes more sense to me to use it when you have the category contents span more than one page, which is more like 200–220 in most cases. I trust there is no consensus on the professed 400-article "cut-off". Good Ol’factory 21:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"So why do I need consensus to do something that is a blindingly obvious improvement to WP?" - At what point will it become "blindingly obvious" to you Alan that what you feel to be "blinding obvious" is actually merely your self-asserted opinion?

But to answer your question: Now. You should start seeking consensus now.

At this point, after several WP:AN/I discussions, talk page discussions and the like, your opinions on these things are clearly contrary to prior consensus. And though consensus can change, you repeatedly have had it shown to you that consensus has indeed not.

In the not so distant future, someone may suggest that you continuing these arbitrary edits, the innumerable XfDs, and the like, may be considered disruptive.

I sincerely recommend that you refrain from future WP:BOLD edits along these lines and look for future consensus. - jc37 10:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan lay battered, bruised and bleeding in his own wikihome, weakened to such an extent that he was unable make even a single click of the mouse button. He had strayed into a wikihood inhabited by wikicrims who then followed him home and over a number of days proceeded to collectively dole out a sound thrashing. It was not the first time that it had happened, and Alans strong desire to fix Misplaced Pages means that it will no doubt happen time and again.

The wikigoons are unorganised but proficient in making their way around Misplaced Pages. They are not the Mafia or a cabal. They are a motley collection of childish editors, thugs, agitators, trolls, vandals, and others. Some are quite lucid in making their pathetic demands but others are hardly able to string together a line of wikicode. Others have been seen deleting content and doing other damage with that stereotypical goggle-eyed, drooling look of the wikivillage idiot. Some of the other editors meant well when they first settled in the wikicity but they saw the attractions of carrying out wikicrime.

The wikiethics of these crims are in complete contravention to the Five Pillars, and the goal of creating Misplaced Pages is of no interest to them. They have their own priorities. It is mostly of self-interest. The sense of power or having a bit of what they consider to be fun is what they want. Their anonymous usernames means they can wikioffend without fear of reprisals.

Misplaced Pages is no longer the Garden of Eden that it once was. Back in those halcyon days edits could be made with gay abandon, and the thrill of creating an online encyclopaedia was the ultimate and only aim. But sadly this no longer the case. As with the outside world the overpopulated wikiworld had a dark side that was slowly but surely devouring itself from the inside. The effects on Misplaced Pages content is beginning to show. The time taken up by admins and wikijuries and the valuable wikitime that editors wanted to use to make contributions was increasingly being taken up with unnecessary defensive actions.

Alan was one of the few a knights in shining armour in the project (many had already left), although his modesty would prevent him for seeing it that way. He would probably see it as an important volunteer job that needs doing at any cost. What kept him going was the satisfaction of a job well done, the hope that the good retired editors will return, and that a wikiarmy of good new editors will turn up. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for help concerning energy...

Hi,

I noticed your name mentioned on the Energy WikiProject page in connection with the development of energy articles.

There are a couple articles I'd like you to look at if you don't mind...

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Misplaced Pages's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Misplaced Pages's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:

• Outline of solar energy
• Outline of wind energy

Please take a look at them, and....

if you spot missing topics, add them in.

if you can, improve the descriptions.

add missing descriptions.

show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).

fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Misplaced Pages:Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Misplaced Pages) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Misplaced Pages) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking {{Main}} links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: see also Outline of energy