Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:43, 22 October 2006

Cladistics coding

Did i once see a way to write in a bit of code and wikipedia would do some wizzy work and produce a taxonomy tree? Something similar to the <math> function. Did i see this, or was it just an experimental thing? chris_huh 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a go at it here: User:Pengo/clad and had a rant about it here. But it's a pretty miserable attempt. The best thing is still is to make one from scratch in Inkscape or something. —Pengo 09:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more of a wikispecies kind of thing? --SB_Johnny||_books 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fauna_of_the_United_States_by_state_and_its_subcategories up for deletion

All US "fauna by state" categories have been nominated for deletion. I think this would be of interest.

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_13#Category:Fauna_of_the_United_States_by_state_and_its_subcategories

Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the usage of sub-categories of Category:Biota by country

I am trying to get a discussion going on the Flora of <region>/Forna of <region>/Biora of <region> caregories.

Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of regional bird lists

Please comment on the move and reversion jimfbleak 05:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

This talk page has been archived. Feel free to reintroduce any topic that needs more discussion. Also, someone else needs to list the topics of that archive in the archive TOC. pschemp | talk 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As Long As Brya Keeps It Up And Wikipedians Keep Supporting Her Battles By Hiding Them From Newcomers, This Section Needs More Comment

Please do not post on my talk page

- - Keeping me involved in this is simply seen by Brya and her supporters as an invitation to continue personal attacks on me to guarantee that only Brya be allowed to dictate how the Botany community on Misplaced Pages is run. Any responsible new editor to Misplaced Pages Botany will see their duty to correct misinformation Brya has sent through Cyberspace with the Misplaced Pages stamp on it and will start changing them. Then, after they have made hundreds of edits, many to Brya's false references, fake groups ("APG III"), and spurious remarks about time frames, they will be personally and falsely attacked for their low number of edits in a vicious and disingenuous manner by Brya until they leave. - - If you attack newbies for their low number of edits you are doing far worse than biting them, you are outright giving them notice that Misplaced Pages does not welcome newcomers or want the contributions of anyone who cannot spend all day and all night contributing. - - The Botany pages at Misplaced Pages need a lot of work to be useful to the Cyber-community. Until they have been attended to they should come with warnings about potential misinformation. - - And, as long as Brya is in here personally attacking people, even while being blocked, they should come with warnings that newcomers will be personally attacked in a visious manner by Brya and her supporters for their contributions. - - And, by the way, to the Dutch-Brya supporter, Brya introduced spurious references to APG II in the Dutch Misplaced Pages also. - - The Misplaced Pages Botany community has worked hard over the past year to maintain Brya as a high contributor of personal attacks, point of view, and edit wars. Well, keep Brya, then. But warn newcomers of the potential consequences of attempting to contribute to the plant community on Misplaced Pages and warn Cyberspace communities that use Misplaced Pages about her speculation, point of view and false references. - - KP Botany 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC) - - :I can only say I am entirely mystified by this. Most of what I know of User:KP Botany is that he made quite a number of edits on Talk pages, many of them angry and frustrated in tone. All the personal contact I had with this user are these , , , , , , , before he went into an all-out attack on me. In these attacks he expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction about my conformance to APG II, but never entered any specifics. All that is available of his familiarity with the subject matter are these edits on Chloranthales and Nymphaeales, which confuses APG II with the APWebsite which just about the worst beginner's mistake anyone can make. When this was pointed out to here and subsequently he clearly had great difficulty in understanding this and finally went into what is close to a tantrum. - - :I have not made any personal attacks on KP Botany, although I did echo his personal attack on me in his own words. I have not made any reference to his edit count whatsoever, although now I am invited to it looks to me that Amborella trichopoda and are the only places where he added new material in a plant article (this is not based an extensive search). - - :As to the Dutch wikipedia, first of all it looks to met that this is a matter for those who contribute there. Secondly, the situation there is different as the Dutch standard flora has gone over to (a variation of APG II): I am making my edits there based on the Dutch standard flora, which is available in bookshops and libraries all over the country. I have not heard anybody pointing even the least discrepancy between the flora as printed and my edits. - - :As to the Misplaced Pages Botany community's eforts towards me, I am in a better position to judge this than KP Botany, and I do not recognize the picture he paints. For that matter I have yet to see him point out any "speculation, point of view false reference" provided by me. Brya 13:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - - ::Brya has a very selective memory. After all, it was Brya who made the "worst beginner's mistake" of calling the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website the "APG-companion site" (see here and here), and it was precisely this sloppy (and that's being charitable as some might call it outright erroneous) phrasing that confused and misled KP Botany in the first place. It's just unfortunate that none of us caught this earlier but it does illustrate a point several of us have been trying to make: Brya's text is often badly worded, even misleading, and could use some major cleanup and clarification. Unfortunately such cleanups and clarifications sometimes have to be fought tooth and nail with Brya, as the edit war (see particularly here) over "hundreds, if not thousands, of common names in hundreds of languages" in the Botanical name article demonstrates. As I pointed out in my edits to that article, we should not be adding speculation and assumptions to Misplaced Pages articles. - - ::I would also note that KP Botany's "personal attack" quoted by Brya was actually a complaint against me on my talk page (where I thought he was overreacting a bit although I bit my tongue), and did not specifically accuse Brya of anything except to indirectly refer to the "Brya issue" (which I took to mean the edit warring and general bad blood). Brya managed to turn this around into a direct and very personal attack against KP Botany. - - ::BTW, wasn't Brya specifically asked to refrain from editing any pages other than her own talk page and the arbitration page, as a condition of unblocking? MrDarwin 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - - :::I think Brya should have a little leeway when it comes to posting here, since people are indeed talking about him. While I certainly don't feel confident of a positive understanding being reached in this matter, it's better to try and fail (one more time) than not to try at all. --SB_Johnny||_books 16:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - - ::::Brya was unblocked specifically so he could comment on the arb case and told not to post anywhere else but that and their talk page. The block was to prevent these sorts of arguments from continuing while the community makes a decision, and Brya's inability to abide by even that one simple polite request does not show much willingness to negotiate anything. Since Brya violated the conditions of the unblock, she has been re-blocked. No leeway should be given when a user can't even control themselves for one day. pschemp | talk 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - - :::::I understand that, but he (Brya is a genus, btw) might not, because up til now the conversation has been on this page. (Again, I support a permanent block, but if we're giving him a chance, then we should give him a chance). --SB_Johnny||_books 17:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - - ::::::How could he not understand it? It was spelled out specifically by CBD on his talk page. IF he didn't understand, he should have asked. Sorry, but Brya's understanding of English is not so poor that he can't ask for clarification. Ignorance is not an excuse in this case. pschemp | talk 17:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - - :::::::If I understand the heading correctly, "Please do not post on my talk page" was addressed to Brya. Brya unwisely responded. This whole section belongs on Brya's talk, not here (WP:POINT comes to mind), but since it's here rather than there, the response is understandable. Again, I don't think the arbitration is going to go anywhere other than a ban, but since arbitration is the way things are now, it doesn't make sense to block him, unless the arbitration is just going to be decided without his input. --SB_Johnny||_books 18:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - :::::::::You may want to note that the arbitration was filed against *ME* not Brya. And, he's had a chance for input. Often times in theses cases, if someone is blocked and needs to comment they put their comments on the talk page and someone else copies thme over. Blocking doesn't stop input. pschemp | talk 21:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - ::::::::::I'm not saying you did anything improper. Please bear in mind that my first post was in response to MR Darwin, not you (in fact I wasn't aware that Brya had been blocked again). --SB_Johnny||_books 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - ::::::::KP Botany's comment was not addressed to Brya, it was addressed to all of us. KP Botany chose to drop out of Misplaced Pages and did not want to be involved in any further discussions about Brya. I think KP Botany overreacted (one thing I have discovered is that one needs a fairly thick skin to edit on Misplaced Pages) but I certainly understand his frustration. MrDarwin 21:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - - ===Please move these sections=== - - The Brya/KP_Botany-related topics on this page are rather nasty, and do not reflect well on the TOL project (heaven forbid a newcomer should arrive and see this!) I ask for consensus for moving these discussions to a subpage: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/The troubles of October 2006. This stuff really doesn't belong here. - - *Support - as nominator --SB_Johnny||_books 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - *No support: Archiving this page will accomplish pretty much the same thing, and this entire talk page has gotten much too long and is ready for archiving anyway. Most newbies will not go reading through the archives, but if anybody is so interested that they do, I think they should find this discussion and know what transpired. MrDarwin 12:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC) - *Disagree Just archive normally. This section is linked to arbcom request but moving it smells like hiding it.pschemp | talk 14:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC) - - == An Apology == - - I apologize to everyone at Misplaced Pages for my contributions which allowed this to continue, including to Brya. The fact is that Misplaced Pages is bigger and more important than Brya. Most people get this. The Misplaced Pages community as a whole should consider just how much energy should be devoted to those who don't get this versus how much energy can better be devoted to continuing to make Misplaced Pages one of the world's great collaborative projects. - - KP Botany 18:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Brya's personal battleground resumes

What Brya has said throughout since this began has a quality indicated precisely by this statement of Brya's:

"I have not made any reference to his edit count whatsoever, although now I am invited to it looks to me that Amborella trichopoda and are the only places where he added new material in a plant article (this is not based an extensive search)."

This is what Brya posted on her talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Brya&oldid=82440499

"The block, in a middle of a discussion, on a false (not to say fabricated) pretext, of a user who made some forty edits in the past six weeks (mostly on Talk pages) because he is an immediate danger is telling. Some people are very afraid of the facts, indeed. Brya 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)"

Brya is clearly insulting me for being a newcomer, "40 edits in the past six weeks". Please tell me, how many edits is a newcomer required to make? Is Misplaced Pages about edit counts? Is it about biting the newcomers and scaring them away? Or is it an encyclopedia?

Everything else that Brya has said about me is every bit as inaccurate as her comment that she did not make "any reference to his edit count whatsoever." It's all every bit as false.

No matter what Brya says or does. No matter how many policies Brya doesn't support at Misplaced Pages (NPOV, NOR, Don't Bite the Newcomers, No Personal Attacks, Verifiable information only (there is NO WAY to verify an entity that does not exist), ), Brya continues to demand that her repeated violations of every single one of them be excused for a million reasons. Even while specifically blocked from posting anywhere but her talk page and the arb page, Brya has excuses as to why she should be excused for not supporting that block against her.

This is nothing new from Brya, it has been going on for over a year:

"Kindly explain yourself - why "extreme POV", and what urban legend? And why do you have to be so confoundedly rude to other editors in your edit summaries? - MPF 22:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)"

Even Brya's supporters took a minute to post nasty personal attacks on my talk page and elsewhere about me, because like Brya they subscribe to the "one can't be good, unless another is bad" school of thought.

And Brya may not have started the Paleodicots page, but Brya introduced everything that was wrong with it--a FALSE reference to APG II, as false as the references to APG III? Maybe not that bad, but instead of simply admitting an error, Brya used my inexperience against me--another way of biting a newcomer--to turn the argument to something entirely different.

Brya created what was wrong about the page. The fact remains: what was FALSE in the article was 100% introduced by Brya.

So, one year of edit wars, personal attacks, rudeness, original research, personal point of view, false references and making up an organization that doesn't yet exist, being uncivil, creating entities, nonverifiable sources? What happens? Brya is still rampantly supported by people on Misplaced Pages. I asked her supporters to point out what good Brya has done. None could be bothered to offer anything, possibly because they were too busy personally attacking me.

This is what Misplaced Pages with Brya IS: pages and pages of acrimonious hostile accusations, mostly made by Brya, personal attacks, edit wars, rudeness, fake entities. As long as Brya is here this will be the focus of Misplaced Pages Botany: discussing Brya. Because Brya will never stop, no matter what. And Brya established this without a doubt by posting on the WP:ToL discussion page when being explicitly told not to post anywhere but in the arb page and her talk page.

How much clearer can it be to Brya's supporters that Brya will NEVER stop fighting every one else on Misplaced Pages who ever disagrees with any Bray-owned and controlled encyclopedia page? Brya is contrary to the mission of Misplaced Pages.

Brya posted an insult about my being a newcomer, then denied it, once she saw the potential for my not arguing it. And I, like many people at Misplaced Pages will never have the energy for this battle that Brya has. Never.

And WP:ToLers are worried that a newcomer should see this? You have a responsibility to report that all newcomers should be prepared to be attacked by Brya, viciously attacked, attacked and insulted for being a newcomer, attacked in edit summaries, attacked on Brya's talk page, attacked on WP:ToL after Brya has been blocked from posting on it, attacked for their English, attacked for their edits, attacked for their failing to worship APG II so much they imagine APG III, attacked for taking the same tone that Brya takes, and being told that the page should be archived because someone besides Brya ever talked on Misplaced Pages just like Brya has been allowed to powerfully and without restraint talk to and about other editors for over a year.

And still, other editors support Brya, support allowing Brya to continue this, support Brya after obvious bad faith when given the least leeway to post in 2 areas only, support every single disruptive thing that Brya does, support Brya's attacks of newcomers for being newcomers and then come over and personally attack the newcomer on the newcomer's talk page.

And given this chance, the least leeway that Brya supporters urge Brya be given, what does Brya do with it? Insults me for being a newcomer, then lies about insulting me for my low edit counts as a newcomer?: Me, a user who made some forty edits in the past six weeks," then while denying ever insulting me for my edit counts, insults me for being a newcomer with a low number of edit counts:

"I have not made any reference to his edit count whatsoever, although now I am invited to it looks to me that Amborella trichopoda and Balanophoraceae are the only places where he added new material in a plant article (this is not based an extensive search)."

A simple 2 minutes in my contributions will show that this is clearly false. Brya has eons of time to support everything Brya says, generally as falsely as this claim that Brya did not insult my edit counts, but not 2 minutes to verify what Brya is posting?

This level of disruption isn't vandalism? By whose standards?

Here are quotes and comments from the long term vandal reporting pages at Misplaced Pages at what vandalism on Misplaced Pages is:

• repeatedly personally attacked users,
• personal attacks and harassment,
• POV pushing,
• ban evasion,
• Inserting hoax information into specific articles,
• POV pushing on subjects,
• Personal attacks and harassment,
• Adding false information,
• promoting false information,
• adding fake he wishes were real,
• refuses to abide by Misplaced Pages policy,
• refusal to cooperate with others in editing,
• reversal to his own edits,
• POV-pushing, personal attacks, and unwillingness to cooperate with his fellow editors

Brya is a vandal. Always has been. Continues to be one while being banned.

KP Botany 21:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)