Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Δ (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 15 July 2011 (stop the harassment and go do something prodcutive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Script question

I was told you may have the script I am looking for? (see linked thread) PS. I enjoyed your userpage, but is broken :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ive got some code I can dust off and take a look at, do you have a good test page to work with? ΔT 04:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what would be the criteria of a good test page. If you want a cleaned article which the script should pass through without any changes, try Constitution of 3rd May. For an article that I would like to run it on, with lot of citations that need to be moved, check Katyn massacre. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

How does this look? ΔT 11:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Good, but I am not sure why certain other changes were carried out (is this part of the same script?), namely: 1) several ISBN's were changed, why? The script seems to be converting ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 (IIRC), which is nice, but are we sure it does so without any errors? 2) severa' &nbsp; were added, why? 3) I see that the script added name to and converted some refs, but not all. Why? For example in the diff you link, in the first para, <ref>

1. Its part of my general fixes that I apply, and the conversion is error proof.

2. with the MoS, it suggests using non-breaking spaces with time and units units.

3. It didnt name that ref because there isnt any good way to parse those types of manual refs and get a good title from it, and it does merge exact dupes.

ΔT 21:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was also told now that this script may be of interest: User:PleaseStand/References segregator. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think mines a little better, as it has more features. and flexibility ΔT 16:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, creating such an introduction page and advertising it may be a good idea, this seems like a quite useful script you've developed! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Until Ive done plenty of testing Im not making it public, so please feed me any pages you want converted so I can use them as test pages. ΔT 16:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

is a good example of what the script can do without moving refs. ΔT 21:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Decorum

Please observe proper decorum and remain civil on the arbitration pages - it is not appropriate to tell other editors to "shut up". –xeno 05:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked him to put up or shut up, either base his claims with fact and solid information or to quit lying, attacking, insulting, and miss-representing the truth. If he cannot back his outlandish, and derogatory claims with facts he needs to stop making them. The Put up, or Shut up is a fairly common expression, similar to put your money where your mouth is. If you can let such outlandish and plain wrong, miss-characterization, and negative claims go unchallenged I think you need to review CIVIL yourself. ΔT 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"You cant, so please shut up and stop making false claims."

It is possible to rebut someone's position without telling them to shut up. –xeno 12:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ive done that multiple times and they persist with false claims, since arbcom doesnt have the backbone to support NFCC and actually do something productive, and instead ignore the policy and the real issues I dont expect them to step in and do anything productive this time either, whether its to stop the harassment, support NFCC or anything else productive, instead Ill just be your whipping boy. ΔT 12:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Xeno, I note your willingness to take Δ to task as above, but have no willingness to take to task people making direct and false accusations. Indeed, this is the very sort of thing that Δ's hate squad have been doing for some time now. You've become part of the problem by enabling those who attack him, and are now also part of that group. To see this from a member of ArbCom is highly disappointing. I expect better. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Telling someone to shut up is a direct violation of Misplaced Pages:Civility, one of the pillars. If I was xeno, my response would have been much more heavy-handed. Fleet Command (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    • And even more out of line for not considering the context, warning other parties, and perhaps meting out other corrective actions as necessary. I didn't say Δ shouldn't have been taken to task. I noted the disparity in treatment, which is at the very core of this dispute (and largely ignored by ArbCom). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning for personal attack

I have been warned for making personal attacks on you. I did not wish to make an attack on you as a person, just on your editing behaviour, but I accept that my note did not come across as civil, so I retract the uncivil parts. I hope you will nevertheless consider what I said. Please delete this post after reading as you wish, but please do not characterise it as trolling or vandalism, because that would be a misuse of those terms, as were your previous charcterisations. Have a nice day.

Please read WP:AGF. ΔT 03:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Δ

Resolved by motion:
Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, RfAr/Betacommand 2, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

&delta, as far as I'm concerned , Arbcom is dead wrong on this. There is no evidence that you've made any edits regarding NFCC that were not supported by policy. Far as I'm concerned this is noting more than a bunch of Delta haters getting together to stop you from what you did well. (And that's from a guy who's had a conflict with you over one image already ! )

I'm sorry this happend to you. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 11:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a classic case of being ArbFucked™. Instead of actually having a spine and addressing the issue arbcom just uses me as a whipping boy. ΔT 11:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It is always easier to look for a goat than it is to fix the real problem. Night Ranger (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• It is obvious from the actions of many people that the "real problem" is the presence of Δ on the project. Since there's no consensus for that, harassment is a means to an end. Except, it isn't working. Therefore, anger. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Strange edit

You have changed a number of named refs to "autogenerated" refs here, thereby duplicating a number of identical refs and increasing the number of refs from 230 to 240. Having the same ref "named" twice with the same name is not an error, this works perfectly. You could improve this by changing one of the instances to a short named ref (same name, with the / at the end), or you could leave it alone, but what you did here wasn't an improvement at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

The refs where renamed because you had multiple refs with the same name but different content. If the names are the same the content should be too. ΔT 11:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But they had the same content? The article now has these three named refs, where earlier they (correctly) had the same name:

"" Fram (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a closer look, ref 1 is 250 characters long, ref 2 is 249, and ref 3 is 254 characters long. They have almost the same content but not quite. ΔT 11:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

For a bot perhaps, a human would consider them to be the same. Please edit like a human, not like a bot. Fram (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

BS. Yes, recognizing they are the same because there are a few characters different likely would be the activity of a human - but catching duplicate refs is not something that any editor does on average when they edit, not expected in any policy or guideline ("you must prevent the creation of duplicate refs") and typically part of a final step when preparing the article for a review process (GA, FA, etc.) It didn't break anything, it didn't lose any information, it didn't disrupt the page. And especially in an article that has 200+ refs, there is no community expectation that any random editor has to find and correct issues with duplicate references. You're making up "expectations" that you want Delta to meet that no normal editor using by-hand tools is expected to perform.

I'd also say that while you're right that in this specific case that the multiple named refs technically work because the cite inside is the same work, in practice, MediaWiki will only use one of those as the cite, so if they were different, that would have caused refs to be lost. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expecting Delta to "find and correct issues with duplicate references.", I expect him to leave things which work perfectly allright alone. Masem, these names parameters were correct and did what they were supposed to do. Now, they have the beautiful "autogenerated" name instead of the descriptive one they had, and are scattered all over the place in the refs section. On such a long article, with that many references, confusing things by splitting previously grouped together references is not helpful in any way. Again, I don't ask him to correct any errors, I ask him not to make things worse, which actually is a "community expectation" for all editors. Fram (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it worked because there were two wrongs making a right. When you have two spelled-out named refs with the same name, only one of those will appear in the ref lists, and the other(s) will be footnoted to that. The fact that they were all the same ref means that there was no apparent damage within the article in this case. Yes, I am pretty sure that they could have been replaced with the short bookmark form <ref name="something"/>, but if that done here, only looking at the name of the refs and not what their content was, that could have lost to revisions the contents of two reference lines, or maybe intended placeholders for more specific references. With at least what Delta's doing, it adds duplicate refs but does not lose information. The fix to repair that is much easily (only have to go off the current version) than to traipse back through history to find the original content. Add that there are 200+ refs and a long article, and that's something that you pretty much have to use a bot or assisted tools for, and not something expected of human users. I would be more concerned if there were only 5 refs in a short article which can be easily scanned through to find, but not in most good-sized, well referenced articles. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Δ/Sandbox 3 and run tools:~dispenser/view/Reflinks across that, you will get the same results with re-named refs, which was just a small part of that edit. ΔT 13:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Blame it on the tool? Your edits are your responsability, as you should well know by now. Fram (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Here comes the lynch mob again. Please understand, I'm not referring to anyone in particular. Just that I know where this is headed; it's going to be taken up as rallying cry with the hordes of Δ haters coming for his head on a pike again. Δ, the beatings will continue until your morale improves. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be devolving into baiting/goading, which is unfortunate. I'm getting the feeling that some of these "issues" are being grossly overblown by people who are doing just to hound someone they don't like. This is most unfortunate. Night Ranger (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

1. "All Time Big-12 Standings" (PDF). MackBrown-TexasFootball.com. University of Texas & Host Interactive. Retrieved 2006-06-26.
2. "All Time Big-12 Standings" (PDF). MackBrown-TexasFootball.com. University of Texas & Host Interactive. Retrieved 2006-06-26.
3. "All Time Big-12 Standings" (PDF). MackBrown-TexasFootball.com. University of Texas & Host Interactive. Retrieved 2006-06-26.