Misplaced Pages

User talk:Alex Bakharev

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex Bakharev (talk | contribs) at 02:20, 6 May 2007 (→Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab: explanation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:20, 6 May 2007 by Alex Bakharev (talk | contribs) (→Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab: explanation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives:


Do you know this plugin?

Hi Alex,

Just wonder what this new Ajax plugin was implemented throughout the Misplaced Pages with popup boxes for the links to articles, history and so on? Could you tell the name of that plugin?

Another question, could I implement my own plugins in Misplaced Pages enabling their via monobook.js? How could I upload them? I have noticed that all modifications of my scripts could be blocked if they disturb the whole server (I've seen the issue at your bot implementation).

And finally, how those signature scripts are impemented as those guys Swatjester, Radiant use? I know how to create this signature, but how to write the template of signature which would be implemented each time as I type four tildes? Or they don't use templates and do it some other way? Vlad fedorov 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot for WikiProject NASCAR

I love what the bot has done for WikiProject Wisconsin, and I have used it regularly to screen new articles for the past few weeks with great success. Thank you for your work writing the bot - It has been extremely helpful!

I would like to have the bot also screen the new articles for WikiProject NASCAR. There's some inital rules to start with and tweak from there:

  1. Any article with the word "NASCAR (Nascar/nascar)" should get automatically included.
  2. Other key strings that should automaticlly be included are all the sanctioning body's major series (including alternate names in parenthesis): NEXTEL Cup (often nextel cup or Nextel c/Cup), Busch Series (Busch Grand National), Craftsman Truck Series, Canadian Tire, Whelen Modified, Whelen Southern Modified, Mexico Corona, Mexico T4, Dodge Weekly Series (Whelen All-American). Please include those with and without capitalization of the first letter in the string.
  3. Any article in a child category of Category:NASCAR.

I ask you to setup and code the rules. I added your talk page to my watchlist, so please respond here to coordinate. Thank you very much! Royalbroil 02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

New aricles for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classroom coordination

Do you think the bot can deted pages of students, educators and such? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

Dear Alex Bakharev, I write asking you to reconsider your closure of this move request. I'm sorry about the lenght of this post.

Yes, the raw numbers show 14 users wanting to keep the article name as "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" (with 6 of them even contemplating using "Arvandrud" for the title), and only 8 users wanting to change the article's title to "Shatt al-Arab".

But all the arguments expounded to mantain the name "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or use "Arvandrud" (and I do mean all, without a single exception) disregard or blatantly contradict our current naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines.

On the other hand, all arguments given to change the name to "Shatt al-Arab" reflect our current naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines (which ask us to simply reflect common English usage, which in this case clearly is "Shatt al-Arab").


The whole list of reasons to use "Arvandrud" in the title:

1). "Arvandrud" is the historically correct name.

First, it contradicts the idea that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be descriptive, and not prescriptive; with article titles merely reflecting common English usage, and not determining what the "correct, right, fair" name is or should be.
Second, the affirmation is supported by this link, stating that " ARVAND-RUÚD name given to the river Tigris in some passages in the Mid. Pers. books and a verse in the . The use of this name to designate the began in the later Pahlavi period and persisted after the revolution of 1978-79."

2). "Shatt al-Arab" is a modern term.

Our naming conventions ask us to reflect the terms commonly used in English-language publications, regardless of how modern or ancient that term is.

3). "Arvandrud," being the older name, should take more precedence over "Shatt al-Arab".

Our naming conventions make no mention whatsoever about "older names taking precendence over newer ones".

4). The river had been named "Arvand" centuries before Arabs came to the region.

Same as before.

5). "Shatt al-Arab" (Waterway of Arabs) term laden with ethnic, political and territorial overtones.

Again, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be descriptive, and not prescriptive.
And, if this argument were to hold water, it would imply that all country, nation or ethnic-mentioning terms should be discourage (is "English Channel" a horrible term laden with ethnic, political and territorial overtones ?). This clearly is not what our current naming conventions require.

6). This is an Encyclopedia and we should clear the truth, even if the reality is not the popular term used currently. Our job is to put the right term in common usage and not to follow the wrong one.

Again, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be descriptive, and not prescriptive. Our job is exactly the opposite one. Misplaced Pages should not aim to "correct" what we may percieve as "wrong, biased, unfair" English usages.

7). These are two local names which are used in English, yet neither is English.

It contradicts the fact that our naming conventions require that we reflect common English usage, making no exception for "non English names".
Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names): "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them;"

8). Per controversial names "if an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain."

Let me stress "and there is no good reason to change it". In this case, following our naming conventions by reflecting common English usage is a good reason to change it.

9). There clearly is a dispute over the name.

There may be a dispute among Arabs and Iranians over what the "correct" name of this river is, but there's none in English-language publications, that favor "Shatt al-Arab" by an overwhelming margin.

10). This river is a border line and it is considered one of the reasons if Iran-Iraq war that had near 1 million casualties. So it is very irresponsible to use only one of the names that Iran or Iraq use.

How would that argument correspond to our naming conventions ? Does that mean that all articles on border lines in which wars have been fought ought to use double names, irrespective of which one is commonly used in English-language publications ? I can't find that anywhere in our naming conventions.

11). It is an editable encyclopedia, if we choose only one of the names every once in a while someone comes and changes the name to the other one and it never becomes stable.

Not a real problem. If anyone comes and changes the name without following the proper procedures and against what our naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines state, it can be reverted as simple vandalism.

12). When 2 countries disagree on the name of one place and both of the names are accepted by international community as formal names we can't remove one of them and leave the other and the best order is alphabetical order.

Please, show me what part of our naming conventions support this argument :-)

13). Google books which is scholarly material is pretty close in hit results.

Actually, a Google Print search yields ca. 927 books using Shatt al-Arab (or Shatt el-Arab, Shatt ul-Arab), while only ca. 40 books using Arvandrud (or Arvand, Arwand).

14). Our naming conventions state that "in a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed."

Well... that only applies if editors fail to reach consensus on how our naming conventions apply to an article (not an unusual occurance :-). However, in this case the clause it is being invoked as if "disregard and blatant contradiction to our naming conventions" would equal lack of consensus. That is not true: all policy and guidelines-based arguments show a clear, unanimous consensus in favour of moving the article to "Shatt al-Arab".


So, in the end, the discussion has not been about how our naming conventions policy and its associated guidelines apply to this article, but about whether they should apply or not. About whether the article should be named in accordance to policy or following the personal wishes of Iranian editors.

  • If the discussion was a vote on whether or not to apply our naming conventions policy to the article, then the result is a clear lack of consensus for the application: 14 editors voted to disregard policy, and only 8 editors voted to follow policy.
  • If the discussion was about how to apply our naming conventions policy to the article, then the result was a clear, unanimous consensus for "Shatt al-Arab".

So, Alex Bakharev, I ask you to reconsider your closing of that discussion :-) If you want to give me a personal answer, please, do it here, in your talk page, to mantain the conversation in one single place. - Best regards, Ev 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alex. I take your silence as an indication that you won't take a second look at that decision. Could you at least explain your reasons for considering that the discussion resulted in a lack of consensus ?
This issue is currently being discussed at the administrators' noticeboard, in its "Requested move to Shatt al-Arab" & "At what point do guidelines trump straw polling?" sections. - Best regards, Ev 15:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


    • Yes, I would not reconsider the closing. Both side put strong arguments. The strongest for the status quo been that the river was a war zone and we should avoid any editing that makes us appear as we take sides. The strongest argument for the Shatt al-Arab is that it is much more widespread usage than Avandrud, Avans Rud or Avand River. Fifteen wikipedians voted for keeping the status quo while only eight voted to change the name. There were no obvious sock or meat puppets. To change the name we need some supermajority for the change (it used to be ~60-40% requirement). Thus, I closed the voting as no consensus. Personally I would prefer something like Shatt al-Arab (Avand River) but it was not on the table Alex Bakharev 02:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot/ChileLog

I can't figure out what's wrong with the rules. The phrase:"Article The Obscene Bird of Night matched rule \Wchile\W 8 points" appears in Chilelog, however the rule "Chilo" does not appear in the log, despite of that the word "Chiloé" is included in the article. Thanks for your time, Jespinos 03:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

my RfA

Hi Alex, thank you very much for all your support during my RfA. It is very much appreciated. Errabee 18:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Poland-related Misplaced Pages notice board

Would you not agree that a clear reason should be given for posting this on the Polish Noticeboard (and not on any of the other noticeboard)? What is the evidence of any connection here?

I don't remember being involved in any controversy lately, but seeing such cryptic message on a page I read regularly and not knowing what the hell it is about (like most of the others who read that page) makes me nervous. Balcer 02:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Answered on the board Alex Bakharev 02:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You still have not explained. Snowballing is clearly a bad thing, there is no debate about this. But why should this be brought to particular attention on the Poland Noticeboard? Balcer 02:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Because it is the only plausible explanation for almost simultaneously negative votes of almost all the active participants of the Polish board. To the best of my knowledge Errabee did not edited Polish-related articles much, nor did he was involved in POV-pushing on other Eastern European articles. Alex Bakharev 03:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What defines "almost all" for you? I did not vote at all, User:Lysy voted in favour. I see four familiar names that voted oppose (out of 31, or just over 10% of the oppose vote). A quick look at the history of the noticeboard shows that more than 4 active users participate. Your "almost all" comment has no leg to stand on.
If there is a problem here, it affects just those 4 users, not "Polish Wikipedians", or all people interested in Poland. The appropriate venue for the comment at issue should have been the talk pages of those four people. Not a national noticeboard.
I renew my call for the removal of that entire thread. Balcer 03:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Second. But the thread should stay, for future generations to read and learn :) An apology to the noticeboard would be nice, though - our close to 30 members who certainly didn't snowball one way or another may appreciate it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)