Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xeno (talk | contribs) at 12:44, 30 April 2010 (→Removal of blank "living" parameter: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is very lazy. Please feel free to do his work for him.

New user on the JP Talk Page

Since you were involved in the protection of the John Pershing article, please see my comments regarding the appearance of a "new" user with apparent knowledge of the article and Misplaced Pages policies and procedures. In my off-the-record view, this is quite obviously someone who has edited before creating this new account to bolster support. However, I can prove nothing and don't want to go against WP:AGF. We have just had that article become such a battlefield the last thing we need is a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT issue. -OberRanks (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, after reading their explanation probably best just to give them the benefit of the doubt, AGF, and see how it goes. –xeno 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to run an ip trace on this. You will notice on the user talk page who appeared right away to "welcome" the new user. I have to be very careful here in what I say because I do not want to go against good faith and accuse without evidence. I might be wrong and this might be exactly as explained - but, this is just a little bit too convenient, especially since this user's views are now being cited to place disputed material back in the article . To get right down to it, I think it is a sockpuppet account and I think you know who I think it is a sockpuppet of. Can you check it out? If I am wrong, deepest apologies. -OberRanks (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to file at WP:SPI and present your evidence. It's fairly minor, but I do note they are signing right next to the full stop at the end of their comment ''(.~~~~)'', which isn't common. I will be fairly disappointed if the person you are hinting at turns to be the one running the account. I hope it isn't. –xeno 18:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, the matter of the signing post is of extreme interest. However, I probably will let this one lie for now. I did a close examination of the various posts and there is some grammar and syntax difference between the two user's methods of writing so it might not be the same person. Obviously, if this new user reappears, supporting any and everything that the other one does then I sure there would be a good case. But for now, its not worth it since no disruption has been attempted. -OberRanks (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I came to your talk page to seek your advice on something else, and just saw that. And I'm pretty goddamn mad. (Not at you, of course.) In the first place, I have never done anything in secret here. What really pisses me off, is all of the bending over backwards I have done over the past few weeks, to be both civil and appropriate. And what infuriates me, is that OberRanks would come to your talk page and do this, rather than asking me directly. "I think it's a sockpuppet account, and you know who I think it is a sock puppet of"? Are you kidding me? You have my full permission, blessing, and even insistence to investigate this fully. And then I sure as hell hope there's going to be some form of punishment for his falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry.Mk5384 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to why I was here in the first place...

On the John Pershing page, user Aunt Entropy posted a comment that I had made on the talk page of Genesis Creation myth. (Please take a look.) It was completely unrelated to the Pershing issues, and as such, deliberately misleading. I removed it, stated that I had removed it, gave my reasons, and notified the user who posted it. OberRanks (who else?) raised a fuss about this, and I wanted to make sure that I was within my rights to do this.Mk5384 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, nothing in WP:TPG would preclude such a line of argument. If you feel it is irrelevant, you could rebut or ask the user to refactor. –xeno 15:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn right I appeared right away to welcome (without quotations) the new user. In the first place, that's what we're supposed to do. Secondly, the very first thing that OberRanks did was to attack this poor person. He violated AGF, NPA, and "don't bite the newcomers" all at once. "Mmmm, the matter of the signing post is of extreme interest"? Who in the hell does he think he is? Then he did "a close examination", and discovered "grammar and syntax differences"? Is he a goddamn detective? And he's decided to let this lie? Sorry, but I will not. Please tell me how to pursue this.Mk5384 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I just should point out that noone has made any formal accusations here. Xeno and I were having a off-the-record discussion about this just because of how it looked. At face value, it looked very suspicious and that is why we were talking about it. But, at the end of the day, there is no evidence, no disruption, and no further activity from this account. This is exactly why this has gone nowhere except on this talk page. I am sorry it upset you. This was posted nowhere except here and no charges were ever made on any formal noticeboard. In short - Xeno and I were just talking about it. -OberRanks (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted an off the record discussion, you should have used private e-mail. You accused me of sockpuppetry, and it was not "off the record". I could care less if there's been activity from the account. You can be damn sure that no one's going to accuse me of anything based on what another user does or dosen't do. And there will be formal charges made. And there is no "we" having this discussion. You came here, and engaged Xeno. When you say, "Xeno and I were having a conversation because of how it looked", that's horseshit. Please don't try to pretend that Xeno was concerned about this.Mk5384 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that I do not use private e-mail on Misplaced Pages due a case under my old account User:Husnock where several users sent e-mails threatening my family. Since then, I confine all my business on Misplaced Pages and avoid any outside contact or use of my real-world e-mail; there's just too many crazy people out there. Again, sorry you're mad. If you would like to file charges, feel free to do so. I again stress that since this was two users talking on a user page, and this never made it to any kind of noticeboard or the mainspace of an article, there probably wont be much done about it. BTW, Xeno, apologies for continuing to post on your talk page about this. -OberRanks (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Private e-mail, or not, don't pretend it was off the record, and don't pretend that Xeno was at all concerned about it.Mk5384 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed on the ANI thread that you said you will be busy. When you are free, please drop me a quick note, and let me know how best to handle this situation. As far as the sockpuppet thing, I'll report myself, if that's what I have to do to get this investigated.Mk5384 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And please take note that OberRanks is only "sorry that I'm mad". He is not sorry for his behaviour.Mk5384 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks was careful not to mention you by name, so really only you, me, OberRanks, and the lamppost would've known who s/he was talking about. There is always the chance on questioning about possible sockpuppetry to falsely accuse someone. I'm not really sure if this has ever been reconciled on Misplaced Pages: due to the wiki-model, most queries must be initiated on-wiki (i.e. at WP:SPI). Not being too familiar with SPI and checkuser processes, I'm not really sure what actions you would take over this grievance. –xeno 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, you know that I respect you, and I don't want to fill your time with trivial nonsense. Yes, OberRanks was careful not to mention me by name. He was also careful to make it very, very clear to whom he was referring. I have no idea who Kind Journalist is, or what his or her agenda is. I have posted what OberRanks said on Kind Journalist's talk page, and have gotten no response. All I do know, is that it isn't I, nor do I know this person. Again, I would like the sockpuppetry issue investigated.Mk5384 (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please bear with me while I seek advice on this matter. –xeno 12:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break (Pershing)

FYI, xeno, I've reported this user here for a vareity of reasons and mentioned this thread as part of the problem. -OberRanks (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've commented there. –xeno 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I'll bear with you. But in the meanwhile, OberRanks has resumed his daily trips to ANI to report me for some imaginary infraction, and it's really getting old. As long as he can somehow manage, at any cost, to keep the focus on me, he feels he won't have to answer for himself and his rulebreaking.Mk5384 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from the individual yet, but per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters (perm) - in particular "C" under "When it might be appropriate " (the vote is not closed) and the third row for "When it is usually not appropriate" basically indicate that checkuser would not be appropriate here. If you wish to initiate a grievance against OberRanks over this situation, WP:ANI would be the venue - however, I would suggest a "reboot" between you two; and either another attempt at mediation, or an {{RFCtag}} on the issue to gather more outside voices. –xeno 18:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I totally knew OberRanks was referring to Mk5384, it's no secret. I guessed Mk5384 was his #1 suspect even before he implied it. I wasn't aware that I had to, and I'm doubtful that I really do, but I would sanction any investigation into the possible inseparability of my identity from Mk5384's, or any other user's. I would strongly encourage it, actually, since that seems to be what Mk5384 wants. I personally like the theatre and confusion of it all, but I would be (and have been) offended if someone else was mistaken for me, and I certainly wouldn't want someone else speaking for me, so to whatever ancient forces may be listening; investigate away.Kind Journalist (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Kind Journalist. I realise that you find it humorous, and I too, would probably see the humor in it were it not for the seriousness of the situation.Mk5384 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, please tell me what can be done about OberRanks and his SP nonsense. He has now began to bully yet another new user. Kind Journalist and I have both agreed to a full investigation. I can't speak for the latest user, but something has to be done. Talk about "don't bite the newcomers". The first thing that these poor people have to do here is defend themselves against accusations of sockpuppetry. Now, at ANI, Baseball Bugs has jumped on OR's SP wagon. Please get this investigation underway. OberRanks has now changed his accusations to meatpuppetry. Per Misplaced Pages's very definition, he has accused me of recruiting users to post on the Pershing talk page to support my position. Like the SP charge, this is 100 % false. I do not know either of these users in the most remote way. PLEASE investigate this. Even if OR and BB won't wind up being punished, they at least need to be made to stop their attacks.Mk5384 (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked another, more active, checkuser to comment here but I still don't think a check would be run in this case. I also opined at the ANI thread in a new subsection. If you feel it necessary, you could initiate an ANI thread about OberRanks; but I think you would both do well to stop arguing at eachother, (comment on content, not contributors) and start arguing to 'the audience'. –xeno 13:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Look- I understand what you're saying. However, the fact is that OberRanks has both falesly accused me, here, and elsewhere, and has told outright lies about me at ANI. This has moved far beyond the scope of AGF, and I don't see why I should lie down and take it.Mk5384 (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then, by all means, gather your diffs and report to ANI. I still think you would both do well to de-escalate and focus on the content issue - otherwise you might find yourselves in a bidirectional interaction ban which would probably require a topic ban from the Pershing article to be effective. –xeno 15:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't plan on pursuing this any further. The two sock accounts appear to have no connection to MK and the admin board topic went unanswered by most administrators. In the end, that turned out to be a good thing since it looks like they let us "battle it out" and meanwhile new users arrived on the Pershing article to voice their opinions. My standard response to any further charges to MK will simply be that this is a dead issue and I plan no further dispute or debate. -OberRanks (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; I was just coming here to add a "see " to my above comment. –xeno 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it went unanswered. That's because it's just the latest round of your trivial nonsense, mixed with outright lies. You created this entire mess, and in typical fashion, instead of apologising, you choose to just walk away. Some "soldier" you are!Mk5384 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The content issue is being dealt with at RFC so hopefully this matter will soon be concluded. I would ask you both to remain civil; and perhaps simply stop commenting at/about eachother. –xeno 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2 (Pershing)

BTW, Xeno, TY for fixing the RfC I put on the talk page. I had a feeling I hadn't done it right, but had to leave.Mk5384 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers, –xeno 22:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too, Xeno. I would ask you to maybe point out to MK that cracks about my military service are clearing violating WP:NPA. The diffs are adding up on that - so far, I've found 4 clear cases of inappropriate comments about my service in the United States armed forces. -OberRanks (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why I asked him to remain civil in my reply to him. WP:CIV is a policy I rarely (if ever) enforce, due to various reasons that I won't go into at this time; however, you may post at WP:WQA if he doesn't stop (though I hope he will). –xeno 23:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. I simply don't believe that OberRanks is in the military. How, in the world, is it inappropriate, or a personal attack, no less? Is he honestly trying to imply that I'm not entitled to my opinion? And, Xeno; with all due respect, what about OR, and his myriad personal attacks on me?Mk5384 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have an edit diff of an actual personal attack against you, i.e. where I called you a name or some other inappropriate gesture, then please take it to WP:ANI. Please note that reporting you on noticeboards for actions in articles, which are then backed up with evidence from your own edit diffs, are not really seen by anyone (except maybe you) as a personal attack. I suggest that if you wish to pursue this, you leave Xeno alone and take it to the noticeboard. Tell the administrators about the lies, the conspiracy, and the efforts to discredit you that you seem to think are happening. I'm sure they will be happy to listen to what you have to say. -OberRanks (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OK; well I suggest that you leave Xeno alone, as you were the one who got Xeno involved in this nonsense in the first place. Here is just one example of your personal attacks: saying that my refusing to believe that you are in the military is a " serious, offensive, sinister attack". And, again you are doing this passive agressive bullshit. You came to Xeno's talk page, started all of this, continued to post here for days, and now suggest that I leave Xeno alone. Xeno is my friend. Please don't speak for them.Mk5384 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I intentionally asked both parties to remain civil (not to single anyone out), and stop commenting at/about eachother. Hopefully the SPI case will be accepted, exonerate you, and then perhaps OberRanks may see fit to apologize for the mistaken allegation. And by then, the content issue should be sorted out and you can go your separate ways? You two don't seem to get on very well together; this is a big wiki - no need to be constantly butting heads. –xeno 12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope so too, Xeno. It would be quite odd for the SPI case to be rejected when the accused is the one most forcefully asking that it be investigated.Mk5384 (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are wise indeed, Xeno. I'm taking a 2-3 months break from the Pershing article and said all there is to be said about MK; with this recent thing about me not really being in the military, this whole thing is getting a bit too personal. I am also finding that the more I respond, the more it seems like I am part of the problem. Best to walk away from this. Thanks for all your help. -OberRanks (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

After being cleared, I have now been told that no action will be taken against those who falsely accused me. Please tell me there's something that I can do.Mk5384 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You could post at ANI, but I doubt anyone would take any action as it would have the potential to create a chilling effect for filing SPI reports. Best to just move on, I think. –xeno 18:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed this hoopla and only caught some aspects on my watchlist, but let me interject that the purpose of this project is building an encyclopedia, and all actions and processes are supposed to be improving it.
What "actions" do you have in mind that would further this project's goal, in this particular case?
Amalthea 19:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also unfortunate that the checkuser did not "look outside the box" (as far as we know) to find out who the puppetmaster for "Excessively Brief" is. A good guess would be the perennial troublemaker called "Light current", as it fits his M.O. (appearing to impersonate someone in order to get them into further trouble). If it was in fact LC, the checkuser might have decided to do nothing based on denying recognition. But SPI's can be frustrating to us peons when it seems like nothing useful comes of them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, as I would have welcomed it.Mk5384 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't count on getting a satisfactory answer, but it could be worthwhile to ask the checkuser directly about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Whilst we may continue to disagree about Pershing, I appreciate your help.Mk5384 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

bot's turn, soon...

• WT:ACTOR#search and replace patterns

I floated an objections-check there three days ago, and there are none. I also note this comment by WHL, which is accepting of the notion. I believe this is fine to proceed with. Let me know if you'd like me to dig up more examples or if I can otherwise help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just going to put a fake future timestamp to keep this here for a while. –xeno 04:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

AWB questions

Hi, as you seem to know a lot about getting the most out of AWB can I ask you some questions. As I'm very much a newbie with the tool.

• I'd like to work on all articles that have {{WikiProject Chess}} on the talk page. I been looking for an export of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:WikiProject_Chess, but as stuck on how to export.
• Is it possible to do a find on a talk page and a replace on an article page or vice-versa. For example can you find "living=yes" on the talk page and add Category:Living people on the article page?
• Where do I find options to look at page size? I don't see them and was under the impression you where able using AWB to create a report for WP:SONGS.

Thanks for any help you get give. Regards, SunCreator 13:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Use AWB to build a list of "What transcludes page". Alternatively, build from the category Category:WikiProject Chess articles. –xeno 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, this works. 'What transcludes page (all NS)' to Template:WikiProject Chess. Regards, SunCreator 00:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

2. To do this, you would use Special:Export, paste the list of talk pages, use AWB's database scanner on the resultant .XML dump to search for "living=yes", and then convert the results to mainspace pages. (That being said, there are bots that trawl for living people to do the needful on both the article and the talk page - you'll probably find not much work to do).

   Special:Export is a bit limited as you can't recurse categories and many categories(the Bio ones I want to use) are talk pages. Otherwise this is fine. Results for chess grandmasters was a few false positives so not going to mark up many BLP's here. Regards, SunCreator 00:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

   Use AWB's listmaker to make the list of articles you want to export, then scan them. Alternatively, you can just use "Pre-parse mode" and skip if not contains (the string you are looking for). –xeno 00:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

   Both of those options are really useful. Thank you. Regards, SunCreator 01:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

3. In the database scanner.

–xeno 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Off to check it out :) Regards, SunCreator 13:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The bot(s?) that scan for living people? I'm only aware of database reports. The reason I was looking to do this with AWB is because there seems to be quite a few! It's not difficult to manually find bio's that are not tagged as living people. Regards, SunCreator 13:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The appropriately named User:LivingBot =) (...though it appears it hasn't been doing this for a little while??? so maybe disregard my above note) –xeno 13:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good link. So now I'm thinking that Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests_for_approval/LivingBot_10 puts living=yes on the talk page, so unlikely that looking for living=yes would find missing Category:Living people from the article. So checking that might be fruitless. Regards, SunCreator 13:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There's other bots that do this as well, and as I said, LivingBot appears not to be doing those living tasks as often so you might find work to be done after all. –xeno 13:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed biography articles

I'd like to check this category to see if there are unreferenced BLP's in there. Now I can't use Special:Export as the cateogry is of talk pages. If I use AWB and Make a list is limits the number of pages to 25000. The category contains 108,667 articles at the moment, is there a way I can check them all? Regards, SunCreator 02:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You would need a bot or admin account to be able to look for more than 25,000 results. –xeno 12:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe you could do it for me? My pre-parse run took 3 hours to run and reduced 25000 articles into only 33! Do you have a few spare hours? Regards, SunCreator 13:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is probably because there are already other bots trawling for unreferenced BLPs... I can email you the full list I suppose, you can use AWB to convert them from talk pages and the list splitter to make them into more reasonable chunks for Special:Export. –xeno 13:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect many matches, so was delighted with the pre-parse method. email won't work there are to many to export and resulting file for 100,000 unassessed bios will be 250Mb plus in size. I can't receive email that big. ;) Instead could I give you category and pre-parse skipping info and you do a pre-parse run to determine matches - the green list that will be given should be quite small when done. Regards, SunCreator 13:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The list itself in plaintext format is only 1.93 megs; you can preparse it yourself (or chop it in half and paste into Special:Export) at that point =). –xeno 13:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

ah, I see. A list of article names. So I can copy paste into AWB? Regards, SunCreator 13:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but AWB will probably hang if you try to paste a list this big. I would use Make list->Text file. –xeno 13:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the export for the articles was actually closer to 475 megs!... Since I've already got it downloaded, I can run a db scan on it, rather than you doing a long preparse, if you like. –xeno 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah great. So here is the only criteria I ran to get 10,000 down to 33. The database scanner has some similar options.

• Skip->Match->Contains->Category:Living people
• Skip->Match->Doesn't contain->birth date and age

So what results is articles containing 'birth date and age' but are not marked as 'Category:Living people'. And yeah, 475 Mb a bit of an underestimate, at least I said 250Mb plus ;) Regards, SunCreator 14:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There ya go. –xeno 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, SunCreator 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Found out the 25000 limit doesn't exist if it's multiple categories. I did a 4 level recurses of Category:B-Class articles and had a list of 160000+ articles without any problem. Regards, SunCreator 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep - the limit is for any one particular query; recursing through categories is many different queries. You should think about filing for a bot approval so that you can bypass the limits when desired. –xeno 23:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like that, but I don't have a bot. Do I? How do I get a bot or is in some way AWB without the limits considered a bot? Regards, SunCreator 23:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel special

Finally, I create an article that doesn't get deleted. I feel special, here it is. Any criticisms?--Ezekiel 7:19 01:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. =) I'm no article writer, but maybe try to loosen up the prose a bit. "He..." ... "He..." ... "Lamoreaux..." ... "Lamoreaux..." ... "Lamoreaux..." just seems a little repetitive. That's all I got! –xeno 13:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I'm already working on 3 others. I'll keep that in mind.--Ezekiel 7:19 14:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes, any better?--Ezekiel 7:19 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The subsections help a bit, yea. But really, I'm not the person to be coming to for advice on article-writing =) –xeno 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And to think I thought you knew it all! *Wink*--Ezekiel 7:19 19:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Can't change the image size for some damn reason I don't know. No matter what I put the size to be, the image doesn't change!--Ezekiel 7:19 19:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

On the above-noted page? I tried changing it to 500px and it definitely changed (preview only, of course). Nevermind I see it was another page: this is why (missing_underscore). –xeno 19:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Good cause I was confused. I'm not that observant.--Ezekiel 7:19 19:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Xeno! I've seen you active on ANI (and helping people generally), and I'm always happy to make new friends, so I thought I'd come to you for this request. I'm becoming more active here on WIkipedia, and as my watchlist has been expanding I've increasingly come across minor vandalism such as: . It would save considerable time if I could use the rollback feature to revert edits such as these. If you feel so inclined, I would appreciate it if you could add this feature to my set. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Though, you won't be able to make lulzworthy statements such as your first diff unless you use something like the below =) Enjoy! –xeno 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js'); // allows tweaking of rollback edit summary

Thanks for that, and for your messages too :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Help please

Will you help him please? --causa sui (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if he asks me to be his filter I can do so. –xeno 16:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's not asking. This is bordering on harassment, in my opinion. --causa sui (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you could ask him to not post further to your talk page (suggesting that if he has further concerns, they be raised at a central venue such as RFC/U or one of the noticeboards). –xeno 19:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Xeno: Especially in light of the comments at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Causa sui, which closed so recently, I'm more than a little concerned by the nature of the recent edits by Causa that GL has pointed out. WP:AGF is of course my starting point, but it does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. These edit summaries and edits are so "off", that IMHO they are disruptive. I tried raising my concerns to him directly. His response was to delete my note, characterizing it as "rude, aggressive comments and personal attacks". I'm not quite sure how that fits in with his obligations under WP:ADMIN to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct ... and to justify them when needed."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• As indicated above, WP:RFC/U may be an appropriate venue to discuss these matters if user talk page discussions have not alleviated your concerns. –xeno 19:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• If you are unwilling to assume good faith, then discussion between us is pointless. --causa sui (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Responding to your added bit: I believe that line from ADMIN primarily refers to actions taken whilst wearing an administrative hat. –xeno 20:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for getting back to me on the "added bit". I think, actually, that it refers to actions taken while not wearing the admin hat. This becomes clear when one looks at the entire sentence. The full sentence reads: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." The second part of the italicized bit refers only to their admin actions. But the first part is more encompassing, and especially in light of the second part it is clear that had it only applied to their admin actions, the scriveners could have so limited it. Rather, they left it as a broader obligation. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I fail to see how the deletion and above reply by Causa to my note (which was not personal in the least) was responsive per the wp:admin obligation.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to discuss content edits with you if you would have a discussion instead of an inquisition. The policy does not obligate me to accept abuse from you. You and Greg L should both learn something from how xeno (talk · contribs) approached me about the exact same issue on the exact same talk page. That's an example of how to carry on rational, productive discussion when editors disagree about something. If you can't do that, then further contact between us is harassing, and we should just steer clear of each other. --causa sui (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• In deference to Xeno's below request, I'll limit my discussion here to my question to him.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I was half-joking. Please do feel free to continue here if it will help to alleviate concerns. But keep it cool. –xeno 20:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm… I come here to leave a post for xeno and instead find a faux appeal for “help” from Causa sui. This is a transparent attempt at posturing; every single editor who dares take Causa sui to task for improper edits is met with crocodile tears and false accusations (like this) that they are engaging in “personal attacks” and “failing to assume good faith.” This is a tactic Causa sui darn near needs to file a patent on as he has honed it to a fine art. To Causa sui: other editors shouldn’t have to go to public venues like Administrator’s Noticeboards to deal with you if you’d just listen to reason like this on your own talk page. Greg L (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Let's try to draw back the rhetoric a bit...I've already got one long, drawn-out thread on my talk page - I don't have room for another! If there are concerns that need to be discussed - and user talk page discussion isn't bearing fruit, perhaps mediation or RFC/U would be in order. –xeno 20:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Every single editor, huh? How about xeno? Didn't map that data point did you? --causa sui (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have also managed to criticise Causa sui without retaliation. There is obviously a mutual misunderstanding going on which has led to mistrust. Issues get amplified with interaction. It is much easier to see the storms developing from the outside. Initially no one is at fault, but the unintentional mutual provocations lead to instabilities in the interaction between you. I'm sure either side could fix the problems, but if both sides could change it would mean less work for both. In my plan, the fixes for each side would be different. The question is, would people rather be proved right and continue this disfunctional interaction, or give up that option in order to work productively together? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of blank "living" parameter

I've come across a few edits in which your bot removed an existing blank |living= parameter. This wasn't intentional, was it? I always include "living" and "class" in WPBiography whether I know the values or not. As I'm not familiar with the plugin, I don't know if this was done completely by the plugin or if there was additional bot coding which did it. I didn't see any mention of this on the plugin talk page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe WP:Plugin++ is doing it... I'll have to check it out. –xeno 23:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's the plugin. I'll file a bug report. –xeno 12:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

William Keith

My question is abut XenoBot and how it determines if an article is a stub. I am a contributor to William Keith (artist), which was assessed by XenoBot as a stub. Is this article really a stub? I am not saying that this article is perfect and I look forward to making additional improvements, but here's a description I found of a stub:

"Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition."

I think that this article exceeds that description. It has 28 sentences and 9 references about a 19th century artist, and includes several images. Is that really a stub? Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it prolly classed it as a stub because all of the stub tags(3) at the bottom of the page. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The article is far beyond stub. I don't have time to properly class it atm, but it's easily a C or B. –xeno 00:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)