Misplaced Pages

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

imposing outdated/archaic spellings/names AGAIN

Yo. Isn't it time for a spanking yet? It's like he's trying to pick a fight, and has an axe to grind since the RMs where his uppity one-sidedness got derailed.....See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Another unwarranted.2Fundiscusssed speedy by Kwami.....I'm gonna have to look around and see what else he's messed with. As always he didn't even bother changing any content, just the title.Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Geez, I missed this one back in 2010, he doesn't care that the capped name is the name of the modern government, and that the "ethnic" article is not the same thing. This needs a Skxwu7mesh/Squamish Nation type split...I'm surprised he didn't go and do the "most common" claim and make it Yakima Nation or Yakima people. the category is "Yakama tribe" and the problem there is to most people the lower-case use of "tribe" will not indicate the government though that's the US usage....the "federally recognized tribe" is the Yakama Nation, the historical people ARE the Yakama. Yakama period. This can be done by sorting redirects into various categories, but how can one editor cause so much damage and be such an a**hole when confronted about it?Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed a CFDS, I thought that category was at Category:Yakama.Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

you probably monitor the WP:RM talkpage, but.....

Saw this on my watchlist today, and just went WTF, after all that got rolled back against his determined wishes, and all the damage that it's caused, he's still at it. See Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#reversions_of_undiscussed_speedies_needed_-_NOT_more_RMs. Rogue.Skookum1 (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Response on talk page

Check it.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

CatScan V2.0β

Obiwan...
Thank you for posting the very useful forms for CatScan V2.0β. Is there any way to add the equivalent of 'Sort Key' to CatScan V2.0B (by this I mean something that will present the output lists in Last Name first, First Name last (and all the other pesky exceptions) order? It may be just my compulsiveness, but I feel that feature would be very useful. (Does not have to be perfect - but that would be nice). Neonorange (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write that - @Magnus Manske: did. I think it does have an option you can click at the bottom of the form to sort by name. I don't Think it will sort by sortkey however. Did you ever see the category intersection demo Magnus built?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

re namespace collision issue

Please see (and add to if you like)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Name_issues#FOO_people_issues which I've just been working on/researching. I'm going to post a notice on WP:Ethnic groups too.Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious

categories
Thank you for quality articles, such as Magnus Manske, and for sorting categories and article names as a Wiki Gnome, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

wow - thanks Gerda. I've seen Some of your work in the music articles, you make excellent contributions as well - so thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Another RfC question

Some else brought the previous RfC issue to WP:BLPN. But now I have a new one regarding biased start and closing of an RfC I just temporarily quit an article over because I was so disgusted. Put it here it on editors assistance since maybe it's a newbie question and didn't want to bug Talk: RfC. Your an editor who might feel like assisting! :-) User:Carolmooredc 21:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried adding economist to the lede since the RFC was asking "which is listed first" - it never said you could not list economist - he was a professor of economics, had a PhD in economics, and wrote several books on the subject, so I don't think thats unreasonable to mention in the lede. We'll see if it lasts. As for the broader issue, that RS say he was an economist while others say he was a theorist, I think a compromise position might work best here - were the editors who !voted involved? If not, it may be worth considering why so many were convinced so quickly. The RFC was silly, and calling an RFC for something as trivial as that is really quite wasteful at the end of the day, but larger RFCs have been had over even less important details.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually "economist of the Austrian school" is down further with the 7 refs. (I had to fight to get it back and only because several people actually came by and supported it did it stay - for this week anyway.

The problem is using this RfC they also got rid of the Economist infobox. They canvassed a lot of quasi relevant Wikiprojects to get the response. The big problem was the RfC was called the day after I said I'd look for better refs, at the same time the editor calling it was harassing me so much on my talk page I had to take him to ANI. So soon enough i got disgusted and quit the article. I really hate starting up with these people again, but it does annoy me to see the process corrupted. But it would be nice to know where to go if they start removing the economist info on basis of this flakey RfC. User:Carolmooredc 23:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Obi. Forgive me if I am blunt here, but I agree with you the RfC was a huge waste of time. It came about as a result of prolonged disruptive editing which I will not rehash here. But despite the trouble and delay of the RfC, it focused our efforts and brought in several new uninvolved editors who shared their opinions. The result was that we reached a an explicit compromise with no editor dissenting after the proposed compromise was stated. Given that this was the explicit outcome of the very recently closed RfC, I am surprised that you would unilaterally change it as you have. I'd like to ask you to consider undoing your change and, if you feel strongly about it, proposing your version on talk. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood, but the RFC had an explicit question, which was, which should be listed first. The compromise was to add more sentences later in the lede describing the economics work. Also, very few editors participated in the discussion around the compromise. I was just wiki-thanked by the RFC closer for the edit I made, restoring economist there. Sometimes, why not just accept a compromise on this little point? Why are you so bent on not mentioning the word 'economist' in the first line, given that 6 other editors supported its addition? It's entirely possible those followingt eh RFC didn't notice that the compromise was that "economist" would *not* be mentioned at all - I had to read it several times to catch that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry not to be clear . I'm all for doing it your way - I just assume they'll revert it like they revert anything else that makes him look like an economist. (The two editors claim to be academic economists Specifico refSteeletrap correction: "I could call myself a economist or an economics scholar, even if I don't have an economics degree." (WOOPS, thought that's what the Masters Degree was all about) who have final say on who's a real economist.) Even better, I'd like to see fuller description of economist second and putting "An advocate and theoretician of anarcho-capitalism and historical revisionism, Rothbard became a central figure associated with the libertarian movement, writing over twenty books on anarchist theory, history, economics, and other subjects. "But not willing to fight about that issue. User:Carolmooredc 23:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I request that carolmooredc either provide diffs to substantiate this remark or strike it: "(The two editors claim to be academic economists who have final say on who's a real economist.)" Hundreds of such misrepresentations are what poison the editing process on straightforward articles such as Rothbard. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Oh dear. I hope we're not arguing about someone who was a professor of economics not being a real economist. Whatever your views on his economics, that's a really silly conclusion to come to. It seems there was a bit of a lean towards mentioning the theory stuff first, and most of his article is about that (not his economics), which leads me to believe he may be better known for the anarcho-stuff than for his other economics work, but that doesn't mean he has ceased to be an economist, esp given his academic postings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Obi, it is extremely distressing to see you accept carolmooredc's disparaging remark about me at face value and to react as would be appropriate if any editor had expressed the view she falsely and without evidence attributes to me. The fact that supportive, productive editors such as yourself might react as you just did is what makes carolmooredc's conduct here so disruptive. My first reaction is to ignore baseless and unsupported disparaging remarks. However the possibility that at any given time and for whatever reason even 20% of readers might accept her statement as fact leads one to engage in otherwise pointless denials. Please consider. I do understand there was an edit conflict and you had not seen my previous post. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi SPECIFICO, I've seen some other posts elsewhere that suggest you and she don't really get along. I suggest you should both turn down the temperature a bit. I struck my comment, I haven't read diffs either, so will take your word for it that you didn't suggest he wasn't an economist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I failed to notice SPECIFICO was watching and commenting, though he follows me around so much I should have known better. Well, I'm glad we've cleared that up above that User:Steeletrap is not getting his Masters in economics but just thinks he could refer to self as economist, thus the confusion. Plus I clarified about the impression I get. One can't help getting impressions!!

However, the RfC was totally disruptive of the process of getting more ref'd information into the article about his status as an economist since SPECIFICO started it the day after I said I was going to do that research. If others want to read the archives they can decide for themselves what else was going on... And of course having lots more info on his being an economist is the best way to make the decision of what he is first and foremost :-) User:Carolmooredc 00:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

	Sledgehammer
	A Sledgehammer for you, for breaking through the clutter and helping me with ready-to-use pointers to the right information. Thanks! Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC) (aka @69)