Revision as of 15:51, 22 May 2013 editObiwankenobi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,991 edits →Now what: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:31, 22 May 2013 edit undoObiwankenobi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,991 edits →A beer for you!Next edit → | ||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
:Thanks, and no problem with enabling. It's always after yesterday's noon, so no worries!— ] (]) 15:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | :Thanks, and no problem with enabling. It's always after yesterday's noon, so no worries!— ] (]) 15:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
== And, just like that, swords drawn again == | |||
But it will be ok :) --] (]) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:31, 22 May 2013
Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Tricky categorization
This one Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_11#Category:Sacred_mountains (and the whole sacred sites tree, which I think is cool and useful) really gets at the heart of some of the points you (and Wittgenstein) have been raising. There is a of fuzzy logic of category membership - at what point does a mountain like Mount Kailash become "sacred" enough to merit categorization (e.g. thousands of pilgrims visiting each year to circumambulate in prayer), vs just "sacred b/c its big" (e.g. Mount Denali, where many people who once considered it sacred have been scatttered to the winds of time). Perhaps this is an unanswerable question, or at least one not solvable with this system. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Reply to your post
Perhaps the source does not mention the total population in 1997, but the 1990 data shows a population of 31,xxx and the 2000 data shows a population of more than 33,000, thus the 1997 population could not be much lower than 33,000; plus, I stated that this is an "approximate" estimation. I believe, there was no need to remove my changes.Ethnic and religious statistics belong to the category of demographics. Since the section was filled with 2000 and 2010 statistics, it was reasonable to use the data in the beginning to avoid confusion. Please reply back. User: Ari777m 8:00, 12 May 2013 (UTS)
- I'm moving this to the article talk page and will reply there. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? You are using words wrong and you are not engaging on the talk page. Every one of my edits is in line with WP:BRD. Not so with yourself, LGR. You're not engaging on the talk page and you're evidently not clear on the meaning of the words you're putting in the article. If you think I'm being disruptive take me to a noticeboard or else hush up. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have to warn you first before taking you to a notice board. Consider it done. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)- seriously? WP:DTTR dude. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have to warn you first before taking you to a notice board. Consider it done. little green rosetta(talk)
Pointy editing at Feminism
Look at the timeline. 1) I remove NPOV weasel word word "perceived" 2) get it reverted, being told that's a totally valid word. 3) make WP neutral by putting it on both sides 4) After having THAT also reverted, try to get discussion going to we're treating everything fairly. I'm not "disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point", I'm trying to make things even. It's not my fault there's 2 different sets of rules going. If I was trying to disrupt I'd be reverting at least one of the reverts, not trying to reach consensus on talk pages. You should be joining the Talk:Men's rights movement discussion and supporting my view since you also agree it's a weasel word, since "It can be true whether or not there is discrimination as long as the people doing the advocating are advocating against it. A kid down the street from me has a t-shirt that says "No unicorns." The kid is advocating against unicorns, n'est ce pas?" --TheTruthiness (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I do agree with you but I'd rather chew off my own foot than edit MRM articles. Feel free to use my argument there if you want to, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
STOP DELETING AND VANDALISING PAGES!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitechristian2013 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It'd be better if you'd calm down and discuss the additions you want to make on the article talk pages.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPN notice
I have recently filed a inquiry at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard which directly involves some actions you have taken recently. I believe I have represented the actions and concerns fairly, but if I have unintentionally misrepresented your position please correct me. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think you explained it well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Deletion Discussion re: Robert Clark Young
Hi there. I didn't realize there HAD been a deletion discussion. It occurred and was closed all in a few hours? Can you point me to it? I didn't mean to re-add the tag inappropriately. It should be noted, however, that if he IS notable, it's mostly for the Misplaced Pages scandal, and various earlier revenge stunts. NaymanNoland (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Clark Young. You can renominate it, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
makeover of White privilege - use a sandbox?
Given the major work that needs to be done, perhaps it would be best to create a sandbox and work offline from the live article with a few people from various points of view and then when there is agreement on a particular portion, bring it to live space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good idea. There's so much nonsense in there that it's hard to see how to shape it. Would you care to start one?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Another one that needs help
Just came across this one Robert_Bidinotto - seems like one of the writers bios that was targeted by Qworty. The author himself recently came back and restored some material. It's not that bad, but it still is mostly unsourced. If you have spare cycles, it could use a cleanup and sourcing if you're interested. Also FWIW, I think you did good work on the Young article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
IPv6 address capitalization
I added to the Unsigned template documentation that a username or IP address is case-sensitive, thus fixing for the future the problem you ran into in Talk:Feminism#Marriage and other missing topics. Thanks for your work. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I went back and checked again: One address form omitted "0:0". Whether there's a case problem with the template or not, assuming both forms of the IPv6 address have the same meaning when transmitting through the Internet and identifying nodes, probably MediaWiki doesn't assume the latter and so it redlinks. Oh, well. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
... and administrators
You appear to have read my mind with this edit. Also, thank you for the encouragement. Optimom (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, and keep up the good work!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit war
Your are edit-warring at User:Qworty. I suggest that you be careful. I'm sure that you have been around long enough to know that edit-warring is unacceptable, and may lead to being blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning, JamesBWatson, although I don't find it to be so clear-cut a case. You are ignoring WP:BRD, which I'm sure you've been around long enough to have read. Why don't you engage on the talk page. Edit summaries are not sufficient in a contentious case like this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, I was not ignoring BRD, which is not BRRRD. Anyway, i think the current version, due to Ironholds, is better. It is in line with common practice in such cases, and it removes a user page which is no longer relevant, as the user is no longer on Misplaced Pages, explains the reason for the removal, and does not make contentious statements or do anything that might, rightly or wrongly, be seen as grave-digging. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you and Ironholds seem to have me confused with whoever put those links on there. I am opposed to the links. I did not put the links on there. Ironholds has replied over there, so why don't you join the discussion about whether the page should be blanked. I'm assuming you're talking about "grave-dancing"? If so, you're badly misreading the edit history of that page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, I said "anything that might, rightly or wrongly, be seen as grave-digging". Referring to reading the edit-history is irrelevant to that, as how something might be seen by someone looking at the page is not influenced by the history of that page. I did not suggest that I thought it was grave-digging, and I am sure it wasn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Who's doing things that might be seen as "grave-digging"? What do you mean by "grave-digging" in this context? I thought you meant "grave-dancing," but I guess just don't understand. Will you please consider joining the conversation on the user talk page about whether or not to blank the page? You and Ironholds both claim that it's common practice but (a) it's not policy, and (b) this is a special case in which "standard practice" doesn't seem to carry much weight.19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is in no way a special case. We are a neutral entity - we should not treat users any differently because the rationale for their ban got media attention. We should treat them the same as if the press had remained completely ignorant. Ironholds (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Who's doing things that might be seen as "grave-digging"? What do you mean by "grave-digging" in this context? I thought you meant "grave-dancing," but I guess just don't understand. Will you please consider joining the conversation on the user talk page about whether or not to blank the page? You and Ironholds both claim that it's common practice but (a) it's not policy, and (b) this is a special case in which "standard practice" doesn't seem to carry much weight.19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, I said "anything that might, rightly or wrongly, be seen as grave-digging". Referring to reading the edit-history is irrelevant to that, as how something might be seen by someone looking at the page is not influenced by the history of that page. I did not suggest that I thought it was grave-digging, and I am sure it wasn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you and Ironholds seem to have me confused with whoever put those links on there. I am opposed to the links. I did not put the links on there. Ironholds has replied over there, so why don't you join the discussion about whether the page should be blanked. I'm assuming you're talking about "grave-dancing"? If so, you're badly misreading the edit history of that page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, I was not ignoring BRD, which is not BRRRD. Anyway, i think the current version, due to Ironholds, is better. It is in line with common practice in such cases, and it removes a user page which is no longer relevant, as the user is no longer on Misplaced Pages, explains the reason for the removal, and does not make contentious statements or do anything that might, rightly or wrongly, be seen as grave-digging. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Now what
So, I'm not feeling consensus for an RFC as per the question you posed, but there does seem to be a growing consensus around the solution Neonorange asked me for in the comments thread (i.e. Option 1), and in practical terms, that consensus has already been enacted by several categorization machines - leaving only 75 or so novelists left in the head category - most quite famous - which is a rather odd result that needs dealing with. The question you posed has been widely advertised, but since there isn't support to do an RFC (or at least, not one on American novelists), what do you think should be done? Should we ask a non-involved admin to come and close the conversation in a few days, and provide a judgement of what should be done as a result? Do you want to let it sit there as is for another week? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I feel as if your complicated proposal was essentially an RfC, and not one that was so easy to understand. I don't think that the fragmented process that took place on that page supports a formal closing either. It seems like an RfC in the guise of a discussion about why not to have an RfC. I'm at a loss as to what to do. I feel as if it'd be a big mistake to rely on the opinions of your categorization "machines" to decide what categories people go in, and I think your strategy of explaining the categorization system over and over again is not helpful. Readers don't understand it because it doesn't actually make sense in the context of real life. For more on this, see What Should We Do About Misplaced Pages, especially the section entitled "The Trouble With Wikipedian Categories." Maybe the solution is to have a higher level RfC, maybe at the level of Category:Writers or Category:novelists or whatever the parent of Category:American writers is. I'm out of ideas, but I can tell you that from the standpoint of readers who care about literature, diffusing Category:American novelists into ill-considered subcategories, whatever they are, is a big mistake.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't intend it that way - Neonorange asked a question, I responded, and then people started !voting on it... But we can't do an RFC on that, it would need to be reformulated in a neutral fashion - but if we did do an RFC, that would go against the consensus above, which was to *not* do an RFC just on the novelists. So, I guess I'm at a loss too. What I'd suggest is this - there seems to be rough consensus around the diffusion, at least among those who have showed up so far - even two who were previously somewhat opposed to the idea, like Neonorange, and 99% of the diffusion has not been contested by any editors watching those articles. Why not just ask someone to close it out, ask those protecting the remaining novelist bios to drop the stick and allow full diffusion, then meanwhile you and others work on a broader Writer-level RFC, which does seem to have some support - from me, from Carwil, from a recent entrant, etc. If non-diffusion is the outcome, it's easy for a bot to fix. But those 75 remaining novelists should not just hang out there, if an article gets written about that it will be even harder to explain why they're there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm against having a formal close on that discussion because it was not the kind of discussion that should be formally closed. As you say, it was not neutrally worded, and even though you widely and neutrally advertised it, by that time it was too hard for newcomers to follow. If you didn't intend it to be an end run around having an RfC, maybe you could voice your support there for having an RfC on a higher level category, we could get consensus to do that, and then have a discussion about the wording of it. You could ask those diffusing the novelists to drop the stick and get a bot to undiffuse them all up to the novelists categories. That would be a gesture of good faith, in line with the consensus on the CfD discussion on American women novelists, which I feel represents more of a consensus than that abortive thing on the category talk page, and would look great to outside observers without explanation (since you seem to want to take that into account). That would put us in a position where things would look good no matter how long it takes to figure out what to do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting, but that's not what I'd support. I proposed my way out over at the American novelists category page, please share your proposal (soon), and we'll see if others have ideas. Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, fine to notify again - to Biography, literature, novels, I forget where else. Can you do it? cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, do you know of a bot that can do this? it's possible in theory, I just don't know which bot we should ask to do this job. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's the least of our worries. We'll ask on the bot owners board. I don't know how to write interfaces with the API but the rest of the algorithm for this even I could write, so someone over there will be able to do it. I will notify. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I notified a bunch of WikiProjects. Are there other places besides Project talk pages that one usually notifies?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've sometimes individually notified editors who have been deeply involved in discussions - trying to not take account of any positions they might hold so it is neutral - but I think probably most of them are watching by now. It would probably be worth it to notify JPL, Xezbeth, and Nikki Maria, as they have been doing most of the moving back and forth. Also perhaps a note at the Filipacchi article, since that's where it all started? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I notified a bunch of WikiProjects. Are there other places besides Project talk pages that one usually notifies?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's the least of our worries. We'll ask on the bot owners board. I don't know how to write interfaces with the API but the rest of the algorithm for this even I could write, so someone over there will be able to do it. I will notify. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm against having a formal close on that discussion because it was not the kind of discussion that should be formally closed. As you say, it was not neutrally worded, and even though you widely and neutrally advertised it, by that time it was too hard for newcomers to follow. If you didn't intend it to be an end run around having an RfC, maybe you could voice your support there for having an RfC on a higher level category, we could get consensus to do that, and then have a discussion about the wording of it. You could ask those diffusing the novelists to drop the stick and get a bot to undiffuse them all up to the novelists categories. That would be a gesture of good faith, in line with the consensus on the CfD discussion on American women novelists, which I feel represents more of a consensus than that abortive thing on the category talk page, and would look great to outside observers without explanation (since you seem to want to take that into account). That would put us in a position where things would look good no matter how long it takes to figure out what to do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't intend it that way - Neonorange asked a question, I responded, and then people started !voting on it... But we can't do an RFC on that, it would need to be reformulated in a neutral fashion - but if we did do an RFC, that would go against the consensus above, which was to *not* do an RFC just on the novelists. So, I guess I'm at a loss too. What I'd suggest is this - there seems to be rough consensus around the diffusion, at least among those who have showed up so far - even two who were previously somewhat opposed to the idea, like Neonorange, and 99% of the diffusion has not been contested by any editors watching those articles. Why not just ask someone to close it out, ask those protecting the remaining novelist bios to drop the stick and allow full diffusion, then meanwhile you and others work on a broader Writer-level RFC, which does seem to have some support - from me, from Carwil, from a recent entrant, etc. If non-diffusion is the outcome, it's easy for a bot to fix. But those 75 remaining novelists should not just hang out there, if an article gets written about that it will be even harder to explain why they're there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I was gonna write a punchy summary for you, but then I figured, you'd be all over it :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- What do you think of my proposal for format? Maybe it'd be better to have separate sections for supporting different fixes, i.e. ===Support Fix 1=== and so on, with invitation to people who add new fixes to add new sections for support statements?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's fine as you made it. I doubt tons will join in, people are kinda sick of this I think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, then in the interest of efficiency I'll just make it permanent. Maybe you could move your comment on my fix into threaded discussion section to keep things clean and I'll reply there?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- ok did that. Also can you notify TruthKeeper88, I think she's retired but she may want to have a vote on this. actually, to be neutral, you should just re-notify everyone who actually !voted on the RFC proposal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, then in the interest of efficiency I'll just make it permanent. Maybe you could move your comment on my fix into threaded discussion section to keep things clean and I'll reply there?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's fine as you made it. I doubt tons will join in, people are kinda sick of this I think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Logo
Hi
I think it's {{PD-textlogo}}
, you know - also available at File:Wikipediocracy logo.svg Begoon 13:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI
I've filed Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipediocracy on your behalf. Cheers, and thanks for writing the article! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks! I saw your edit summary and thought about doing it, but it was too daunting.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipediocracy logo
Thank you, image licensing is not my strong suit. :) Optimom (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jesus, mine neither. They have all those bots running against the images and it's really hard to figure out what they want. I get about six of those notifications for every image I upload. As you can see from a note further up on this page, Begoon really figured out what was necessary.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Things that at a distance, resemble flies
This made me think of you for some reason: --> User_talk:Lquilter#my_favorite_category_of_all_time (and LQs response), then check out the category discussion, and the other about Buddha on same page. Borges would very much enjoy. CFD these days is really wonderful, some real gems being cooked up, and then placed before us CFD-junkies to be savored.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
A beer for you!
I just wanted to send this your way, to thank you for your though-provoking ideas about categorization, and your good work as a defender of the wiki in general, and moving towards a civil-way-out on this categorization mess. We don't always (or rarely?) agree, but I appreciate your insights nonetheless :) I hope I'm not enabling you by sending you a beer, so please don't drink it until after 12pm your time. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks, and no problem with enabling. It's always after yesterday's noon, so no worries!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
And, just like that, swords drawn again
But it will be ok :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)