Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ralbot (talk | contribs) at 08:43, 11 January 2008 (Signpost delivery using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm barely active, but I will occasionally check in. You will still find me lurking here and there, but expect major delays. Hopefully this will change in a few months.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Writing system articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 1 3 GA 3 3 3 3 12 B 16 83 93 186 18 396 C 17 79 99 230 29 454 Start 4 134 354 1,013 66 1,571 Stub 2 22 487 49 560 List 2 12 14 411 1 8 448 Category 324 324 Disambig 12 12 File 27 27 Portal 1 1 Project 6 6 Redirect 10 26 59 179 274 Template 424 424 NA 4 92 96 Other 6 6 Assessed 42 324 616 2,390 1,072 170 4,614 Unassessed 1 2 3 Total 42 324 616 2,390 1,073 172 4,617 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 14,258 Ω = 4.75

GR TFA

Please see my Talk for a last-minute problem & request. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh

Ikiroid, I notice you are active on the talk page on article and wanted to ask if you could take a look at this please: Talk:Gwoyeu_Romatzyh#Suspicious_Picture_Change.... Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the main thread, I've taken care of it. Thank you for letting me know. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Three Or Four Times?

Read your message on Persian Poet Girl's page and couldn't help but point out . . . Aaadonta. :) There are others, but this is the only one that doesn't have spelling variations (that I know of). -WarthogDemon 23:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The unpleasant procedure salpingooophorectomy is another (though I suppose that's usually ...o-oo...). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Gah, alright, I challenge you to find a word with three consonants in a row! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You must mean the same consonant repeated 3 times—otherwise it's pretty easy. Did you have something like Invernessshire in mind? (It's usually spelt with a hyphen after the 2nd s.) I'm sure there are others. I imagine you know the Ogden Nash poem:

The one-l lama,
He's a priest.
The two-l llama,
He's a beast.
And I will bet
A silk pajama
There isn't any
Three-l lllama.

--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, well done. Dare I ask if four of the same letters in a row exist anywhere? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If "anywhere" includes Welsh, there are 4 consecutive ls in the middle of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn! I can't win ;-) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well to be fair, I looked for a vowel that DIDN'T have any other variations on spelling. (All the others I could find had some, so I didn't count them.) :P -WarthogDemon 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Kind of

Vaguely, but not really. I can't really get in editing mood. I think I'll be back soonish.--Clyde (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Twinkie defense

Hello; I notice you were the administrator who protected Twinkie defense. I realize that it is well-established practice in an edit war to protect on the Wrong Version. However, I ask you to please take another look at the history of the article and of the talk page; I think if you do you will realize that Benjiboi's preferred version of the page really is the "wrong version".

Whenever a Misplaced Pages editor presents false claims as to what a witness testified on the stand in an important trial, that should be cause for great concern. When there is reason to believe that Misplaced Pages editor did so knowingly -- knew that he was inventing claims to suit his purposes -- that should be cause for even greater concern. When that Misplaced Pages editor has provided false citations to ward off detection of his falsification, there can simply be no question: it must be dealt with.

That is exactly what Benjiboi has done and what, so far, he has gotten away with: He took a sentence that had previously appeared in the article (and been removed for irrelevance) and he altered it so that it made new claims about the nature of an expert witness's trial testimony.

The old version:

Another psychiatrist, George Solomon, testified that White had "exploded" and was "sort of on automatic pilot" at the time of the killings.

Benjiboi's modified version:

Noted forensic psychiatrist and psychoneuroimmunologist George Solomon testified that with the effects of the junk food diet White had "exploded" and was "sort of on automatic pilot" at the time of the killings. (emphasis added to show significant change)

Benjiboi's alterations stand in direct contradiction to what our RSes on the subject say:

1. Only one defense witness said anything about White's junk food consumption, and it was Martin Blinder, not George Solomon;
2. What Blinder testified about the junk food was primarily that it was primarily a symptom of White's depression (one of several) rather than playing any sort of causative role;
3. What little Blinder did say about the junk food said that it could exacerbate an existing depression -- not that it could make you "explode" or put you on "automatic pilot".

Benjiboi's alterations have therefore invented new testimony and falsely inserted it into the mouth of a witness who didn't say it. Unless, of course, he has a reliable source that actually supports the idea that George Solomon attributed White's actions to the "effects of the junk food diet". Does he?

No, he does not. Here are the two "citations" Benjiboi provided for his new claims:

• Temoshok, Lydia R. (Fall 2001, Vol 12, No. 3 (PDF part 1)). "George F. Solomon, MD Psychoneuroimmunology Pioneer". American Psychosomatic Society. Retrieved 2007-08-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Gazis-Sax, Joel (1996). "The Martyrdom of Mayor George Moscone". Tales From Colma. Retrieved 2007-08-10.

The second of these citations is a website that gets just 250 Google hits. It appears to be a personal website; it shows no signs of being an RS. However, this is secondary to the more important issue: Both citations mention that George Solomon testified at the trial of Dan White. Neither citation supports Benjiboi's inserted claim that George Solomon put forth the Twinkie defense to the jury. If Benjiboi had an actual RS that supported that claim, he would certainly have produced it. Instead, he invented the claim out of whole cloth and inserted it into the text with two citations that he knew did not support the claim.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. It shows that the rest of Benjiboi's behavior is deliberate, not accidental. If another editor continually added material to Twinkie defense that was relevant to the trial in which the first "Twinkie defense" was commonly supposed to have been used, but not to the Twinkie defense, we might attribute it to a natural mistake; expounding on a subject and (as any of us might do) not realizing how far we have wandered off the original subject. If that editor was reminded to stick to the subject multiple times (which, you can see from the talk page, Benjiboi has been so reminded) and still insists on going into great detail on other issues, we must suspect either slow-wittedness or another agenda. When we catch an editor red-handed making up facts that are supported by no reliable sources, and inserting false citations to disguise that fact, we must face the facts that this is an editor with an agenda.

I trust that you will use your powers as an administrator to curb an editor inserting false information and biasing articles, with the same seriousness that you applied to curbing an edit war. -- 192.250.34.161 17:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Twinkie defense RfC initiated

As you were the admin who placed full protection on Twinkie defense after the late edit wars, I thought you should know about this article RfC. Please see Talk:Twinkie defense#Request for comment: Twinkie defense content dispute. This article RfC is was initiated per the Dispute resolution process. Please see WP:RFC, particularly the section on Request comment on articles, for information about this process. Thanks. --Yksin 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on the talkpage. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks also for your note on my talk page. I'll respond to your goals question tomorrow. --Yksin 07:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection?

I'm not too sure about the advisability of unprotection at this point. I'm concerned that 192.250.34.161 (talk · contribs) wrote posted a lengthy statement yesterday which was reverted early today by WJBscribe (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "rv - please rewrite as comment on content not other contributors before reposting." WJBscribe also gave 192 a warning about incivility. Though I think WJBscribe's point that 192 should focus on content rather & refrain from comments about Benjiboi (talk · contribs), I'm also concerned about WJBscribe's neutrality given what appears to be a friendship with Jeffpw (talk · contribs). See both their talk pages -- both times that WJBscribe has warned 192 about incivility, including this time, followed on Jeffpw's alerting him to it; while WJBscribe takes no apparent notice of Jeffpw's own incivility to 192. Meanwhile, Benjiboi has gone on break as a result of 192's earlier charges, & is unavailable.

I think 192's take on the article is more accurate to the facts, & except for how s/he directed things at Benjiboi, the post s/he wrote that WJBscribe reverted was pretty clear & made a lot of sense. But I don't find it productive to charge Benjiboi with wrongdoing and imputing motives. At the same time, I really question this edit by Benjiboi in which he added two sources to back up the claim about Solomon's statement at the trial that, as 192 has pointed out, do not at all affirm what Solomon is purported to have said. It does look an awful lot like a deliberate insertion of factual errors not backed up by the cited sources. Nonetheless I wouldn't have so badly charged an established editor like Benjiboi of having done so intentionally, as stuff like that does happen accidentally in the course of lots of edits & edit warring, whose good work on Misplaced Pages I've run across several times -- but I can understand why 192 would make that charge.

Another aspect of this is that although this is an article RfC, to me, user conduct including incivility (by both 192 & Jeffpw, who's stayed off the article but has not refrained from uncivil commentary elsewhere about 192) as well the issues 192 has brought up about whether an editor (Benjiboi) intentionally inserted factual errors are relevant the RfC. And no, I'm not into creating user-conduct RfCs on everybody -- that would be going way overboard on this one.

But in any case, at this point the whole thing feels pretty bad to me, & I don't frankly know what to do at this point. Which is why I've done nothing. I guess my gut feeling has been that despite the issues about 192's statement, I don't feel it should have been reverted. I certainly don't feel that a consensus is being reached, inasmuch as 192's statement was reverted, Benjiboi is on a wikibreak, & thus the only statements made at the RfC are yours & mine -- neither of us having been involved in the edit warring that brought the protection on to begin with. --Yksin 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum. WJBscribe reads 192's statement as what "seems to be a series of accusations against Benjiboi." There are accusations against Benjiboi, but none are ad hominem attacks: each accusation is justified factually so that one can see why the accusation was made, & there is no namecalling or what I would deem to violative of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA -- unlike several of 192's prior communications to/about Benjiboi. I'm not sure, not at all, that that statement should have been reverted. But maybe that needs a more neutral opinion that I can offer. I do know that in the article RfC at Talk:Battle of Washita River, we were quite frank in stating the problems we had with the user conduct of two of the users involved in our dispute (both of whom also have associated user conduct RfCs]], and an admin who has been present for most of this Akradecki (talk · contribs) found nothing untoward about the "accusations" leveled at those two users, all of which were founded in fact & were presented without namecalling or incivility. --Yksin 03:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's appropriate. I will try to write a respond to 192's statement later. I agree that I don't think Benjiboi did anything underhanded intentionally; the main thing is to get things moving on from here. But in any case, I think that yes, so long as no ad hominem or uncivil attacks are made, people should be able to be frank. I certainly was when I discussed 192's personal attacks. (And Jeffpw's, whatever one thinks about the relevance of what I said about his personal attacks in this RfC. He continued his attacks on 192 in this RfC, but I didn't notice anyone reverting or deleting them.) --Yksin 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have no more to say in the RfC about Jeffpw's incivility -- I said what I felt needed to be said. Have a good night! --Yksin 05:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

GR: image or text?

I see someone has just come up with the clever idea of substituting text for the GRGuo image "because it will load faster". They seem to have forgotten that only Chinese-enabled browsers will now be able to see the characters! I do wish people would discuss this sort of change before going ahead blindly with an irritating edit. Can I leave you to revert it & point out why you're doing so? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, but I think it would be better for you to revert it (unless you have some sort of reservation). Because I created the image, my revert may come off as me trying to flaunt my own work. But before you revert, you should discuss the pros and cons with whoever changed it. They might have additional reasons behind the change that they didn't list. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Your welcome mate, but there is no need to thank me it is my job. Also sorry for not getting back, I had like 4 new messages and didn't know who was new and who wasn't Rgoodermote 22:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Simplified Wade

I've done a little work on this to amplify your initial effort. There probably isn't that much more to add! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks really good. This may just be one of those topics that never gets beyond "Start" class, but you do what you can, huh? The only thing I had to fix was moving the links to the bottom of the page. Other than that, I think you've given the topic proper justice. I'll look around on the internet for more resources, but my progress may be a bit slow as I am tied up in an RFC at the moment (as you probably gathered from the above threads). Cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-register

Hello, Ikiroid! You are receiving this notice because the Cleanup Taskforce has been inactive, as a result of this all active taskforce members are being asked to re-register.

For more information see: Misplaced Pages:Cleanup Taskforce/Not Dead Yet

If you do not re-register here within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the membership list (if you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just add you name back).

RJFJR 00:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My concern about your handling of the Twinkie Defense conflict

I would like to state clearly and for the record that I am concerned about how you have handled this, particularly the anon IP. In your edit to the talk page yesterday, you said, "The fact that they write as an IP does not make any difference to me". My feeling is that it should. It is obvious (to me, anyway) that this editor is engaging in sockpuppetry; one look at his edit summaries will show you that, as well as his grasp of Misplaced Pages protocols. I fail to see why nobody has challenged him on it. To me, this looks less like an assumption of good faith than appeasement. As things now stand, an established editor has been driven away from this project by an IP who is narrowly editing Misplaced Pages. I find that very sad.

I would also like to remind you that I am watching this whole affair from the outside looking in. I am a purely disinterested observer. I have never edited the article and have no stake in the outcome of the content dispute. My sole concern is that I see a Misplaced Pages protocol being violated and a blind eye seemingly being turned by an administrator involved in the dispute. Give that some thought, please. Jeffpw 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note from the Outside loooking In

First, I have never done one of these before, so if I screwed the pooch on formatting, I apologize in advance. I have just two points to make (other points were satisfactorily addressed elsewhere, so there is no need for me to rehash them) and one comment.

1. Sockpuppetry: I agree completely. Not only do I agree, but as I read through the entire editwar, I was continually amazed at this obvious puupet going unnoticed. 192 has an amazing grasp of WP: - why is this person nameless? It makes no sense unless you put the puppet on.

2. Jeffpw. Despite your assertions to the contrary, you do not come across as "watching this whole affair from the outside looking in". Your words have a feel of "interested party", even though I agree with you.

3. While I feel for the great deal of work that was done by BenjiBoi, the original article was clearly superior for an unbiased and shallow definition. What I think happened here is Benjiboi wanted to put this in context - an admirable goal, as nothing exists in vacuo - but failed to keep the shallow original intact. Bejiboi's work, flawed as it may be, would be an excellent article unto itself regarding the "Twinkie Defense In Context". Perhaps as it's own article, possibly (I believe preferably) as a subarticle of the original.

Again, my apologies if I have messed any of this up by trying to insert my thoughts. Note that I posted this to both here and the original Twinkies page, as I don't know where it's really supposed to go.

Measl 03:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry allegations

Since sockpuppetry has come up as an issue in the Twinkie defense RfC, I've put my two cents in there at Talk:Twinkie defense#Sockpuppetry concerns. --Yksin 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment added to GR Example

Someone called User:NewSinology took the text of the Example at face value & added his own comment to that section. Do you have any feelings on this matter? See my comment on the matter. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Grguo.png

Hi, I'd been wanting to ask you for ages (and I would have asked sooner if I had known the GR article would be featured), but could you tell me which font you used for Image:Grguo.png, please?

I've been looking all over for a Kaiti font with those simplified glyphs so that I would have #1 in Kaiti (instead of #2..)

1. 過
2. 過

I'd be extremely grateful for some hints. Thank you! --Kjoonlee 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

MfD nomination of Talk:Braahmik/Wikibooks version

Talk:Braahmik/Wikibooks version, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Braahmik/Wikibooks version and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Braahmik/Wikibooks version during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. – Mike.lifeguard | 04:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your meta-content is alive and well at English Wikibooks! – Mike.lifeguard | 05:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Subjunctophobia

Hi 'roid

I was surprised at your candid remark that

I know a decent amount of french, but I can't speak it very well (I posess a Midwestern American accent that follows me from language to language). I know enough spanish to speak in the present. The subjunctive is too much of a pain for me to want to seriously want to learn it.

The subjunctive is such an integral part of Romance languages that you can't make such basic statements as I want him to do it without using it. Go on, un petit effort!

A little tip: this hypothetical mood is often indicated by giving verbs the "wrong" endings—those you'd expect from a different conjugation (eg the subj. form quiera looks as if it came from *querar, not querer; while hable looks as if it came from *habler, not hablar). Similar changes apply, mutatis mutandis, in French (& of course in the daddy of them all, Latin!).

Best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a PS to the answer on my Talk. Which Arabic are you interested in? I presume you mean (written) Modern Standard Arabic. If you want colloquial Arabic, you'll need to decide which flavour you want! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Proverb

Forgive my poking my nose into others' business. But I'm intrigued: did you change the order of the phrases of the proverb intentionally? 活到老，學到老 (I learn as long as I live/J'apprends tant que je vis). Perhaps there're some hidden messages that I don't get? Cheers.--K.C. Tang 04:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

How are things? Looks as if you're on extended wikibreak ... Anyway, have a good Christmas & a happy New Year. All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Cleanup Taskforce members who have been asked to re-register