Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SheffieldSteel (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 24 October 2008 (→Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Older messages:

• User talk:Sapphic/Archive1
• User talk:Sapphic/Archive2
• User talk:Sapphic/Archive2

NOTE: I am in the process of cleaning up the Pseudoscience category so that it all fits on one page. I am doing this by removing redundant categories from articles, for example: Category:Divination is already a sub-category of Category:Pseudoscience so an article should not be listed in both. I am human and make mistakes, so please feel free to point out these mistakes on this talk page. --Sapphic (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I guess that also means all New Age has to be pseudoscience. I'm not 100 % sure it's true, but personally I have nothing against thi idea, and if this is the Misplaced Pages categorising/linking policy, let's keep it that way. Sorry about the inconvenience ;) Piechjo (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bushrod Washington James

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Bushrod Washington James, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MWA query

Hi Sapphic! Is the SQL query you use to create WP:MWA public? I'm trying to do a similar page for huwiki (and too lazy to write my own :) --Tgr (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages Backlog

Hey. Your edits as categories being no longer backlogged are confusing. I went and checked them and they're still clearly backlogged. Can you explain them? Wizardman 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The {{backlogged}} template had been removed from them all some time ago. If they're still backlogged, they should have the template. --Sapphic (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted those edits and will be adding the template the cats.--BirgitteSB 03:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing the analysis when you are done. Please keep me informed and good luck.--BirgitteSB 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Abandoned Articles

Thank you for your offer; I didn't realize that you could do those things with the database dump. I'm going to hold off on your offer because this WikiProject is essentially inactive - that is, all the editors who were working on it seem to have quit participating in Misplaced Pages. But if I do see any signs of interest, I'll get back to you. And I may have some other things to ask if you can do - you do indeed seem to have a resource worth using. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 10:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Phony orphans

Hi, I was wondering how your script calculates how many incoming links the articles listed on the Misplaced Pages:Phony orphans page have. I've come across a couple that have fewer parents than are listed, and this one which is actually still orphaned, although it is listed (at #54) as having 10 parents.--Aervanath's signature is boring 00:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It bases the numbers on the contents of the 2008-03-12 database (XML) dump of the English Misplaced Pages, so probably there were some links removed between then and now. I'm currently extending my script using Perlwikipedia to do some checks against the current versions, which should correct for changes made since the database dump. --Sapphic (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Misplaced Pages:Phony orphans

Thanks. I'll look into using that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:AIDS reappraisal

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:AIDS reappraisal, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:AIDS reappraisal has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:AIDS reappraisal, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you why you put the {{hangon}} tag on the above cat. It meets WP:CSD#C1 pretty clearly. I have not removed the tag, but I ask you to do so. Thanks LegoKTM 01:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The category was only empty because another editor created a replacement category and moved all the members of the original category, rather than renaming the original category as would probably have been better. I believe somebody else is planning to take it to CfD, which I think is probably a good idea (it's one of the controversial topics people always fight about, so better to go through the whole routine for every little change rather than have revert wars I suppose) and it'll most likely be deleted that way. I originally opposed the move/rename-delete but my main reason turned out to be wrong so I've (mostly) changed my mind, and I don't think anyone else really cared about keeping it. I still don't think it should be speedy deleted, though. --Sapphic (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That was me. I didn't see a "rename" button on the category, so if it's there and I missed it, my apologies. Antelan 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of categories happens through the WP:CFD process, which is where the category is now anyway, so no harm done. I'm not sure whether admins can move/rename the category directly, or if it's just done in precisely the same way you did (create replacement, transfer articles, delete original) but in any event, I don't think it's a big deal. --Sapphic (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Proposed deletion of Taylor algorithms (fiction)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Taylor algorithms (fiction), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ~~ N (t/c) 15:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Chill out

You should probably take a break from the discussion about Date Autoformatting. While I happen to agree with many of your points, I don't think your.. uh.. enthusiasm for the topic is helping things. Please don't take this as an indication that your help in other areas (generating stats from DB dumps, etc.) isn't appreciated — it is. Best, --UC_Bill (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here Sapphic. So many students rely on the clickable dates, etc. in order to browse for timeline information or related research. With this in mind some sense and accountability has to be made for what is happening to Misplaced Pages by removing the autoformatting. I was told here "they can tap four keystrokes into the search box to find a year article." but I doubt that would keep Misplaced Pages very useful or popular. They can do that with Google but Misplaced Pages is much more convenient. I just hope the Big Guns get involved with what is going on. Anyway thanks again. Daytrivia (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, for different reasons. --Sapphic (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have started a RFC on Tony1's unlinking. Since you have also asked him to hold off on unlinking, it would be good if you signed the RFC as well. If you'd rather not get involved (any more than you already are) that's fine too, but the RFC will be deleted unless at least two people sign.

I think I'm going to suggest a discussion on disabling date autoformatting altogether, since that should bring the whole debate to a point more quickly than anything else. If the community really wants to get rid of DA, then disabling it in the software should happen ASAP, and if they want to keep it then the unlinking should stop and MOS should be changed back to the prior version. I'd like it if you could be involved in that discussion as well, but again, that's up to you. --UC_Bill (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I second Bill's call for a chill-out. See my comment below, in which I believe the community would be well served by Sapphic's resignation from adminship, to keep the process transparent. Concerning Datrivia's comments, I think "reliance" on clickable dates is an odd concept: dates are linked only because of a disastrous programming decision in 2003 to entangle the linking and autoformatting functions. The debate on the linking of date fragments (solitary years, decades, centuries, months) has been resolved in the negative after a long period of debate. Please let me know if you need links to archives that represent such debate. Tony (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

date type of template

Hi - I'm interesting in your comments on User:Dmadeo/DA which I've been noodling with. Take a look if you're interested, please leave brief, civil and constructive feedback if you'd like. I think it addresses all the concerns I've seen brought up, but I could use some other opinions before I point it out to a larger audience at MOSNUM Thanks dm (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI

In response to this comment. RfC does not mean that anyone has to stop their actions while in the middle of it. There is no "binding" that prohibits anything. Your expectation is strange, and consensus has already supported Tony there, so I can't see how you can rationalize or justify. If you take it to ANI during the middle of an RfC, it could be construed as either point or not following the RfC process by trying to have another forum act upon an individual. So, ANI is probably not what you want. Jimbo has already expressed his disinterest in the situation. The community seems to have supported Tony en masse. What do you expect to happen? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC isn't about "supporting" anyone, it's about getting comments. The only relevant comments on the page came from Dm and basically "supported" my position anyway. The RFC was about Tony1's behavior in refusing to call a truce with his script-assisted mass unlinking. The "support" for Tony1 had to do with whether or not date autoformatting was a good idea — which (as Dm pointed out) is completely irrelevant. You're right that ANI isn't the next step — mediation is. Now that it's been made clear (on the talk page for the RFC) that date unlinking is harmful, I'm planning to simply start linking dates en-masse, as a counter to Tony1's actions. If Tony1 refuses to stop his actions while we discuss this, then I'll stop trying to discuss it and act according to my preferences, which are just as valid as his. --Sapphic (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Users who endorse this summary:" Under SandyGeorgia, 20 people agree. There is no need for mediation. There is only you and another with a clear problem with it, and your actions are starting to seem inappropriate. Your claims about a "truce" also do not seem in line with fundamental Misplaced Pages policy, and you seem to be treating this as some kind of war or battle. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the time has come for Sapphic to resign from adminship. Has she read the rules she agreed to? Pre-eminent among them is the matter of avoiding conflict of interest situations, by not taking administration actions when s/he has a personal stake in an issue. One could not find a more blatant example of such a CoI issue. I call on Sapphic to resign forthwith. Tony (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Put down the crack pipe, my son. I'm not an admin; never was. --Sapphic (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank god for that: it would degraded the system. Now you can simply put a stop to your urge to attack me personally, as in the previous comment. Tony (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dusty

Hi, I'm looking into updating WP:DUSTY. Any advice? Wronkiew (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm downloading the latest database dumpfile now. I'll re-run the processing script, fix it up a little, and post the analysis results and source code. --Sapphic (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I settled on a two stage process, explained at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/DustyBot, to update the page automatically. The initial database processing does take a few days. If you have some spare cycles and the ability to run PHP scripts, it might be helpful if you could regenerate the initial list for me. The second stage runs nightly, and only takes a few minutes and a few MediaWiki API calls. Hope you don't mind my rewiring of your page. Wronkiew (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all; in fact, I greatly appreciate it. I'll reprocess the latest dumpfile this weekend, if I get a chance, and will try to incorporate some of the suggestions you've elicited on the dusty articles talk page. --Sapphic (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks

Please stop making personal attacks, as you did here. Policy requires us all to be civil at all times. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)