I like your "NOSPADE" essay - I wrote something similar on my userpage a while back which you might be interested in. I used the same phrase "muddy the waters" to describe the overaggressive response to trolls. I really believe that is the main problem with some admins here - they should be letting the troll dig his own grave instead of climbing down into the hole and helping him dig; and in that case, if he wasn't really a troll in the first place, he might just become a productive editor.
Anyway, nice essay, and I hope it sticks. ATren 11:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
After your unusual question about my drinking habits, I was curious about articles you had edited. I looked at Phèdre, since I have prepared a few english WP pages from french originals myself. You made a small edit to the synopsis which made the article marginally more inconsistent than it already was (unexplained conflicts between french and english spellings of place names). Using the original french WP page (did you know there was one?), I carefully retranslated, reformatted and illustrated the article so that it now bears some semblance to an encyclopedia article. (Of course it still misses comments on comédiennes like Sarah Bernhardt or more recently Isabelle Huppert who have been famous in the title role.) There were several serious mistranslations, e.g. "renoncer" = "refuse" not "renounce", which rendered parts of the plot unintelligible. Aren't careful edits on actual articles, rather than holier-than-thou sermons, what this encyclopedia is about? I intend at some later date to work on Andromaque and Britannicus, which are in an even worse state. -- Mathsci 14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I have been very impressed with some of your recent contributions and therefore awarded you a token of my appreciation. Your contributions have been some of the very few good things to come out of this whole silly affair. Best wishes, -- John 22:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi GTBacchus, could I get your opinion on a case of potential sock-puppetry? I suspect a newly registered user ( Saguy1982 ( talk · contribs)) to have operated under closely matching IPs before and after using a previous account ( Jun kaneko ( talk · contribs)). Several other editors seem to agree with this suspicion and now I am trying to figure out, which further steps (i.e. filing a report at WP:SSP) would be the most appropriate. See a related discussion at WP:ANI, were I have posted a detailed history of the events. - Cyrus XIII 22:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Does that sound to you like a reasonable option? - GTBacchus( talk) 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC) |
I noticed you've been involved in discussion with Tcaudilllg. Quite frankly I'm not sure what to make it and I was wondering if you have any advice. He seems intent on disrupting Wikipedia in the name of his own beliefs, and I'm not sure how to convince him that he's not going to be successful.-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk| @ 23:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought it would be polite to let you know that I referred to your 'when not to call a spade a spade' essay in discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry - it's quite a sensibly exploration of some of the issues that have been around for the last little while - perhaps you might consider contributing? (also, I'm afraid that I couldn't find the correct link to the essay - would you mind letting me know where it is? - thanks heaps.) - Privatemusings 06:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I didn't notice the survey. I came there from ANI's where was/is a case about the user erasing diacritics. I suspected it as one of that case so I moved it in good faith back to the version with diacritics. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 21:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to crash your page - it's rude I know, but I did want to stop by and say hi. It's Migratory here - we used to know each other on h2g2 and you visited me via a ferry. Scandalously, we've since lost touch. Your page there was dead so I followed the directions to here. Anyway, if you want to catch up some time you can find me at (an address I've now removed} I'm aware I owe you a meal, and if I have to fly across the Ocean to pay up, sobeit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Migratory ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
SJP:Happy Verterans Day! has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I see you have taken exception to my usage of the term bigot to describe certain individuals. Unless you can produce an example of a word which includes the British and the Americans (clearly here, "nationalist" does not suffice) whose only purposes are purely from a political vantage point, with no regard to the rest of the world, then I am justified in using the term. Secondly, I suggest you read my statement again, you have missed something; I did not go off-topic. I clearly stated that if other countries have accepted name changes, then this should be no expection. When the pro-Anglo-American Shah changed Persia to Iran willy-nilly to the dismay of many Persians, you didn't hear the then-already-established BBC still using the old name; they embraced the new one. The topic is relevant, and it is I who is obeying the Wikipedia rules. Evlekis 12:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have removed the commercial linkspam but have kept the cultural reference intact.
Thanks for the heads-up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.32.77 ( talk) 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi GTBacchus;
Yesterday I posted at WP:AN/I regarding an anonymous user who was/is constantly reverting changes made to templates in royal articles. An admin determined that the user was stalking/following my edits and blocked the user for 48 hours (first block). Consequently, a user I suspected who had the anonymous IP as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet is doing the exact same thing. I have seen your name around before and saw that you comment at WP:AN/I, so I was wondering if you could take a peek at the situation since there is a lot going on at WP:AN/I and it seems that it is being overlooked. Thanks! Charles 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So after typing on the talk page for these articles, Charles just types "Incorrect" and the same thing he keeps going on about without even bending and changes it back and we're back to the start. Actual look at these pages, there's in no way vandalised by either Charles or myself. And I am the one who types out these ancestry charts and he is tracking my edits, which I sort of resent him implying I am doing that to him. So guess just because he keeps up a stink, I'll get blocked. Wikipedia free use just a nice idea. ( Cladeal832 05:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC))
Just to let you know, I handed both Cladeal and the IP a 48 hour block for gaming an edit war on Sophie of Württemberg and probably several other articles. I think this needs to be dealt with better, but that was the temporary fix. -- Golbez 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
One thing does occur to me: you mention WP:NC(NT)... the talk page there is probably a good place to seek knowledgeable outside parties. If the edit warring seems about to start up again, why not ask over there for more eyes on the situation? Additionally, if Cladeal382 disagrees with the guidelines on that page, then perhaps you could direct him to make his case there. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A little disappointed with your comments directed at me at WP:ANI, since, as I mention in your reply, I usually agree with what you have to say. I can't accept, though, that we should base decisions on-wiki on what is likely to offend people, otherwise we'd never have any articles in any vaguely controversial areas. Also baulk a little at your suggestion that I'm unfamiliar with other cultures - for a start, I live in London. I'm not too het up about this, just a little disappointed that a user I respect has seen fit to react in this way to something of this nature. No more bongos 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been to London plenty of times - I think I would count it as my favorite city in the world - and it's very, very different from the third world. When I used to flee from Kenya to England and regain my sense of equilibrium, it was very clear to me which place was part of my world and which one was not. - GTBacchus( talk) 08:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of good form, you should know I stuck my beak in your beeswax over here. You don't know me and didn't ask what I thought, so I'm sorry if it somehow makes your life harder. I'm very impressed with how reasonably you express yourself. sNkrSnee | t.p. 05:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again for your reply to my questions about civility. Now I'd like to ask you a favor, and this time it's about my own civility. As humans, we are all imperfect and may not see our own imperfections as clearly as other do. For context, please see this comment [1] by one user to another. That uncivil comment prompted this comment [2] by me to the recipient of the first comment. Please give me your honest opinion as to whether my comment was uncivil. After you form your opinion you might read this. [3]
Let me be clear: I ask this only for the purpose of improving my own behavior. I will not quote your opinion to anyone else. I'm NOT looking for "defense witnesses". I'm just looking for an independent 3rd party opinion. I'm also making this same request to a second person.
P.S. Given that everything in Wikipedia is visible to everyone, probably hundreds of people will become aware of something that perhaps I don't really want to publicize. So be it. That might have the side effect of spreading more awareness about civility. Sbowers3 03:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the situation here, and thought about it a bit. The comment for which you were warned was not, in my opinion, grossly uncivil, but it did lump a certain other editor into the category of "users deserving of the finger," or something like that. I think it would be an entirely appropriate private comment, but as you note, those don't really happen on the wiki. I don't find it surprising that someone took offense.
It's probably a good rule of thumb that, if there's something you aren't comfortable saying in front of the whole world, then don't say it on Wikipedia. Not only the person you're talking to, but the person you're alluding to, are likely to read your comment, more than once.
I hope that helps. Like I said, I don't think you were far out of line, but if you're looking to see what it was about your remark that pushed a button, I think it was the possible implication of disrespect for the previous poster. - GTBacchus( talk) 12:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You moved all the page from Rodimus to Hot Rod (Transformers), but the Transformers: Energon Rodimus has never been known as Hot Rod, and just that portion of the page should be moved back to Rodimus. Let me know what you think. Mathewignash ( talk) 02:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Tony; I wonder if you'd be kind enough to wait about a week before closing discussions like this one. Some who may have wished to comment, may not have had an opportunity and I don't perceive a need for urgency in the matter. [4] Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A request for arbitration involving you has been filed. Viridae Talk 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi G.T.- Regarding your recent Voyager 1 edit: Yes, "data" started life as the plural of the Latin noun "datum," but it's used differently now. In modern usage, it behaves more like a noun of quantity, like "water." Take a look at the entryfor "data" in the American Heritage Dictionary. To get a sense of their standards, you can look up "impact" as a verb there--you'll see that they don't cave too quickly on usage changes. - Eric (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I'm making you my expert on incivility and what to do about it. I am totally uninvolved in this situation [5] but I want to use it as an opportunity for learning how to deal with incivility - i.e. how to reduce it. I'd like to know what to say (if anything) to each of the two parties. If you would respond directly to one or both of the parties, or to WP:EAR I might learn something. If you don't care to involve yourself, that's fine, too. Sbowers3 ( talk) 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey man, long time no see. Thanks for taking care of that
RM for me. I did notice that when I applied the {{move}}
template, it had the link to the page to be moved redlinked. It apparently assumes that any placement of the template on a talk page means that the request is for an associated project page. I looked for a second argument (like the {{RM}}
template has (to explicitly state both names)) but I didn't see one. Is that behaviour a flaw, or by design? Might be a useful suggestion, if it's unintentional. /
Blaxthos (
t /
c ) 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. That's an interesting point about the template. I don't think I'd noticed the error, although there did seem to be a lot more red than usual in that template, now that I think of it. I'm certain it's a problem that could be fixing with a coding solution, by adding a variable like "talkpagemove" that you could switch on as necessary.
Looking at Template talk:Move#A way to specify the source page, the question has come up before, and the reply was that, since it's so rare, it's better to just subst: the template and manually fix the link. I guess that seems pretty reasonable; perhaps it should be documented somewhere on WP:RM? Does your family come from Oklahoma at all? - GTBacchus( talk) 23:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
GT, You really spent a lot of time sifting through my Wikipedia woeful weject - you were thoughtful +.
I'll be blunt: Never in a million years would I choose that subject to write about *except* that I have a paying job and the payor wanted to see if we could upload an article for the corporate client. I didn't think it would fly. Although, I did like doing the architectural research. But, even though this one's a dog, the info you imparted is certainly applicable next time around, and for that I am duly grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee Axelrod ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
All right. Here's the kicker; I *know* I read your pages long response -obviously, because I responded to it, and now I can't find it. *where* is the thing? link? Dee Axelrod —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee Axelrod ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated List of national languages of India ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Mugunth( ping me!!!, contribs) 10:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
This is for being continually cool, no matter how hot Wiki gets. The term "cool under fire" seems to be made for someone like you. Now, if I had any artistic skillz, I should make a BS to fit purely that... hmm. Meh, until that day comes, if ever, this is deserving of you, and vice versa. --Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario Sonic BOOM! 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for acting as a mediator during the NPA issues. If I ever step over the line in any way, please let me know. I would rather know immediately than things being drug up later down the line. If I am ever dismissive of the other sides point of view or not letting them have their chance to speak constructively, please let me know. spryde | talk 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11079 http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15627 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13766 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15892 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13611 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15243
Instincts, actually. Extroverted thinking, perceives the conditions which frustrate communication. Tcaudilllg ( talk) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this an extension of some conversation we were having earlier, perhaps over at WT:NOSPADE? - GTBacchus( talk) 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The trouble is that you're not nearly as perceptive as you think you are. You think you have access to the "true forces of reality", while anyone who disagrees with your point of view does not. That's pretty much the definition of an extremist. You'd rather label people as "extremists" than learn how to interact effectively with them. Wikipedia does not sanction such pathological communication behavior, and we're not going to. To work here, you'll have to learn to work with people, and part of that involves taking off those goggles through which you see people as "extremists".
Perhaps you're not here to write the encyclopedia in a collaborative manner. Perhaps you're here to show off just how "right" you are about people. If that's the case, then you should leave. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the close on Hed PE. Can you handle the other pages mentioned in the move proposal as well? I noted them in the listing, and I added the multimove tags to them so that they could be handled as part of the same request. I would handle it myself, but since I suggested the change, that might be considered inappropriate. Dekimasu よ! 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you handle this IP, or should I take it to WP:AIV? Repeated POV-pushing and vandalism today (see contribs) - final warning issued before latest vandalism. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added your name to involved parties in the MONGO 2 arbitration case.-- MONGO ( talk) 02:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the paragraph about Thomas Aquinas from the Drunkenness article? It seemed very encyclopedic to me and it provided a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharecropper ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree, you're welcome to re-insert it. It would be a good idea, if you do that, to comment on the talk page explaining why you put the sentence back. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll clarify with pleasure, here is a copy of the vote:
![]() | This page is affected by the
Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{ Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary. |
As you can see in article #5 in all places that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). Therefore: History of Gdańsk (Danzig), Teutonic Takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) and Tumult of Thorn (Toruń). Regards, Space Cadet ( talk) 13:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi GT,
Listen, don't even worry about the bitchy mood. Happens to all of us. It never happened, as far as I'm concerned. Your friend,
Space Cadet (
talk) 13:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Right now I need to take a quick break to Germanize some maps. But I'l be back with the tumult shortly. Space Cadet ( talk) 08:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a short note about the dispute. The main conflict is between myself user:Bandurist and user:Kuban kazak. He is the more seasoned editor. I have only been editing for a short time. Our backgrounds are in many ways are remarkably similar, (we can take the same side on many disputes) yet different (we can be dimetrically opposed to each other. That is why we keep on bumping into each other in particular articles dealing with the Ukrainian Cossacks and related articles such as Balachka, Cossack Ukrainian - basically materials primarily dealing with the Ukrainian Kuban Cossacks and issues regarding Eastern Ukraine and that section across the border in russia where there are many Ukrainians. I (of Ukrainian Cossack and Russian background, born in Australia, live in Canada, educated in Ukraine, worked in the Kuban) take a Ukrainocentric view. My colleage(of Ukrainian Cossack and Russian background who was educated in the US worked in Ukraine and lives in the Kuban) takes a Russocentric view.
Our main conflict is with the use and implementation of Ukrainian language and transliteration in the post Soviet, post Russian Imperialist period. If you are interested in pursuing this discussion, and hearing more please send me a note.
If after investigation you find this Ukrainian dispute entertaining may I suggest a short story by the Ukrainian writer Nikolai Gogol (who wrote in Russian) The story about how Ivan Ivanovych had an argument with Ivan Nikifrovych in his collection Mirg/horod Bandurist 02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for completing the move, and thanks for catching the double-redirect on Elizabethan fashion. - PKM 17:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thank you for fixing the dot, I'm gonna ask someone to teach me how to do that so I can do it myself next time I need to, regards. Supaman89 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Today I moved this page and intended to move the talk page as well. But I had the talk page open for editing at the time, so I've managed to create a situation with two talk pages: Talk:Principality of Piombino and Talk:Principate of Piombino. Do you have the ability to correct this (i.e. by removing Talk:Principate of Piombino? Thanks in advance. Noel S McFerran 02:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, GTBacchus. I've replied your question to me on my talk page. I'm very sorry for the late reply. I would also that I was very impressed by your question - I thought about it a lot - and I appreciate that you decided to continue the discussion. I think people on all sides of the debates in which Wikipedia is embroiled could learn from your book. :) If you feel like posting a response, I should be able to continue the discussion later today or tomorrow. Again, thanks ~ Iamunknown 00:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
i should have just edited it with my account. anyway, yeah i do have a source... read the book "just a modern rock story" they also site the other major influence in his song writing as being the band "yes" but i'm sure they're not hip enough to be sited. this is just insane. when anyone doesn't agree with anyone else on this site, they are blocked. i'd appreciate being unblocked. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.194.116 ( talk • contribs) 13:22, December 9, 2007 (UTC)
86 that unblock request. apparently i am not blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.194.116 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, December 9, 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You closed a rename of "War on Terrorism" of "War on Terror". Talk:War_on_Terrorism#Title, and I think that should be reconsidered.
Can I ask that this be reconsidered as either "No Consensus", or to have the discussion re-opened?
I was not aware of the discussion at the time, and would like to add discussion. The key part that was missing was any mention of was the official name is according to US White house documents. ( in general, I don't think enough discussion occurred to warrant such a change.)
While the informal name is often used in the press, Most all US formal documents on this subject refer to "War on Terrorism".
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/faq-what.html - FAQ - What is the War on Terrorism?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/100dayreport.html - The Global War on Terrorism - The First 100 Days
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/ - National Strategy for Combating Terrorism
http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/ - Progress Report On the Global War on Terrorism.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/index.html - CIA & The War on Terrorism
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html - Terrorism FAQs
To find official Whitehouse documents on the War on Terrorism , use the search:
google: site:whitehouse.gov "war on terrorism"
google: site:cia.gov "war on terrorism"
compare this with a similar search for the informal name.
Also, I think that "War on Terrorism" is more NPOV, where the informal "War on Terror" is more often directly associated personally with President Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodWasAnAlien ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, the missing signature, was not intentional. GodWasAnAlien ( talk) 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)).
---
What I am now asking is that the September consensus possibly be invalidated.
There are several more reasons I list on Talk:War_on_Terrorism#War_on_Terrorism_vs._(informal)_"War_on_Terror" that are relevant.
But one obvious reason why the consensus was invalid, is that the consensus references to google searches (the only quantitative reason given for common-name) apparently did not exclude wikipedia referencing matches.
From Wikipedia:Search_engine_test: "The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word 'Wikipedia'"
2007-12-14 Google results:
Though, if you wish, I can start a new official move discussion.
btw, when I started the category rename process, I was not aware of the September consensus on the main article. Otherwise I would have started with this.
thanks . GodWasAnAlien ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
More to the point, the article is currently at your preferred location, so what's the problem? - GTBacchus( talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thanks, and have you done this in the past? just have another quest. you might be able to help with. 75.23.79.10 ( talk) 03:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just curious if marijuana use (not 3 joints a day, just maybe 1-2 a week) changes people's personality's for the worse or dulls people down more than just temporarily. I've heard so many conradicting stories on this and also seen so many different people that all seem to handle it differently. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.79.10 ( talk) 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right that different people handle it differently. There hasn't been much study of the long term effects. There are plenty of daily users who are intelligent and productive people, as well as plenty who are unmotivated slackers. Some people mellow out when they smoke pot; some people freak out. Some get energetic; some get sluggish. Some acquire intense focus; some lose the ability to focus on anything. Some wake up; some go to sleep. Most get hungry. Some people seem not to feel normal unless they smoke pot; some try it a few times and decide it's not for them. Some use for years, only to decide later that it was a destructive force in their life. Others feel that it catalyzes beneficial spiritual experiences. Some of these contradictory things will even happen to the same person.
If you're curious, I recommend researching the subject by reading everything you can find. Our article Cannabis (drug) is a good starting point, but also follow some of the references to external sources in there. You might find answers to a lot of your questions.
Above all, if you're using, be careful. Be as safe as you can, think about set and setting, and don't get in legal trouble - that's probably the worst way pot can mess up your life. Don't sell, and try not to buy for others. That's where you can get into staggeringly bad trouble.
Naturally, I am neither a doctor, nor a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as medical or legal advice. I don't encourage any kind of illegal activity. If you need medical or legal advice, talk to a medical or legal professional. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
GT, We get a ton of old proposals which accumulate at Category:Wikipedia proposals. Periodically I try to prune out the deadwood. Just routine, and it was properly reverted. Cheers! -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thank you for your intervention.The things were going out of control.
I will follow your advice but I need to figure out how this "Requests for commentt" works....Salutes ! Adrianzax ( talk) 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"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 "G"s, and "H"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 20:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your interst in Wiki Doctorates. I am at the moment trying to contest the deltion of thius particular article. Would you mind explaining about this name space and also a link to where you have copied the article.
Yours Sincerely Dr.J.Wright MD ( talk) 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Please place a reply on my talk page ASAP
Cheers
Thanks loads for that however now for all your help could you apply on the (project) for a doctorate thankyou —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wright93 (
talk •
contribs) 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
How can you say that you didn't endorse wiki doctorates, you moved it to somewhever which made me think it was ok and as an administrator you SHOULD NOT have moved it and stated to me that it wasn't "worth" it!!!
The only honorifics we really have here are Wikipedia:Barnstars, which are given to individual people, by other individuals, for individual reasons. The idea of having some Wikipedians who have earned a rank and others who haven't really goes against the spirit of the project, and nobody thinks that RC patrollers or welcomers have any kind of "rank". Even admins are considered janitors, who have certain types of mops that are necessary for dealing with certain types of messes.
Most "power" or prestige on the wiki comes from one's edits, one's arguments, and one's reputation - which is established through making many good edits and helping work out many arguments. The idea that you could just list your name on a page and thus hold some kind of honorific or title is... it just doesn't make sense. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't delete it for any reason other than that I had read it -- J.Wright ( talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Take Care.... NeutralHomer T: C 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there is currently a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), with the purpose of drafting an opening paragraph for the guideline. One point (albeit a minor one) that remains to be sorted out is the relevance of NPOV/brand management-related concerns to the overall rationale. Since you are involved in move requests proceedings more extensively than any other editor that I know of, your expertise and opinion on that particular issue, as well as the overall draft would be most welcome. - Cyrus XIII ( talk) 08:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Nengscoz416 (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia.
I wrote a propsed move for "Queen Mother of the West". Can you review it and if you agree with me could you move that article to 'Xi Wang Mu'? If you don't agree with what I wrote then let me know.
Thanks, Kong, Wo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongwo ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You wrote, "forcing line break - what's up with the blank lines getting eaten?". I fixed that for you (
diff). You had (by accident or on purpose) embedded a <p>
tag in your comment text. But MediaWiki is already turning our wiki text into paragraphs, such that they begin with <p>
and end with </p>
. In XHTML, things are a bit stricter than HTML of old, and a nested or unclosed <p>
is going to confuse the rendering (I'm not sure what the standard actually says on this, but any which way, it's not going to do what you wanted). If you want to force a paragraph break, you can hit enter twice to insert a blank line in the wiki markup
<--- like that, or you can insert <br/>
(make sure you include the trailing slash, which in XML means it's a stand-alone tag, rather than an paired tag (which would expect a closing </...>
tag)). Hope this helps! :-) —
DragonHawk (
talk|
hist) 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be a voice of reason over on the Criticism of Wikipedia page. I'd like to ask you something without it blowing up into a big conflict. User:Onlyjusthisonetime has been making several comments to the talk section, and when I looked him up, he's only ever commented on internal Wikipedia stuff. On his first edit, he said he was an alternate account for an admin. While I respect his right to privacy, this appears to be a violation of WP:SOCK, especially since he voted on that account. I don't want to cause a big scene, especially since I think people are reacting irrationally because the Register article hits so close to home. But I do want some guidance as to how to approach this. Wellspring ( talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your message about Speak My Mind: I've just unprotected the redirect and moved the Speak My Mind (album) article over it myself. I inadvertently missed the message about it left by BritandBeyonce ( talk · contribs). Extraordinary Machine ( talk) 13:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Generally, I agree that there is a problem of WP:Anti-elitism and as noted in WP:FAIL, German Wikipedia has done better at creating a greater percentage of content, imo precisely because of their elitism.
Do me a favor and look at this: Wikipedia talk:There is no credential policy
The situation:
(paraphrase)
"There's no consensus."
"Yes, but why? What's the opinion in the essay?"
"The opinion is that there's no consensus."
"That doesn't logically follow. It's a red herring. There is no opinion in the essay."
"It doesn't matter if there's no opinion. There's still no consensus."
"You're not really adding anything to the discussion, here."
"I'm not required to discuss."
"WHAT opinion or advice am I putting forth?!"
"The opinion that there is consesnsus, look I'm done discussing this with you!!!"
How on earth am I supposed to deal with that?
The only way: WP:IAR. Of course I choose not to invoke it right now, because based on the way Wikipedia is currently, I would probably get blocked for edit-warring, since the 3RR is enforced strictly, despite what the policy page on it says. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring is a terrible solution; it shows that you don't know how to get things done on the wiki, it makes you look like the POV-pusher when the wider community finally does look, and it fails in its aim, which is to win the content dispute. It's like trying to open a closed door by standing in the center of the room and stabbing yourself repeatedly in the leg - it's a bad idea for multiple reasons.
If you seriously believe that IAR is the only way to deal with a content dispute, then you've clearly never tried effective dispute resolution (walking to the door and opening it). I recommend it. Making an edit repeatedly in the face of opposition might feel very righteous, but it's blinkered, ineffective, and distracting from the good work we're trying to do. Bringing more eyes is always a better solution. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping return the disambiguation page to Adam. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to complete this move. - CheshireKatz ( talk) 13:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that we did want a move, just not the one that was originally suggested. I've commented more on the talk page. Franzeska ( talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You said:
We need to encourage people to stop seeing Wikipedia in terms of "rules" and "policies" and to start thinking more in terms of "good ideas" and implementing those good ideas by means of communication with human beings..
See: WP:VPP#We need to encourage users to think critically. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want, revisit the move request at Talk:Levon V of Armenia that you attempted to close and review additional comments. I will propose a systematisation of all the monarchs of Armenian Cilicia, i.e., a move to English names including Leo and a dropping of titles before names, following your decision. — AjaxSmack 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you were there cleaning up after User:TJ Spyke, perhaps you can speak to him about how to properly discuss issues with other users. TJ was extremely rude to me, took the conversation to someone else's user page for what looked like the sole purpose of discrediting me, continued to badmouth me for things that I actually did not do on the Request for Move page, and his actions (Even if I could believe was done to improve Wikipedia) were pretty messy as you are aware.
He edited another user's entry on a talk page, correct me if I'm wrong but that is a mistake for any purpose, and needlessly changed a Navbox. He violated more policy that he upheld and caused a lot of article damage that will take a while to fix. In his haste he completely overlooked the fact that a discussion about the article names was being held on one of the pages. His changes were actually only half correct, he didn't bother to research the proper spelling of the names of some of the titles and just made a bad problem worse.
I'm going to talk to him about this, and revert his changes that were made in error, but I would like a mod to back me up so that it doesn't turn into dirt kicking. Thanks for your help. -- AeronPrometheus ( talk) 12:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" really means:
According to your model, the person who is right wins, whether or not he manages to convince a consensus of others.
Exactly. The person who is right wins, Even if they lose.
How should it be any other way?
Which do you believe in? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 15:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've started drafting an RfC on JzG's conduct here if you'd like to participate. Cla68 ( talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Me and several other editors have been drafting an RfC on JzG here. We listed efforts by you to influence his behavior in the past but don't necessarily expect you to be one of the certifiers for the RfC. But, if you'd to look it over and tell us if you think anything that we listed is unfair or inaccurate before we post it, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Cla68 ( talk) 01:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)