Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:12, 16 August 2013

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

RULES:

1. If you post here, I will reply here.
2. If I post on your talk page, please reply there. However, if you move the dialogue here, it will continue here.
3. If you make a query, and I do not respond within 24–36 hours, most often I am either busy, or do not care that much for your query and do not know how to refuse it.
4. The following are under no circumstances welcome to post here (or use the "e-mail user" function to communicate with me) and must communicate via an intermediary or else face certain reversion: HiLo48, N-HH, Chipmunkdavis

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Districts of Hong Kong may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |] (南}}) || align=right|275,162 || align=right|38.85 || align=right|7,083 || 6,563 / 12,335
• |}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sichuan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ] ({{lang|zh-hant|蘇洵}}, a poem and prose-writer of the Song Dynasty

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zigong may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• more boy birth (多福、多寿、多男子). Located along the Zigong to Neijiang expressway, about 20|km|abbr=on}} drive from the city, hiring a roundtrip taxi would cost about 50RMB.
• second largest sitting stone Buddha in the world. Located in Rongxian County, about 40|km|abbr=on}} drive from the city, hiring a roundtrip taxi would cost about 100RMB.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shunyi District may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] has its headquarters in Zone A of the Tianzhu Airport Industrial Zone (S: {{lang|zh-hans|天竺空港工业区, T: {{lang|zh-hant|天竺空港工業區}}, P: ''Tiānzhú Kōng Gǎng Gōngyèqū'') in the Shunyi
• Shunyi Campus: South Side, No.9 An Hua Street, Shunyi District Beijing 101318, China 北京英国学校（顺义校区)北京市顺义区安华街9号南院，邮编：101318" [http://www.nordanglia.com/beijing/images/doc_library/bsb/Map-Shunyi%

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Xicheng District may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *] (椿树街道）

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Mozarts 31st

Hi,

I was not engaged in 'drive by' tagging. As can be clearly seen the article is entirely based off one 48 year old book. That is not good enough and there has to be some more recent scholarship on the subject. The purpose of adding that tag was to alert readers (Just in case any of them could be bothered to contribute.) to that fact while I looked for more material to expand the article.Graham1973 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

China provinces infobox

Hi Guardian of the Rings! I'm not always a fan of {{Infobox settlement}} but I think its use as part of Template:Infobox Province of China (PRC) makes it an improvement over the previous, customised template. The previous version did not include a field for population references, or for the area, and instead it transcluded a fixed list of statistics, which in some cases were several years out of date. Additionally it did not support the {{Coord}} system for geolocation, and the various official languages were awkwardly bunched up together (though I noticed that you tried to fix this). For these reasons, I think it's better to continue to develop the template as a customised wrapper. Cheers,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. You see, {{Infobox U.S. state}} does not ascribe to {{Infobox settlement}} because they use Latitude and Longitude ranges, something we have no reason not to include for the PRC and will not fit in the template. {{Coord}} is not appropriate within the infobox for this reason. Secondly, {{Infobox settlement}}'s treatment of language transcriptions means that the one-character abbreviations are lumped together with the full native names, which is not ideal at all.

And you need to discuss on the template talk page first, instead of blindly reverting as if you had no functioning brain. GotR 13:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Blindly reverting as if you had no functioning brain? Of course the decision on whether or not to revert any changes is debatable, but what's with all the hostility? (Besides, you went on to revert every single one of my edits. Is the irony of that lost on you?)--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have already agreed to cease for the time being. Now if you wish to pretend dumb and not admit that you reverted my non-infobox related changes (collateral damage), be that way. It will only damage yourself; playing victim will only make you look more irresponsible. GotR 12:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked my contributions log and that was indeed the case. Sorry about that. Still, that's no excuse for spewing venom at me.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

I partially reverted your edit to List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. My reasoning is that every location has the country, the name of the place (usually wiki-linked except the most obvious - like Chicago), and a map coordinates. It is pretty easy for someone to find out more about a location using several methods. In my view, just the single name of the place keeps the list simple to look at. Adding the US state abbreviation creates an unwarranted difference in the list between US locations and other places, and not everyone is familiar with the US state abbreviations anyway. However, out of curiosity to see how it looked, I did try adding the full state name but there just wasn't room for it in the column. Astronaut (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to argue against the fact that most places on that list are not well-known nationally so it would be better to not force the reader to second-guess the subnational division or have to needlessly navigate to a link to do that. Some of these names are even non-unique/primary topic within their country. GotR 20:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CMA Weather

CMA does provide mean, record high and record low temperatures for Chinese cities although they aren't always presented in an internet friendly manner. So, I ain't sure why you feel it is necessary to remove those information when people managed to lay their fingers on them. 1.36.33.7 (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

For the extreme high and low temperatures listed by CMA, they are the extremes within 1971–2000 or 1961–1990. So this period of record is not at all lengthy enough for stations that have started keeping meteorological records since 1960 or before, such as 1932–present for Xi'an. Unless all-time extremes are present, the data you entered is rather meaningless. And please read {{Weather box/doc}} GotR 13:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zhejiang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ou River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

non-sock accounts

I understand your desire to not have your previous accounts tagged as sockpuppets as that may be perceived as inferring some degree of impropriety. However, since there appear to be quite a few accounts that you have used in the past, would you please provide a list of them? Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In order of retirement: Mathpianist93, Xiaoyu of Yuxi (formerly HXL49), and Tartanator. Before you ask around, I created this account when a one-week block on Tartanator (I will not go into that unless you ask) had not yet expired, but if you check, it was not created to repeat the actions that led to the punitive, after-the-fact block on Tartanator. Please take my word on these three, and if not, you may ask Amalthea for further information, but a CheckUser at this stage, since even Tartanator has been inactive for 20 months, would be ineffective. And thank you for not re-adding the tags.

My question for you is: if you had indeed checked the contributions histories of both accounts, then why did you proceed with the tagging? GotR 23:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It is appropriate to link the multiple accounts especially when multiple accounts have been blocked. You can do (and should have done) so per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Alternatively, they can be tagged by someone else as I did. Toddst1 (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you also User:Sinfonie non troppo?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It sure does look like it based on the time of creation and subjects edited. You've been blocked indefinitely for block evasion and sock puppetry in the context of the WP:BATTLE behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1, I think GotR should be given a chance to explain himself, after all there are ways to find out if multiple accounts were abused, like WP:SPI. I think an indef block is excessive until we know for sure what happened.

To GotR: if it turns out you were really using multiple accounts, I can only say I'm both stunned and disheartened. I asked you to reconsider your decision to retire because I believed you were a net positive for the project, but it looks like you never actually intended to leave, and the whole dramatic pageblanking was just an attempt to deceive us and make us feel bad for driving you away. I can't begin to understand what led you to pull off this charade, especially as your block had already expired and you could have gone back to contribute normally. I just hope that you will have a good explanation for this when you'll be back.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with an SPI, but this account passes the WP:DUCK test without having known about all the alternate accounts and the one used previously for block evasion. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to pretend here: My mainspace contributions will continue solely under Sinfonie non troppo, and I am not going to abandon this account now, since I would then have to re-earn my hard-earned autoreviewer and AWB rights for the second time. Just as what occurred with the creation of GotR, I had intended Sinfonie non troppo to be a WP:CLEANSTART; my chapter of Misplaced Pages history under GotR was over since Tuesday, and a new chapter has begun. Not only have I been up front about all my account usage, the act of block evasion has long passed, and, Underlying lk, you are right: an indefinite block on any former account is purely punitive, so I ask someone to lift them at once.

Underlying lk, could you explain how the blanking of my prior three user pages is dramatic especially when I had done the same the 19th of June? If you were referring to GotR's subpages, I don't think that bears any relevance here, and I have chosen to keep a few. If you were referring to the CSD {{db-author}} nominations of List of township-level divisions of Gansu, List of township-level divisions of Hunan, and List of township-level divisions of Inner Mongolia, the Gansu and Inner Mongolia lists were not ready to be touched for some time to begin with, and so it would be better to transfer the creation credit to my Sinfonie non troppo; Hunan is incomplete, and I have the prior source code saved elsewhere.

As Amalthea noted, there was no disruptive use to the creation of GotR. There is none for Sinfonie non troppo now. Bearing in mind the benefits to the encyclopaedia, Amalthea took no administrative action against me at the time, so do look up to him as an example.

I stress this: MP93 (discontinued June 2010), XofY (discontinued September 2011), Tartanator (discontinued December 2011), and GotR (discontinued this week) are all history now. I have no further incentive to keep on starting over because that means re-gaining user rights AND resetting the edit counter. From now on, ALL MY WORK will be under the name "Sinfonie non troppo". That's why you see no mainspace edits from GotR since Tuesday other than a CSD and PROD nomination for four articles GotR 02:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Almathea noted: "The Guerrilla of the Renmin account was created inappropriately since the Tartanator account had been blocked at the time. At this moment, I do not think that sanctions would be beneficial for Misplaced Pages. I urge Guerrilla of the Renmin to stick with this account now. As far as I can tell your current account is at least th fourth one you have used. In my opinion, further account switches will be received as a systematic and inappropriate attempt to evade scrutiny." (from the link GotR provided). The ANI that resulted in "Tartanator's" block, the "discussion" on Tartanator's talk page from here , and the creation and use of another account to avoid the block are all instructive. More than "same problem, different day", this is a case of "same problem, different year".

I was feeling a twinge of guilt thinking that if I had brought GotR to administrative attention back in February when the red flags went off in my head, he might have been steered in the right direction. I see now that that would have been futile, though it might of saved a lot of wasted time and vitriol during the last six months.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

GotR you replaced your user page with a large RETIRED banner, and there's no misunderstanding the meaning of such gesture, it doesn't mean "I won't use this account but I'll set up another one". You knew what that meant when you received my message asking you not to leave and you just played along with it even though you had already switched to "Sinfonie non troppo". You deceived us without having any reason to do so.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The core issue here is the allegations of the abuse of multiple accounts. Please address the points I made in my response at 02:53 UTC as rigorously as possible. The rest can (and should) be dealt with after the WP:SOCK allegations have been resolved.

@Underlying lk, you are correct that I misinterpreted the meaning of {{Retired}}. It has been removed to eliminate confusion and will not be re-added unless I am leaving this project indefinitely, which is a possibility here.

@Wikimedes, this edit summary seems far-fetched, as I only asked for the consideration of what loss this encyclopaedia will face if the lifting of all sanctions applied to me related to the socking accusations is not done. However, I must say if I had brought GotR...when the red flags went off...he might have been steered in the right direction. You're absolutely correct there, and the implementation of the 4-day block, never mind the excessive length, could only serve to remind me, to put it in simplest terms (what else I have learned I stated in my unblock request), that even those editors as prolific as Dr. Blofeld, are not invulnerable when they "go berserk" on other editors. And since you mention that case, I would like to present my version of the events and highlight what may have been overlooked in the Tian'anmen ordeal of November/December 2011: 1) The repeated cries of censorship. 2) I initially objected to this addition because I felt it was making Tiananmen Square look as if it were only renowned the world over due to the 1989 protests. I stupidly reacted to this edit summary ("Reverted censorship") by blanket reverting (failing to check the actual content of the diff), and again. 3) I had clearly indicated, that, because of the support of inclusion from two users (User:Jiang and User:Kanguole) who I hold the utmost respect for, that I would remove my objections to including the Tian'anmen content. And a simple check of Beijing#History shows that it is still there, despite my having edited there numerously since then. GotR 04:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

And I would like to remind all to read this, taking special care to note the "How X failed" and "I will avoid like the plague". As a result of this winding discussion over what essentially was WP:TPG, my 2nd request was probably not read thoroughly. GotR 05:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Retired as in no more contributions outside of userspace". Your words. If you changed your mind and want to go back to editing outside of userspace, maybe you should try the unblock template, as it doesn't look like you will be unblocked otherwise.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Again I failed to explain myself properly. What it really meant was "Retired as in no more contributions outside of userspace ". If you check contributions under GotR after the 13th, they have all been within userspace. You remain correct that as a person, I have not yet truly intended to confine myself to userspace or cease all Misplaced Pages activities whatsoever.

As for the likelihood of being unblocked without using {{Unblock}}, there are other channels. You can be assured I won't e-mail multiple sysops, though. GotR 13:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Having a glance at WP:SOCK for a moment, and I've come to ask - were these actions of his all done with malice and bad faith in mind? Having a look at when each account began and finished editing, it seems that there isn't any case of GotR using multiple accounts at the same time, or attempting to gain an upper hand against someone through the use of multiple accounts. This might be a case of someone simply choosing to cease one account, and start afresh. Having a look at WP:CLEANSTART, it is said that a user can start over and not touch on topics that they previously participated in. From memory, I remember that HXL49 used to participate in certain political topics, however in recent years GotR hasn't touched them at all. Could it just be that they genuinely are interested in the whole "clean start" process, but just happened to stumble across a few problems along the way?

Many of GotR's previous actions on the Misplaced Pages project have been problematic and disappointing, and has led to various conflict between him and other editors. However, people tend to change as they learn from previous experiences, and I trust that in future GotR may choose to make the correct decisions, and become an entirely different person to whom he was in the past, completely disassociated with his poor behaviour from earlier on. Yes, it can be argued that he should not have jumped from account to account because our policies discourage it, however to what extent does the spirit of having a "clean start" remain an available choice for someone like him, or for anyone? One may argue that someone may wish to "avoid scrutiny" by leaving an account, however that only holds valid if they continue to engage in the same behaviour which led to the scrutiny of their previous account. If we allow GotR to continue under a fresh account, his actions in the future will demonstrate to us, as a community, whether or not he is deserving of a block or removal from the project altogether. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)