User talk:GTBacchus/Archive 15

Mathematics

I don't know if you're familiar with the subject matter involved, it doesn't appear to involve coloring or fractions, but I thought you might be interested in the discussion/ dispute here wp:ANI#Block review - uninvolved admin request regarding a math article dispute and other issues. If you're not interested or don't want to get involved, I don't blame you. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I poked my head in, a bit. Thanks for the heads-up. I'm getting better at 9-fingered typing, and, thanks partly to our conversation the other day, I've actually made edits to a couple of mathematics articles — not only fractional coloring, but residue (complex analysis) as well! The coloring article really needs more pretty pictures, which I'm mulling over on some back-burner. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few redlinks in the fractional coloring article! Tsk tsk tsk. :) I'd help out, but there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for collaborating from some of the "senior" math editors. I also don't like to be associated with anything written as poorly as the Butcher group article. :) The fractional coloring article is quite a bit better, but could use some tweaking. A.K.Nole seems like a nice individual, so maybe you can get them to help. The ANI discussion has turned out to be quite interesting. A lot of little puzzles. How fun! Keep up the good work on article improvements, otherwise I may be tempted to accuse you of trolling... ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Math's a big place you know. Someone working on Hopf Algebras might not know a fractional coloring if it walked up and said "howdy". That Butcher article is over my head, despite my recognizing most of the nouns in the lead section.

I've seen User:Mathsci around, and he seems a little more willing to draw and state conclusions about other editors' motivations than I would be comfortable doing. I'm pretty sure he helps out with some particularly troublesome articles, and has the worn-down patience and the community support that tends to accompany those in such positions. You can't really blame the guy, when our community systematically enables such behavior. Maybe the civility poll currently under way will lead to some kind of change. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The square on the hypotneuse is... delicious!

Yes, plenty of room to work in. For example, someone needs to fix the erroneous notion that pies are square. Pies are round. Cornbreads are square. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cobbler? (Cobble 'er? I can't even teach 'er geometry!) -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Labels

I have pretty much come around to your view that labels like "vandalism" and "trolling" are nearly useless and largely inflammatory, at least when applied to established editors. Several ANI cases currently support that view. Now, when a redlink or an IP comes out of nowhere and starts taking a machete to an article with no explanation, or tries to pick a fight somewhere, those labels fit. But even then, the name calling is unproductive. Don't get mad, get even: Turn them in to WP:AIV and let an admin apply the Big Stick, and be done with it. If the admin labels it "trolling" or "vandalism" as a specific reason for blocking, that's his business. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is the occasional unmistakable case, but those are certainly the exception.

I'm a fan of the phrase "apparent vandalism" when blocking blatantly counter-productive users, although my logs indicate that I slip up in practice. (Note to self - slip up less.) I'd be happy enough if the list of common block reasons used that phrase, instead of simply calling it "vandalism" in the automated block summary. Maybe I'll post a note to some appropriate page about that later... -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a funny one. If the editor calls himself a vandal, who are we to argue? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Unproductive editing" is a good umbrella term for that kind of thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GTBacchus. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MuZemike 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Singular/plural redirects

Hi there. I've noticed that you've done a lot of work with singular/plural reverts (including this discussion at the village pump), and I was wondering if you could give your two cents at Talk:Doves#Requested move 2. Previously, I thought we had a policy of always redirecting plurals to singular, but I see that there are exceptions (such as Freaks). Should Doves remain such an exception? There hasn't been a discussion on it yet, so it'd be nice to get a consensus figured out. Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've responded there, and completed the page move. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. I'm presently going out for Canada Day celebrations, but I'll work on fixing all the redirects when I can. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mary Worth

Thanks! That was quick! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TYFYV

I was aware of it, but I didn't read it until now. I believe, though, through reading the discussion at WR and here, that the only way to resolve this particular issue is with a firm stance against it. Discussion has run its course, and it's turning into a massive dramafest. In my mind, if I were Peter Damian and I initiated a gigantic discussion on the merits of my vote, that would be a success on my part. If, in a perfect Wikipedian society, we would all thank him for his oppose and choke him off. But seeing as the community has much division on this point, and probably wouldn't humble themselves to do so, I feel that the only way to end this is to be firm against the oppose in question. bibliomaniac15 04:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly we could have, but practically, as a result of the enormous discussion happening here and in other places, the effect of it now is a bit diminished. I was talking in reference to this particular case in a more specific sense. In the future, though, perhaps we might try your method. bibliomaniac15 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm..

You're too nice to disruptive editors and bullies (who establish their Wiki-career only in terms of their content contribution). I know you're tolerable of even bullies that attacked and harassed you. However, when a justice is needed, then it should be enacted to prevent disruptive editors from doing the same behavior. If A.K.Nole or CoM did the same behavior like WP:OUTing one's identity and raising the unfound sockpuppetry accusations (comparing Elonka and Essjay) to Mathsci to what he did to them, then, I bet they would have earned another block (perhaps indef-ed) by WMC or other admins. Being an expert does not excuse a user's "extreme incivility" and "harassment" against editors, and Mathsci takes advantages of the slogan repeatedly. (however who knows whether he is a really expert until evidences are provided as Bigtimepeace pointed out) That is my only and small complaint about you. --Caspian blue 18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to math, it's very difficult to fake expertise. I would trust interactions more than a resume, if I want to know whether someone is truly a competent mathematician. I think the community is beginning to open its eyes to what you say - that being an expert does not excuse incivility - extreme or otherwise. We just have to be careful not to swing too far in the other direction as a reaction.

Thanks for your comments. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, perpetrators and bullies win and survive because Wikipedia allows them to do so.[1] --Caspian blue 20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We're working on that. It takes a cultural change, and those are difficult. Suggestions are always welcome. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The action of sneezing because of "hare allergy"

One suggestion would be for CB to learn the difference between debate and "de bait": [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Achoo!, sorry about my extreme allergy against thy. Bunny must not come near to me for my welfare. However, I enjoy reading Andy Riley's great book. :)--Caspian blue 22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Thy" is a subject pronoun. "Thee" or "thou" would be the object pronoun. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the lecture, achoo, sorry about my sensitiveness to bunny. Achoo!

Needless to say, given today's announcement, I'm not going anywhere near the Palin page. Let the other editors handle the coming siege. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Who care? :p You must get over past things.--Caspian blue 22:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Who cares about Sarah Palin??? Don't you know that the universe revolves around the USA??? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, take it somewhere else. I'm trying to do stuff here, and orange banners that don't concern me are annoying. Stop blowing kisses at each other, or take it elsewhere. Please. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you heard??? Sarah Palin has resigned as Governor in order to run for President. This is news on the order of Michael Jackson! Well, maybe not. But it's close. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. Is it somehow difficult for you to see that I'm not in the mood for this shit? Go away already. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Maths

If I didn't know any better, I would swear you engaged in untoward disparagement of my math article edits. I'll have you know, that as a professional writer, only professional writers are suited and qualified to comment on my copy-edits. Are you a professional writer? If not then you most certainly don't know what you're talking about, as only professional writers and senior copy-editor editors know how to read and write. If you do write for a living, please fax me your resume and samples of your work to prove it. Thanks in advance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh... How are you doing, CoM? I hope the weather is pleasant where you are. It's very hot here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Good thanks. A bit overcast and cool, but quite pleasant. Thanks for asking! Have a great weekend. Sorry if my acting job above wasn't captivating or entertaining. But I do enjoy some good irony now and again. Cheerios! Oh and I just read the rest of that thread on ANI. I had thought it was done and over, but there was more. I think the main problem with admin abuse is the damage and disruption it causes as that series of events prove. Instead of fixing the problem, WMC encouraged it and it grew. Shocker of shockers. Oh well. Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you just caught me right after waking up. While my math skills kick in within 1 or 2 minutes after I arise, my improv comedy skills follow by like, a whole quarter hour. I'm gettin' old! At 23, I could open my eyes and already be in character... -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting discussion and patient explanations. Have a good one! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit armageddons over math? Go figure. The only thing I know about math is that 1 and 1 is 2; 2 and 2 is 4; and 5'll get you 10 if you can woik it right. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

Could you please stop posting on my talk page? When it comes to commenting on mathematical articles, I don't find anything you write helpful or accurate. Ex-arbs like Charles Matthews and Yellowmonkey seem effortlessly to grasp the point. You on the other hand seem to have major problems. I have no idea at all why you are acting in this manner. You seem to be completely out of your depth. What is extremely worrying about you is your wiki-friendship with CoM. This friendship might explain why your statements about mathematical edits have been so far removed from what other established mathematical editors have been saying. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped - this was made clear in my last post. That post was just to say that I recognize and respect your expertise. This is true. I have made no comment about the mathematics involved in this case. My "statements about mathematical edits" are non-existent. It is very clear to me that A. K. Nole didn't know what he was talking about, and that your contributions are extremely valuable. I didn't realize I had to say that. I shall endeavor to remember to make such statements in the future, as I can not assume that people will know what I don't say.

I was actually addressing an independent point, unrelated to mathematics. How our experts handle ignorant people matters. I suggest that your handling of the ignorant is sub-optimal. Why you take that as a comment about the mathematics involved in this case is a mystery to me.

I hope that you'll re-read my comments with this in mind, that I have no criticism of your mathematical expertise, nor do I fail to value your generosity in sharing it with us. I simply take issue with your handling of the human side of the situation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just reviewed all my contributions to that thread, and not once did I mention anything about your mathematical edits, or about anyone else's. Not once. I'd very much like to know what you mean by, "[my] statements about mathematical edits". -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a peculiar phenomenon I've occasionally noticed. An editor who has been very useful to the project rapidly deteriorates into massive incivility, yet, because of prior contributions, nothing happens for a time. An administrator who has done yeoman work not only becomes uncivil, but begins to liberally block without adequate cause, and when involved. And because of the inertia, and a circle-the-wagons approach that forms around these as the community begins to respond, they get more and more outrageous. I'd say that if I did a tenth of what Mathsci has done, recently, I'd be indef blocked.

Mathsci, though, is just a symptom of a generic problem, that of experts editing articles in their area of expertise. No print encyclopedia would allow this! Rather, experts write articles, they are then edited by editors who represent the publisher and the readership, for experts may not be good communicators, in addition to the possibility of experts holding and pushing personal POVs that ordinary mortals might not even vaguely recognize. Some of these editors might be experts or close to that, some might be less knowledgeable, who then stand in for the readership. I've come to the conclusion that we should start to treat experts with (1) much more respect, and (2) as having a COI on the topic. It's the job of experts to advise the rest of us. If an expert can't explain the topic to the editorial community, to a few editors who put some serious effort into it, how can we consider that their articles are valuable to the project? I find it hard to believe that there is no way to explain the topics involved to generally educated readers, in a way that at least provides something more than a wall of equations. If a subject is so abstruse that it's impenetrable except to a few, I'd say that it wouldn't deserve an article, but only perhaps a sentence in a more general article. If that. Remember, our content should be verifiable by an ordinary editor, but it must also be more than that: it must be intelligible. --Abd (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Abd, mathematical articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica are written and signed by experts in the subject. The same goes for mathematical encyclopedias. You really seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. In your case you attempt to edit scientific WP articles way beyond your understanding and usually make withering comments about experts. This raises serious issues with any namespace article you edit. There is no such problem with any of my namespace edits. Mathsci (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

More detailed reply

This is a reply to posts made at ANI, that I could not reply to there before the thread was archied:

Ahem, CoM was blocked for his edit to the talk page. Please look at how the two namespace articles were edited and then compare them with the talk pages before making statements like this. Presumably, given your mathematical background, you know the difficulty of material such as Hopf algebras or renormalization. A.K.Nole's edits have been full of mathematical errors, which other editors have spotted. You seem to be stigmatizing me for being an expert and spotting these errors. I have no idea why. Mathsci (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a strange misinterpretation of my words. I do not think there is anything wrong with you being an expert and spotting those errors. I don't think there is anything wrong with you working to get A.K.Nole away from that article. I think the way you did it was foolish. I want you to do precisely what you did, minus the foolishness. Approach human interactions as intelligently as you approach mathematics. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus seems to be suggesting that there are problems with my namepsace edits. Please could he say here what these problems are? Have I made too many edits? Are the articles too technical? I made 600 edits to Differential geometry of surfaces. Was that too many? Mathsci (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have zero complaints with your namespace edits, and nowhere in the thread have I taken issue with them at all. I have said that you were uncivil to A.K.Nole, and that is true. My last post in this thread was clarifying to A.K.Nole that I think he does not have grounds to pursue action against you. That is the point I was making, which led you to think I was attacking your mathematical contributions.

If this is how you treat people who try to defend you from frivolous harassment, then I'd hate to see how you treat people who actually wrong you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus, please and reread what Charles Matthews, Yellowmonkey, David Eppstein, CBM and WMC have written. In particular the words faux naif and pratting around. The virulence with which people have written seems inversely proportional to their mathematical level of understanding. A.K.Nole was pratting around because even the notion of group was beyond his understanding. Charles Matthews said that the worst thing on the talk page was written by your friend ChildofMidnight, who I believe called me a jerk on his talk page and made a similar personal attack on me on A.K.Nole's talk page. Anyway on the ANI page you seem to have blown hot and cold, somehow following the crowd rather than thinking for yourself. Your analysis of what A.K.Nole was doing, which didn't take into account that almost sentence he wrote contained mathematical errors and misconceptions, many of them howlers, shows that your mathematics is too shakey for you to make dispassionate and informed comments. Charles Matthews made a very good point about ChildoMidnight's posting on the talk page, for which he was blocked. CoM also called me a jerk on his talk page and I believe made a personal attack on me on A.K.Nole's page. These things don't seem to concern you in the slightest. Shell Kinney said that A.K.Nole appeared to be wikihounding me, that he was following my edits. This is something that you have chosen very conveniently to ignore. I can't see any point in continuing this discussion in these circumstances. I think you'll have more fun with Abd, although I personally find it quite difficult making any sense of almost anything he writes. Good luck, Mathsci (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that AKNole's posts were very clueless. I don't disagree that he was pratting around. I haven't disagreed with that at all, and I haven't defended any of his edits. I don't defend CoM calling you a jerk. I think that's uncivil and wrong. I don't defend AKNole following you around. I haven't said anything in support of that.

I have noticed that I sometimes come across wrong if I fail to criticize each aspect of a situation. I don't necessarily feel I have to criticize AKNole to you. He's obviously in the wrong regarding his article edits, and I thought that went without saying.

If I seem to criticize you more than AKNole, it's because you're more important to the project. He's gone, I'm pretty sure, and scores of editors like him will come and go. Experts are different. You're very valuable because of your knowledge, and we want to keep you.

That's why it's so important that you pursue dispute resolution in a way that will minimize stress for you. Earlier in the same thread, I suggested that in similar cases, you appeal to WikiProject Mathematics for backup before the temperature gets too high. Is that really such a bad suggestion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A tip for changing the notification bar's orange color

Hi, you said the orange bar frequently coming up is annoying (I know you said for the other reason). However since you're an admin, you can't get away from the bar, so I recommend you to change the "threatening" orange bar to other pleasing colors for you. I personally hate orange color, so I got the information from village pump and changed it. If you want to get rid of the orange bar, all you need to do is

1. User:GTBacchus/monobook.css click the red link
2. Copy and paste the below tags in the box to the monobook page.

.usermessage {
    background-color: #98FB98;
    border-color: #90EE90;
}

1. The colors are in green tones, so if you want to insert another color like "grey", or "light blue", then see Web color and choose any color you want for your notification bar. Replace the colors with your preferred colors
2. Save the page
3. Reload your browser, then done.

It is a just simple tip, so you can use it or ignore it. Enjoy the holidays.--Caspian blue 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm actually pretty happy with the color. I just don't like for people to have conversations on my talk page that don't concern me, because I have to keep checking back to find out, no, there's no message for me. I find that annoying. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I'm sorry for that, and promise that would never happen again. But I came here to talk with you not with him, so his interference that holds a "scornful twist" irritated me. I've sent him blatant messages in metaphor that I do not want interferance, but well, his language and my language differ from each other. Anyway the orange color really had bothered me when I had ardent fans coming to my talk page, so I needed a neutral color for peace of mind, and assumed you would feel the same way a bit. :)--Caspian blue 02:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mean to cast blame anywhere. We're all just humans, try our best to muddle through. Maybe a color change would help my nerves. I might try a light blue, or a nice earthy brown. You use green, you say? Plants are green, and we like them... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been using this one for a while: User:Chillum/monobook.css. It is stylish. A dark green background with deep red lettering, and I rounded those stress inducing corners down. Chillum 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In the best of all worlds, maybe the message bar could be colored in something soft, pastel, from users you want to hear from, and flashing international orange or red from those you don't want to hear from. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Then I could just stare at the top of the page and pour bourbon drinks until it changes to a nice color, and only click through then. That sounds difficult to code up... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The motto of the truly dedicated wikipedia programmer is, "The difficult we do right away; the impossible takes a little longer." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

i lol'd

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		I must admit, I had an audible chuckle. –xenotalk 04:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I find the claim that "yoghurt is not even recognizable to most people" to be bizarre. I think any English speaker familiar with "yogurt" would recognize the h-version as another way to spell the same word. Are we going to be lost in the supermarkets, unable to locate any yogurt among the stacks of "yoghurt", whatever that could possibly mean? -GTBacchus1

Thanks, Xeno. I think I chuckled while writing it, too. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I definitely enjoyed reading it when I closed the RM. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I shot the sheriff...

I think you accidentally posted to the wrong talk page. Not that it isn't good advice I should probably heed, but I think you meant Mitchazenia. Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

ED

encyclopediadramatica.com/User:GTBacchus isn't you, right? Pzrmd (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of the post is, so I've asked at WP:ANI. If that was the wrong place to raise the question, I apologize, but I'm just wondering what the point is. Is there any rule about having an account at ED? Or anywhere, for that matter? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's me, yeah. I'm GTBacchus at WP, at ED, and elsewhere. (Posts on that page should make it obvious beyond the need to ask.) Who wants to know about it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The guy Pzrmd who posted above. If you would care to comment at ANI, and also close it, that would be fine. If that page is any indication, the atmosphere at ED is quite different from here, and not especially to my liking at first glance. But if that site has merit, I'd be interested in hearing about it. I try to keep an open mind about these things. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The atmosphere is very different; that's right. I'd also say the site has merit, but not that you'd want to hear about it. You seem a bit conservative to me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"Old-fashioned" is more like it. Anyway, I'm interested in whatever you have to say about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What I've got to say about it? Ask specific questions; I'll answer. Otherwise, I don't know what to say other than it's a satirical site that lampoons internet culture of all kinds. What else is there to say? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Question 1: Why is it considered a spam site? Is it because of the technical issues raised in the comments immediately below? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who considers it a "spam site". I know that it's very unpopular here, and not a reliable source for anything. Because of the first of those two reasons, links to there are deprecated here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to it were forbidden after the MONGO arb case, as "Links to sites that attack Wikipedians" Triplestop x3 02:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you foolishly believe in rules. Super. I hosted their URL for several months after that ArbCom case, with special permission from an arbitrator, because I was trying to overcome the stupidity of "banning" links to a site for stupid reasons. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is unfortunate that people take the site seriously. Triplestop x3 02:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. I get tired of people treating it as an "attack site" worth talking about. Doing so simply inflates their importance, which is not part of our task here. It's best to just ignore it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"Banning" a site because it criticizes wikipedia strikes me as counterproductive. Harry Truman once said, "With criticism comes progress". Wikipedia's establishment might hate sites like that and another that seems to get frequent mention, whose name escapes me just now wikipedia review (?), but you can learn more from the critics than from the "choir", if you get my drift. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You're preachin' to the choir here, BB. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's ironic. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm the one who's an ordained minister? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Well, it's better to be ordained than disdained, fer shur. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I could probably be an ordained minister in the Church of Baseball, if I knew what the qualifications were. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Some bored Wikipedia admins edit there, most notably User:Alison. When browsing be sure to disable images and Javascript. Triplestop x3 02:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I surf with the equivalent of 8 condoms on my browser. Most sites don't work without special exceptions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Obvously you have to be careful about extra-wikipedia visibility. I recall that User:Neurolysis' RFA was sunk by something he said in a newspaper article. However, it appears that the main problem was not so much that he got his username in the paper, but that he got his facts wrong. I've seen other sites where disgruntled editors actively worked towards "outing" people here. They were trying to out me for awhile. That's where not being an admin is an advantage. Exposing someone who has no power anyway is not much of a victory. It drove an admin away, though. We'd like to think wikipedia operates in its own world, but apparently it doesn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm George A Jacobs, called "Tony", who lives at [removed because of web-scraping bots] in Denton, Texas. I work at UNT, in the math department. Talk to me about "outing". -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I know some admins who have been literally threatened, so anonymity can be a good thing, though they probably know the average Texan has a gun and knows how to use it. However, the anonymity option along with "anyone can edit" is what leads to a fair degree of trouble here. There's a wikipedia wannabe called citizendium, which requires full disclosure. It's probably at the other end of the spectrum in several ways. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bugs, I probably know more than you do about our past "outing" cases. Thanks for your concern. I not only have a gun, and know how to use it, but I'm also not a complete idiot online. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am, though. Hence all the questions. :) As regards your name and address, I don't pay it no never-mind. For all I know that could be a total ruse. You could be a Buddhist monk high in the Himalayas, watching the sun rise over Qomolungma every day. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think that, then you must not think much of Buddhism. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That was just a random example. Actually, it comes closer to describing my situation. Though not all that close, just in certain ways. But since anyone can edit, identities shouldn't really matter - unless they do something to bring shame upon wikipedia. Then we hunt them down, and parachute them into the rottweiler farm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And you're telling me to consider my tone…. Pzrmd (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the [-removed - some URLs are best un-alluded to-] page? Just wondering. Pzrmd (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for tipping us off to something and then telling us not to look at it. :) However, I won't be looking at it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. Please don't. But since GTBacchus and I are already stained I decided to direct it to him. (note: I removed the warning after I decided that) Pzrmd (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw, after EC and repost. Sorry about the confusion. "Stained"? Not good. Now, I did go to the specific URL that you mentioned. There didn't seem to be anything harmful there. But it also didn't strike me as a site I want to get involved with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, did you scroll down? Pzrmd (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall. Is there something there that could damage my computer? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't scroll down. It won't harm your computer. Pzrmd (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the cat with the lime hat? Pzrmd (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall that specifically, but is that the internet photo with a kitten wearing a lime rind like a little football helmet? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. What did you see? Pzrmd (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a picture of the user. There was no lime on his head, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you went to the right page. If you truly care enough you could email me the page you went to (to be off-wiki), though I don't think it's great of me to help you find it. Pzrmd (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I went to the one at the link you posted. And, no, I'm not interested enough to pursue it further. There was just something weird about it. Not for all tastes, I guess. Maybe I'm just used to wikipedia while someone else might find wikipedia to be weird. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, although I'm not sure what it is that you saw. Pzrmd (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's got me afraid to link to that page again, so I guess it will remain a mystery. Unless GTB feels like decorating his user page here the same way. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you went to GTBacchus's userpage. I'm talking about another one and now I feel bad because if you saw what I was talking about so nonchalantly you might then be quite appalled at me. Pzrmd (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then let's not go there. That would place a heavy burden on me, and I don't want to be appalled bearer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'm sorry about that. Standards at Wikipedia have been lowered. Pzrmd (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lowered into the ground. Like my joke just above. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd, it's just the pain series. What's the big deal? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you're smart not to go back there. Unless you, like I, browse w/ the equivalent of 8 condoms on, that site will give your computer syphilis. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, another thing. If this person had been trying to cast me in a bad light by association with the website, then you amplified the question for him, and broadcast it to the community at large by posting a question at ANI that was not urgent in any way. Thanks. Please do not reply to threads on my talk page that I haven't had a chance to reply to. If you can't resist replying to posts on this page that don't concern you, then please unwatch my page. This is really annoying.

All you had to do was wait another half-hour, and I answered his question. Please don't busybody in my affairs. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your complaint has been noted and logged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll make ya a deal, though. If you will affirm that I am not on your watch list, then I will take you off my watch list as well. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(in response to you message on my talk page) I only wanted to know whether it was an impostor. I'm not trying to cast you in a bad light, although it might have seemed that way. There are people on Wikipedia that I like that edit there. Pzrmd (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hope you don't feel that I've accused you of that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And I wanted to know if participation in sites like that is frowned upon. I think it's a fair question to raise. There is this idea circulating that somehow extra-wikipedia activity is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant. The internet is wide open. If an editor here, especially an editor with authority, has a site elsewhere that criticizes wikipedia, or associates himself with a site that criticizes wikipedia, than that association is fair game for discussion. And not necessarily in a bad way. As I suggested before, if someone critizes wikipedia, the first question that should be asked is whether the criticism has merit. I gather that a site called wikipedia review (which I have never seen) is much more notorious here than ED is. Even criticism from the most offensive sites, like those that try to "out" wikipedia admins, needs to be considered, as even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. (Which I know, as I am often that squirrel.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, I agree it's a fair question to raise. I have an issue with the way you raised it. If you have questions about my participation at any website, just ask. Why you thought Pzrmd's question was a suitable topic to raise at ANI mystifies me. That's not what that page is for. Also, if you want to know whether participation on off-wiki sites is discouraged, just ask that question. There's no reason to add, "For example, GTBacchus may or may not have an ED account. Let's all look!" That's what I find annoying - with no real cause, you just focus a thread on the most drama-intensive page on the site on the question of whether or not I edit Encyclopedia Dramatica.

It should be bloody obvious that I'm the same GTBacchus for the following reasons: (1) I've got a screenshot there from when I was logged into WP as an admin, because it's a funny screenshot. That would be tricky to fake. (2) There's the photo of me at WP:FACE, which is also the guy in that photo. (3) I've got my real name on my user page here, and you can search the Web for 18 seconds and find that's what I really look like. (4) There's my talk page there, which it takes only a moment's perusal to convince yourself. (5) There's waiting patiently until the next time I log in and have a chance to answer the goddamned question.

Editing at ED is not something I try to hide. I've declared my participation there on my user page here, at I time when I felt (and feel) it was appropriate to do that. I took that note down, when it seemed (as it still seems) appropriate to remove it. If you want to know why I made those choices, please feel free to ask.

That said, I don't talk about much here except this encyclopedia, and how we run things here. I don't talk about my politics; I don't talk about my religion. I don't consider those things relevant, because I edit here as an encyclopedist, and not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, not as a Catholic, not as an Atheist, and certainly not as an ED editor.

For your information, little squirrel (thought it was rabbit - some kind of glire anyhow), ED has strict policies against posting personal information that is not already published. They've got a lawyer, it turns out. Their criticism of Wikipedia, as of any topic, is limited to what they enjoy pointing and laughing at. They're very cynical and very vulgar, and occasionally they're brilliant. You would hate the site, I'm certain. They don't share your sense of humor. You and I have at least some overlap.

Wikipedia review is different. They're not there to laugh; they're deadly serious. A lot of them have been banned from here, and that's where they go to not get over it. I understand they've been known to play the outing game, although I'm hardly a reliable source for that statement.

Have I answered your questions, Bugs, or is there more I can tell you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I now agree it was not appropriate to bring to ANI. It was one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time. It wasn't. Thanks for the explanation of ED and WR. I don't think I would like either site too well, but I say again that criticism sites should not be dismissed totally. As regards watching your page, if you will affirm that you are not going to watch my page, I will take your page off my watch list also, and we'll be done for now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not on my watchlist, and I don't intend to add you to it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And as of the moment I hit 'save' on this edit, you are no longer on mine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WP, WR, and ED have kind of a "hate triangle" going; the dominant factions on each of the sites hate both of the other sites out of these three, though other factions and individuals are more accomodating. However, on the whole, the burning intensity of this hate has simmered down from where it was a few years ago, particularly in the "BADSITES Wars" of 2006-07, where for a while the very names of WR and ED were taboo like the name of Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter books; if you so much as mentioned them, you were at risk of being blocked or banned and possibly having the revisions where the Unspeakable Sites were mentioned oversighted out of the history. Nowadays there are a few who stir up mini-dramas regarding guilt by association of somebody connected in some way with one of those sites, but this no longer gets very high on the Hysteria Meter as it would have in the past. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It was never quite as dramatic as you characterize it. ("If you so much as mentioned... etc." This was never true.) That's a load of bullshit. Part of my point back then was proving such tripe to be wrong, because it's precisely that kind of uninformed fear that empowers sites such as Encyclopedia Dramatica and The Wikipedia Review. Those who believed the hype almost made them as powerful as you pretended they were; fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. It was never verboten to mention ED here, and pretending it was... I've said enough. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My evidence section in the "Attack Sites" ArbCom case gives a number of examples, including Fred Bauder altering the spelling of all mentions of ED on an ArbCom case page to be intentionally incorrect. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and at the very same time, I posted their URL on my user page to prove that it wasn't a taboo, and to take wind out of the sails of their would-be empowerers - including Fred Bauder. I was questioned in front of ArbCom about that URL, and I was explicitly told it was appropriate and in good taste. There was never a taboo except for those who wanted one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Troll" etc (WP:AN)

Hey Bacchus,

I wast looking at WP:AN beause something was referred there, I am just a humble editor and have no wish to be an admin, I prefer to improve Wikipedia by editing articles, although I do contribute into policy debates occasionally if I think what I have to say may be useful, even if only so that others can disagree with it.

I totally agree with you that "banning" words, for admins or mere mortals like myself, would be entirely unhelpful. Myself I very rarely swear either on the Internet or in real life, and not because I don't know those words (and I probably am more likely to know where they come from than most Wikipedians who write them) but simply because I don't need to use them. In my temper sometimes, I am sure like many other editors, I have got upset when after making a lot of effort to make changes one gets a stupid revert that has not been thought over.

I have never had a ban and I think I have about 5000 edits now but that is for two factors partly because I make lots of small incrememental edits and partly because I follow my nose and often end up on a completely different article than the one I started on. I think you are quite right that to start pointing fingers is unproductive. Actually I got grumpy in the week because a bot changed an article minutes after I had carefully finished editing it for hours. I lost my temper a bit. You know the result? The guy didn't lose his rag, he apologised, he improved his bot so it left more information, he improved his own and the bot's talk page, and he added an essay (kinda based on my remarks) at WP:OWNFEET. Now THAT, to my mind, while not everything is perfect, is a constructive wikipedian. I still think he was wrong to run the bot first off (it had been approved but in my opinion was not fit for purpose) BUT he took criticisms from me and others on board and MADE IT BETTER, and MADE WIKIPEDIA BETTER. I think if I had called him a little shit or a big shit he would have been less inclined to do so.

BUT I still agree that no word should be banned. Except in articles where it is specifically merited I do not like to see swear words, and in fact I see very few on WP compared to, say, an English daily newspaper. The criterion should not be "is this a 'bad' word" (which is POV) but "is this word appropriate in this article"? Since it is, in any case, pretty much unenforcable to to ban particular words (one get into problems with names like Scunthorpe let alone foreign words etc that just happen to be bad words in English, again my bad words may not be yours) I think assuming good faith is best.

And yes, most editors are trying to improve the project, and yes, sometimes they are mistaken. You are right to say a real troll enjoys the attention and a mistaken editor throws his hands in the air and wonders why he bothers. When I am at WP:MOSNUM or Template Talk: Convert for example, or looking at WP:Articles needing translation or whatever, there is nothing but good there with people trying to chew over difficult issues very intelligently, and certainly different opinions, but nobody does anything but respects others. I know that may not happen everywhere, but it seems to me (and in real life too) if you assume good faith in othes it brings out the best in them. It also means that, when they do make mistakes, they will admit to them because they know that they are not going to get "blame" for them. And it is, in my opinion, far better to admit a mistake than deny it or attempt to hide it. Lord knows I make enough of em to have learned that one!

Best wishes. I am sorry this is rather long, but I just wanted to add my support to your general thrust and maybe out of this verbiage you might be able to pick out something of use. SimonTrew (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this note, Simon. I'm glad to meet you.

I appreciate the chance to see through your eyes a bit, and I'm encouraged at your description of areas of Wikipedia that really are relative havens from the drama of ANI, RFA, DRV, ArbCom, etc., etc. I'm reminded of the balmy quietude of the Stub-Sorting project, where I cut my teeth as a new WikiGnome, and the relative calm of Requested Moves, where the worst conflicts we see are over how to spell "Yoghurt" (which is a surprisingly acrimonious question!).

This is a new, unexplored terrain we're on. Nobody's populated a wiki encyclopedia before us, and we've got it all to figure out. I think we're making progress. It's hard to believe it's been over six years since I wrote my first articles (Squonk, and Towel), because they weren't there yet, and when "crap gets deleted" was the only speedy deletion criterion anyone needed. We've seen a few changes of the guard since those days, and the overall direction is a good one.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I need some advice again

Hi GTB

I seem to be hitting more problems with WIKI the more I stumble into trying to get an article to reflect the true position, and my communication disability seems to be getting in the way again.

Really need some issues to be clarified so that i can understand what the problems is within WIKI and how I may be or more likely others will be able to resolve the problems First I need to explain that due to the nature of my communication disability I initially have problems with the spoken word, which becomes magnified when trying to then to translate the spoken word into text, and vice versa. So I can quite easily do the research and find the the supporting documentation, but I have real problems writing up the results, this is why I am dyslexic. So I need the help from others to do the writing up that I am not best able to do, so I need to be part of a team where the other members are the wordsmiths.

The points of controversy

1. how do you classify research papers with regard to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) and more specifically how do listed research papers fit into primary source, secondary source, tertiary source, and original research. Some like to use these paper to support their claims on other articles but when the same types of sources are used to support ideas that they disagree with they question the validity of these sources especially peer reviewed research.
2. How do you find someone able to translate and Research article Abstract Summary into content for an article so that copyright issues do not arise, how much can be used from the original free abstract, what is the position about gain a citation reference from the publishers/ researchers, Personally I can find the research and understand what it means but i am unable to express what i understand in text, and even then into text that others can easily process.
3. there are a number of issues in the education portal which are categorised by country, due to the national variations, and there are main article which act as summary of the specific topic, There are issues in some education issue such as reading where a similar categorisation is required due the the differences in the nature of the langauges being taught. There is no global way to teach reading, and there is not even an agreed working model on how we acquire reading skills, and there appears to be very little research based support for the content of most of thr article it is mostly based on personal opinions of book authors, who are then cited as researchers. Who peer reviews these books.
4. The debate is currently spread over a number of talk pages but we could use the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles as somewhere to try to resolve these issues

some of the spread of the current discussion can be see on the following articles and talk pages

• Reading comprehension in the United States
• Talk:Reading comprehension
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education
• User talk:Anthony Appleyard
• Talk:Benzodiazepine
• User talk:Dolfrog/Sandbox
• User talk:WhatamIdoing
• User talk:Gordonofcartoon

I think that is all but there could be more, I hope you can help out and provide some invaluable advice.dolfrog (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog, hi. You're asking some very good questions. I'll answer you as best I can.

I can understand having difficulties communicating on Wikipedia. The fact that these are all just black words on a white screen takes away so much of our ability to be "on the same wavelength" with each other. I find it constantly challenging to maintain understanding with some other editors here. I think that's a universal experience.

I'll address your numbered points:

1. Classifying sources as primary, secondary, tertiary, or original research: I haven't done a lot of work in this area. I think that the regulars at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources would answer your questions, but those regulars might reflect a bias, in one way or the other. That's the first place I would go for guidance, though, and I would weigh what they say against what I observe in similar articles.

   A concrete suggestion: In cases where the status of sources becomes a point of contention, it might be useful to dedicate some part, or subpage, of the article talk page to keeping track of references. We could list sources that have been discussed, and record what we've said and decided about each one. I think this strategy has been tried before, but I can't remember where. I would be willing to help implement something like this.

2. Paraphrasing sources without violating copyright, and keeping everything properly sourced, can be difficult. Fortunately, there are people here who are very good at that. If you're looking for someone who has a basic understanding of the subject, then I think Wikipedia:WikiProjects might be the resource you're looking for.

   I see that you've found Wikipedia:WikiProject Education... and clicking over there, I see that it is largely dormant. I wonder if Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology would be a good place to ask; they seem a bit more active.

   I'll bet you could put out a general request for a collaborator on the Wikipedia:Village Pump, and get some responses. I might also be able to help with this kind of work, although I can't guarantee much about my schedule, or how quickly I can work. Graduate school has its demands. I also don't know much about education research, but I learn quickly, and I'm good with written English.

3. This is not just one good question, but a pointer to many important questions about how we document research in the field of education. I'm not... qualified to address all of it now. I see that you're talking about at least two problems:

   (A) Similarly to point 1 above, how to evaluate sources for education articles? Can we apply any existing project standards? Should we develop new standards?

   (B) Article scope. How do we demarcate where one article stops and another starts? Do we separate research by language? By nation? By specialization? How will the article categories be structured?

   These are all excellent questions. I don't think there's a simple answer, except: "we determine these things by consensus." I think a lot of these questions are best addressed at the WikiProject level. This brings us to:

4. The dyslexia project seems a fine place to work from. I don't think it really matters where the discussions happen, so much as what we're able to figure out.

I haven't had a chance to dig far into the links you've given me. I'll have a look, though, and perhaps I'll weigh in, if I think I can say something useful. Thanks for asking about this stuff. I'm glad you're willing to put energy into making the encyclopedia better in an area that I think is under-documented. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bow and arrow curve

Think of this as a math quiz. Your score will be determined based on the quality of your assessment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Thorny Issue: Consensus

Hi GTB

I am aware of the need for consensus, amongst editors, but are there standards set as to what consensus should mean and what interpretations should be used in the various type of dispute that can occur on WIKI. Consensus is a useful tool but it can be subject to abuse, sometimes inadvertently. Some appear to use it to mean the lowest common denominator of understanding or agreement of a topic or issue. When this is used regarding a complex topic or issue surely there must be a need for the consensus to be based on informed opinion which include the reading of all the research documentation present ed by both sides of the discussion. Other wise the consensus is being used to conceal the ignorance of those whop are not prepared to read the evidence, and so the so called consensus opinion is not based on the best informed opinions. So my real question is "do some WIKI editors hide their ignorance behind consensus, and should they have to demonstrate that they have researched both side of the debate before joining one side or the other" Any one can play a consensus numbers game with little or no understanding of the topic being discussed. dolfrog (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent question, or set of questions. I'm going to chew on them for a while before I reply properly. I can say this much now: (A) Consensus is not a numbers game, and most Wikipedians know that. (B) Claims that someone is "hiding their ignorance behind consensus" will tend to alienate uninvolved editors. They would consider that to be against the spirit of WP:AGF. (C) We don't require that someone shows they've studied a subject before talking about it, but in the articles, we require, as you know, that facts be cited to reliable sources. Deciding which sources those are can be a non-trivial matter.

I'll keep thinking about what you've said and asked here. Thanks for your contributions, by the way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but this is a special case.

I agree that relisting right away is normally not done, but there are several reasons that make this a special case. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Also, I note that a soliloquy does not a discussion make. You unilaterally removed the template without discussing it first, much less achieving consensus for it. That's being bold; it's not discussing. Being bold is fine when you honestly think there is consensus for doing what you're doing. I suppose you thought there was, but that's again assuming that this is not a special case. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't entirely clear there. I didn't mean that it was previously discussed. I mean I removed, and I explained why I removed it. I see what you mean now.

I didn't even think I was being bold, so much as being utterly routine. It was like moving an obstruction from a hallway - you just do it. Consensus is not required to refrain from going against usual practice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK THEN!

I understand you fled to Texas, but did you need to take out a restraining order? Anyways, good times. See you on your way back. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Actually, I'll be back up there in August. I'm performing a wedding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Circles

Some people edit articles. Some people specialise in AFD, or ANI, or RFA. Some people specialise in policy pages. Other people appear to specialise in arguing over page moves. Peruse WP:NC or WP:NC(flora) or, for that matter, this... Same tactics. Don't take it to heart. Guettarda (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I'll get over it. Thanks for the moral support. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

personal stake

I don't think anyone's personal stake is relevant. That's why I have not responded to your repeated inquiries about that. What matters are the arguments and how objectively sound they are, not the motivations of those who happen to be making them. That is the essence of WP:NPOV, is it not?

But, if you really want to know, I believe it's important for Wikipedia article names to reflect the most commonly used name for each topic. I'm a big proponent of that principle for reasons I probably should expound upon on my user page. In this case I believe that calls for this article to be named "yogurt".

In addition, I believe that as long as it remains at yoghurt, people are going to complain and submit and resubmit move requests, and that that won't happen once it is finally moved to yogurt. Certainly not as often. I've explained why I believe that enough times now. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right that the personal stake question isn't relevant as to the page move. I asked out of ordinary curiosity. I'm naturally a very curious person. While asking you, I also asked myself the same question - "why do I care?", and I discovered an answer that seems to make sense.

There are some things that raise continual questions, and proposals to change. Sometimes, it's appropriate to assent to these requests; sometimes it isn't. Do you know how often someone proposes that Wikipedia run paid ads, for example?

Now, I'm eager to stop talking about this. Are there any further questions I can answer for you before we call it a day? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Who put the hurt in yogurt? *Dan T.* (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Village School (Great Neck, New York)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village School (Great Neck, New York) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

I don't know why I'm on the notification list for this one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We would ask your opinion

With respect to the socionics article. Thanks, Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What about it? It looks kind of long, kind of interesting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it is interesting, isn't it? Unfortunately, user user:Rmcnew keeps inserting original research into it. (that esoterism junk) Now I'm not saying it's wrong to include esoterism in the article, BUT this is a clear case of self-publish. We'd like you to approach him about that. I know you're a fair arbiter and if you would just explain the rules to him I think he would comply. Just try not to give an opening, because he will actively seek loopholes around rules he disagrees with. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The big problem is the conspiracy accusation. That's been the whole core of his "hypothesis" and despite numerous denials by people who WERE THERE in the early days of socionics, he still clings to it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just out of town for a couple of days. I'm back now, online, and able to take a look at the situation. Thanks for explaining the background. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

More bad news for new math

Appears the "craze" sent people up the wall [3]. I'm still mulling the fraction coloring over in my head. Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. I think you answered this before, but do you normally compute it using the drawings or formulas? I think you said kind of either way or something wishy-washy? I guess I could look up the response, but I only have short term memory so I forget where it is. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure what's "normally" done, but my inclination would be to use the drawings to decide what I think the best number is, and then use some algebra to prove that my guess is right. I still have designs on that article, and making the whole thing more accessible. I'd like to know how to make better images for it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, depending on the graph, I might do just the opposite, i.e., use algebra (in particular, linear programming, using robot slavescomputers to do the grunt-work) to come up with a guess, and then play with pictures and symbols to try and prove something general. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy GTBacchus/Archive 15's Day!

User:GTBacchus/Archive 15 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as GTBacchus/Archive 15's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear GTBacchus/Archive 15! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've never had my own day before. I can hardly wait til next year! ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil remarks

Thanks for your help, as well as for your cautions about inflammatory language. I guess being clever doesn't make up for being snarky. Perhaps I should have waited to see if he would respond to another civil request and then sought administrator help myself. Cheers. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem. If you do find yourself needing admin help in the future, you're welcome to post here. I can't promise I'll be online, but if I am, I usually respond pretty quickly. Happy editing! -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bother you but I think as an administrator, you need to take a look at Prestonmcconkie's contributions since he posted the above message to you. They are certainly not appropriate and I have already warned him about them. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just FYI, his attitude problem (which hopefully will be corrected without a block) is further evident on my talk page. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy GTBacchus Day!!!

Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay!

                                                                   Yay!

Yay!Yay!Yay! Yay!Yay!Yay! Yay!Yay!Yay! Yay!Yay!Yay! Yay!

Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! Yay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.252.11 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Good catch

You're very welcome - I don't often close AfDs either - I edit conflicted with you on that one. I blame ANI. :D weburiedourdramainthegarden 20:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

[4] That... that actually moved me. a little insignificant 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's all that talk recently at the civility poll that got me thinking about how uncivil we can be enforcing it. Tznkai says it's easy, and I agree to an extent, but I also find it hard, when I get in the middle of things, not to throw a few punches myself. Live and learn, I guess, and practice makes perfect....(always trust alliterated truisms) -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my comment in the good spirits it was offered. I think your appendage was helpful. I'm not really sure what the whole highly threatening thing is about, but I try to refrain from pushing everyone to fit into the same round holes, and I do know that lots of editors don't like getting templated messages (Badagnani in particular) as they feel it's uncivil and discourteous and that their substantial contribution history here warrants better treatment. Heck I got raked over the coals for a couple of spelling corrections on an article talk page and another time for making a copy-edit that an "expert" on the subject area didn't like. It's dangerous out there. Best wear a helmet, keep your head down, and keep moving. Speaking of which, I'm off for some flag football. We're undefeated so far this season... ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We got crushed. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A favor

GTB, I've watched your work and been impressed with your abilities. I'm sure that there will be times that I will not completely agree with you, but I certainly respect your thoughts and insight. I stand before you now in request for guidance. Would you review this thread and offer some input please? — Ched :  ?  04:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That thread. I actually noticed it a couple of days ago, while wondering what WH was up to these days. I'm going to sleep now, but I'll write something here in the morning. Meanwhile, I wish you a good evening. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think WH has shown that he has no regard for community standards of courtesy. He has declared that he's not here to work collaboratively, that he doesn't AGF (nor respect anyone who does), and "fuck off" to anyone who questions his behavior. If you set up an RFC about this editor's general behavior, I'll endorse it. (I'm looking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WebHamster now) I genuinely do not think that civil persuasion will work with some editors, and if we're serious about maintaining a civil atmosphere, appropriate for collaboration, certain people will have to adapt or go. WH represents the particularly intractable end of the uncivil spectrum. If he adapts, I'll buy everyone a pizza, and grin for a week.

Right now, the only thing stopping me from posting a thread to ANI with the subject "Why is this guy allowed to edit here?" is that the Dramaout is about to begin. Well... actually, I have an aversion to posting on that page any week of the year, but some situations demand it. Maybe this is one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And there you go. I think I found a less contentious way of phrasing it, and I expect a mixed response, as well as several paragraphs of personal abuse directed my way. I won't be online much today and tomorrow, because I'm undergoing day-surgery, and then resting in a house with no Interwebs. I hope I didn't just start a fire, or if I did, that it's a useful one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you. I'm a bit strapped for time as well, but I'll do my best this evening to address these items to the best of my ability. Thank you GTB, I consider myself inexperienced in many WP areas, so I do appreciate the help. — Ched :  ?  16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem. I'm glad to have you on board this crazy boat. We'll get there. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In for a penny, in for a pound I guess. ;-) — Ched :  ?  17:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

← Hey there GTB, I'm back. I just wanted to say thank you again for your guidance and help here. A couple things, regarding this post - hmmm ... maybe not the most eloquent edit I've ever seen you make, but .... perhaps one of the more effective ones .. lol. Anyway, I was hoping to get a higher volume of feedback from other admins, but perhaps the Giano block stole some of the attention away from it all. No matter, It gave me enough through the AN thread, and the RfC (which will likely be closed, but if another more accurate one opens - let me know), to feel more secure should I feel compelled to act in the future. I did feel that some of this recent incident was tainted a bit by some excessive provocation, (as well as the "defenders"), but for the most part - it was informative to me. I think it's a bit sad that more admins who agree, have been hounded into silence - but I guess we have to play with the cards we're dealt. It looks as if this has pretty much run its course, so I may just go ahead and close the thread in the near future - if someone else doesn't. (or unless you'd rather just leave it open). Anyway, thanks again - it's an honor and a true pleasure to work with you! ;) — Ched :  ?  19:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, maybe we'll even work together on an article someday! My adoptee for the no-drama week is socionics, which has a couple of sections on fire, and a fair amount of gasoline sloshing around. It seems to be a good place to practice the ol' de-escalation. See ya around. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from a Stranger

I have read some of your comments and contributions with interest. I's my conclusion that you are probably one of the most sensible, sane and well humoured Wikipedia editors I have come across. Good Job. 82.132.136.202 (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, stranger. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The fischer talkpage

Hi

Remember me and your warning? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive547#User_Krakatoa_edit_warring_on_Bobby_Fischer_and_mislabeling_edits

Ok man take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bobby_Fischer#RfC:_Does_the_Krakatoa_edit_regarding_Fischer.27s_library_have_undue_weight_concerns.3F what Qualle is saying right there and also at the somewhat exemplary behavior by your fellow admin Sjakalle.

Last but not least take a look at the bottom of my talkpage, maybe also the RFC that's mentioned there and bear in mind that this is the last opportunity that you'll get. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a look at the situation. What does "this is the last opportunity that you'll get" mean? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi and sorry about the messy text I wrote up there, I explained it a little bit further on my talkpage but yes I want to complain to you regarding this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABobby_Fischer&diff=302692268&oldid=302686704 made by user Qualle I can see no way to rationalize making such personal attacks and disrupting an RFC like that and in light of the fact that you warned me regarding issues regarding this very same article I thought that this would be something that you might want to take a look at.

I also want to complain to you regarding this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABobby_Fischer&diff=302567467&oldid=302483245 made by admin Sjakalle but in it he accuses me of WP:Ididn'thearthat while he himself obviously becomes guilty of it in his edit. He also makes personal attacks in his edit and brings up other issues and edits not being discussed in the RFC thereby disrupting it and finishes off by making empty inappropriate threats and I have to say that this sort of conduct from a wikipedia administrator is not something that should be tolerated at all really. If you could please intervene regarding these issues then that would be very well appreciated seeing as my efforts to ask these users to strike out their inappropriate remarks have not been fruitful.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see I've got some catching up to do. I'm just off to lunch, but I'll be back online soon. Thanks for your patience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to complain to you regarding incivility and personal attacks from user Loosemark, I attempted to discuss the matter with him http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loosmark&curid=15702587&diff=304353314&oldid=304344004 but he had no interest in doing so and I am therefor asking you to do something regarding this but you warned me for personal attacks regarding that article and therefor it is only normal that you don't give others a free pass for somewhat more aggravated behavior than I was guilty of, if you could please take a look at this matter then that would be very well appreciated.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This thread seems to have dropped off my radar recently. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I'll mention that "asking editors to strike out their inappropriate remarks" is something that requires a high level of diplomacy, and if you are the target of those remarks, is roughly 100% likely to worsen the situation. Try to put yourself in other people's shoes. What would be likely to inspire a courteous reaction?

Your complaints here are about situations you can resolve on your own. Just don't adopt a combative mentality.

Also, think about where I'm coming from. It's very clear and easy to say "don't call people 'fucking morons'", that's a no-brainer. It's obvious that using such language will never improve any situation, and it's so flagrant that it leads to a clear and firm warning, as you received. Never talk that way on Wikipedia, and if you do, expect things to go badly for you. Count on it.

Now, you complain that someone "accuses you of 'WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT' while being guilty of it himself." That might be true. Pretty much anytime anyone accuses someone of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT", it's code for "I'm right and you're not admitting it." Duh. He says you're stubbornly wrong, and you say that, because he's stubbornly wrong, that's a personal attack? It's not a personal attack; it's just stupid. He's stupid to mention WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, because that's a stupid essay, cited by people who don't realize how useless it is, and how escalatory such accusations are. That's because a lot of Wikipedians aren't very focused on dispute resolution they're focused on winning.

Be the other kind of Wikipedian, and watch your experience here change for the better by orders of magnitude. I'll comment further at ArbCom. You've got to learn to play Wikiball as if you want to contribute, and not as if you want to be banned. It's a skill; learn it. The surprise is that you get there by being good, and by never letting your focus shift from edits to personalities. Play like you want to win, not like you want to go down in flames. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone editing my comments

Hi

As an admin, I wonder if you could please help me with something? Someone anonymous (93.186.20.173) edited my comment on User_talk:JzG about a week ago. Did they break any rules by doing this, and is there any way to find out who it was (e.g. if any registered users used that IP around the same time)?

Normally in such a situation, I suppose my prime suspects would be the person who was the subject of my comment, and any (registered) users who had made edits to the same article a few minutes either side of my edit, but it would be nice to know for sure. Failing that, can the IP address concerned be warned or banned for the anonymous user's actions?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

Bastiche (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The edit was clearly out of line. Absent ongoing problems, there is little likelihood of tracking the person down. Many IP addresses are dynamically assigned, and might not be associated with the same computer now that they were 15 minutes ago. Similarly, there's not much use blocking or warning an IP address unless we know that there's actually someone there to block or warn. If there is a pattern of abuse coming from a certain address or range of addresses, then you can bring that up at WP:RFCU, or else they could tell you where. Otherwise, all we can do is write it off as the action of a passing anonymous vandal. It happens all the time, and the most we can do is revert it and forget it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

In the past, you have raised a concern about my talk page "wizard" system. I have changed this to an FAQ-based system (User talk:Stifle/FAQs), and would appreciate your feedback at User talk:Stifle/FAQs/feedback or elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

194x RFC

I recently opened an RFC/U on 194x. Looking back over the case, I'm not sure that I can give an example of me properly trying to resolve the dispute (failing, on the other hand...). I did link a diff of you warning 194x that his behavior was over the line and offering assistance if he was attacked: would you be willing to certify the RFC? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been offline for a few days. I'll have a look at this, and probably get back to you this evening. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Slander and Libel

You brought up information from some critics who have legally committed slander and libel. I don't think you did it intentionally, but it could get you into legal problems. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply read something that is currently getting someone else into legal trouble and didn't mean any actual harm. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but Wikipedia has a policy against making legal threats on this site. Doing so will earn you a hasty block. If you have a legal issue, get a lawyer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to something you said, which seems to indicate that you have done some research into specific people personally concerning some slander and libel issues that resulted in threats of litigation. My apologies if that was not what you were referring to. It sounded like that was what you were referring to and on account of concurrent legal actions I didn't think you wanted to be involved with that, although it initially appeared that you were mentioning it. I am not going to say much more about it. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Which statement of mine are you referring to? Can you point me to it? I'm confused, but as I said, please talk to your lawyer if you have legal concerns. I'll look out for myself; thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It was some weird statement you made that was completely out of place, like you knew something about the past incident. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please either tell me explicitly what you're talking about, or else stop talking about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just an fyi

Heyo. Just to let you know I mentioned the User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem essay at ANI. (I'm depleted now too. But at least we tried.) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow. I haven't looked at that page since... May 3rd, apparently. I pretty much washed my hands of Badagnani then, after failing to mediate between him and others. I see from your ANI post that you've taken up the good work there for a while, and I appreciate that. Kudos and mad props to you.

You know... There are a lot of graduate students in the world studying Wikipedia right now. (*waves* HI, WE KNOW YOU'RE THERE!! REMEMBER TO GET SOME SLEEP!!) I'd like to see some science done on questions about how different personality types deal with Wikipedia. There might be some good practical lessons for us in such knowledge. We certainly attract a different demographic of volunteers than, say, the Peace Corps. We need a DR toolbox, with well-defined tools that we can use deliberately, and record which ones work best.

Ah, I dunno. Ultimately, this is an encyclopedia, not a proving-ground for conflict resolution strategies. On the other hand, resolving conflicts is part of collaborating, and if we're going to be doing it, I think it makes sense to pay attention to how we do it, and to do it well.

I'll keep an eye on the, uh... Alice situation. Thanks for the heads-up, and for noticing and remembering the essay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rmcnew

What do you recommend we do? I think we can make the socionics article great if we just cut out the esoterism crap. He's failed to show any sources which justify his claim despite mounting criticism. Worse, he appears to be misinterpreting irrelevant sources as justifications for the claim. I've withdrawn my support from him completely because I don't think he can be dissuaded. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just back online after some days, and I'm processing a few things right now. I see the article has been fairly stable. As for the sources page, I'll get there as soon as I can. I expect to be online for the next 12 hours or so, with breaks for meals.

The issue seems to be that sections 10 and 11 of the current article are, in the judgment of most editors on the article, bunk. Is that correct, if a tad over-simple? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

By esoteric section I am referring to sections 10 and 11. It should be rewritten with information that is included in this verifiable socionics source link: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0612.html --Rmcnew (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

socionics and esoteric practices ... verifiable source to esoteric techniques

I found this socionics article source earlier today concerning socionics and analytical psychology:

Analytical Psychology Kameneva I.P. Psychical Energy: Symbols and Metamorphoses

C.G.Jung's ideas on psychical energy are considered in the context of his psychoanalytical experience set forth in his work Libido, Its Metamorphoses and Symbols. Symbols of psychical energy indicate the direction of its movement from the mother to other objects and images, which in general reminds dynamics of Kundalini energy in Tantra Yoga. In A.Augustinavichiute's model the scheme of informational metabolism of each type determines specifics of its energetic potential and in separate cases also aptitude towards certain esoteric practices. Key words: symbols, consciousness, unconscious, archetypes, psychical energy (libido), system of Chakras, psychical functions, informational metabolism, energetic metabolism, mental loop, vital loop, socionics.

Source: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0612.html --Rmcnew (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to tcaud: My advice is to stop complaining and just do the collaborative rewrite --Rmcnew (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I just put forth my idea to base the rewrite of the esoteric portion of the socionics article on the information found in this link: http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_0612.html. Otherwise, it would just be infighting concerning people's opinions of what information should go into the rewrite. --Rmcnew (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've been offline for over a week, as noted a few sections down on this page. I don't know when I'll have time to look at the socionics article in the near future. The best advice I can give you is this:

• WP:NOWIN. Don't fly solo; you don't have to, and it works against you. Seek outside opinion as a primary tool. I hate to say this while personally backing away, but I've got too many commitments right now.
• The most successful editors here are the ones who strive to always talk about sourced content, and never mention personal qualities or motives of other editors. Follow that example, and your power will grow.
• Don't worry, be happy. Go offline and work in the garden once a day.

Cheers-GTBacchus^(talk) 15:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rebafan49

This user is an obvious sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Dingbat2007. Dingbat has used the "Rebafan" name in the past. The account has already made 3 edits, two of which were vandalism. Would it be possible to nip this in the bud before he gets out of control? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How are those vandalism? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding WEVV to the former call signs when WEVV is the call sign, that is vandalism. Also, I don't think a cut and paste page move was necessary. Normally though, regardless of if the information is good or not, we (being the people of WP:TVS) outright revert the edits since this is a case of "obvious sockpuppet is obvious". I am wanting to nip this sock in the bud before any real damage can be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was offline for a while, and I see that someone has blocked him. It's far from obvious to me that it's "vandalism"; it looks like the punchline of a joke that begins with misunderstanding, misinformation and miscommunication walking into a bar together. Whatever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was at an Autism Q&A tonight, so I have been offline as well. Actually according to the block log the account is still open. I will, I guess, wait this one out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

Random request is random: Can you take a look at the formatting for List of Man vs. Wild episodes? For some reason, the external links section is showing up directly below the season 6 header, but the edit page shows it correctly, under the season 6 table. It also shows correctly in the content box. I'm thoroughly confused and would appreciate if I could have a second pair of eyes looking at it. If you can't, just let me know where to take this please. Thanks! --13² 01:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at it now... -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a "|}" missing at the end of Season 6. I found it by replacing the whole Season 6 w/ a copy-paste of Season 5, and when that fixed the problem, I looked more carefully for differences between 5 and 6. Lucky, that. I'm not usually good at these questions. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! Thanks so much for the help! :) --13² 03:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Any idea after?

As you've been very well aware that I'm hardly a fan of Badagnani. However, I'm writing this here because I did never imagine that you - we've thought that you would be the last person who would block or propose to ban/block him - would propose to indef.block him to learn some lesson and this is likely to happen. But you don't have any followup plans, so I rather you'd take the issue to RFRA if you feel the problem should be fixed ASAP. You're vocal for the proposal, so I think you can file an ArbCom case without much hesitation.--Caspian blue 18:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just where I dropped offline two weeks ago. Have there been any developments since then? (Not sure which answer I'd rather hear...) -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-edge

Up for deletion. Seems very important to me whatever it is. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll check my sources when I get home, and weigh in on that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have the time ...

... I wouldn't mind you keeping an eye on my talk page for a bit. I give you full leave to chastise me the moment I step out of line. At the moment, I think I'll step away and think things through ... hopefully I can work through this with a minimum of hurt feelings, but I'd appreciate any advice as well. — Ched :  ?  19:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

...and I finally log on and read this. I looked at the conversation with BB and CoM, and (masochistic as it sounds) I'm sorry I missed it. Please see my note 2 sections down, regarding my disappearance, and my present effervescence, which is to say, I'm not really here.

Thank you for the work you're doing in dispute resolution. We're not yet good at is, as a community, and progress is slow, but it is progress.

I'm off to the reference desk now. I've been trying for the last week to prove that $\int _{0}^{\infty }{\frac {\ln(x)}{x^{2}-1}}\,dx={\frac {\pi ^{2}}{4}}$, but I can't make it work. I keep getting imaginary numbers where I shouldn't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... beginning an equation with infinity as an element - that might be a tad difficult to resolve. ;) — Ched :  ?  12:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Integrals through infinity are capable of resolving to a finite number if the function being integrated has a limit of zero. However, the above equation is kind of weird in that it has an asymptote to negative infinity in its early stretch from 0 to 1, where the denominator is negative and the numerator is a logarithm that is undefined at x=0. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The function is actually positive between 0 and 1, because the numerator is also negative. I don't know how one might calculate the separate integrals $\int _{0}^{1}f(x)\,dx$ and $\int _{1}^{\infty }f(x)\,dx$. The calculation only works because it goes all the way from 0 to infinity; anywhere in between, I think we have to resort to numerical approximation. That's because it's evaluated as part of a larger integral, and the other parts of that larger integral only go to zero as the limits of integration go to 0 and infinity.

Good stuff! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Our Civility discussion....

I would very much appreciate your thoughts and considerations on User:Buster7/Incivility especially the sections from Safe Harbor down.--Buster7 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got that watchlisted, and will look in on it. From a cursory inspection, I like the look of it! Anything that makes Wikipedians pay attention to what really works and doesn't work, civility-wise, is a Good Thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Been offline, likely to be for a bit

Hello!

I haven't logged on in what seems like forever, and as I type this now, I haven't yet read my talk page above this. Offline life kind of came up on me (in various forms), and I haven't been able to give the time to tasks here that I was working on. If you are involved in one of the situations I dropped, I apologize for not saying anything before now. I've just had Wikipedia on a back burner, and the only edits I've made have been un-logged-on copy edits in articles I was reading.

I've got a lot of travel in the coming month, as well as a Ph.D. qualifying exam for which I'm preparing. Thus, I hesitate to make any commitment of participation here in the near future. I'm likely to bother the folks at the math reference desk over the next two-and-a-half weeks; more I cannot say. This tide has ebbed and flowed in the past, and I can only assume it will continue to do so.

Hang in there, brave Wikipedians. Stick to sources, be good to each other, and remember to ignore all rules. Peace. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Chilling effect

Hi,

as you were involved in the back-and-forth moving of Chilling effect, please have a look at Talk:Chilling_effect. Thank you. --Austrian (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there, thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RfH

I wondered if I could request your help. There is a sockpuppet accusation going on on my page and wondered if you could check it out and provide a neutral party opinion. Thanks --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I only just now saw this message. I'll pop over and see if anything is still happening... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pedobear

Hello,

You said in a posting on the 4chan discussion board that I should "Write about pedobear on ED, and write from high quality, reputable published sources on Wikipedia."

I have provided a source which states that Pedobear is a 4chan meme. It is a blog entry: http://geekpadshow.com/2009/07/16/pedobear-stuffed-animal-loves-kids-too-much/

The blog entry in question was published through Comedy.com, which is an "employer" with a full staff of paid columnists and a HQ in Los Angeles.

Can you explain to me why this is not a reliable source as per the rules of Wikipedia?

Thank you

"Penneth"

P.S. Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources68.153.199.181 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't said it isn't a reliable source, but I have replied at the talk page there. I'm not on some "side" of this question. I came into the situation with the impression that sources are lacking, but since I'm not an expert in that, I've posted a question to the noticeboard. There's no need to talk about it in multiple places, you know. I'll watch the 4chan talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR opened

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Move review

GTB, could you look at Talk:Global Strike Command#Article/Org title? You closed a previous move discussion in Feb. as No consensus. The current discussion explains the new information, and at this point only one user is opposing the move. I don't know if it's too early to close, but I wanted to let you know about anyway, as you requested in the close. Thanks, whatever decision you make. - BilCat (talk)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've moved the page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you a Dr. yet?

I have unexplained pain. What do you think of this Survo Puzzle? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice article; could use some copyediting. What's bothering you about it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's at AfD. I think I noted there that the template was never added to the article, but I must have forgotten to tell you. Now you know. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I do enjoy the occasional foray into the woods of AFD, and my wiki-adventures of late haven't been taking me there.

I'm always struck by how easily people will be distracted from their goal when the opportunity presents itself to disparage an opponent. That gentleman on the talk page with the sources, wondering why such-and-such was "ignored" when nominating the article for deletion... Where's the fun in adding sources to an article when you can identify a "bad guy" instead, right? Aren't we a funny species? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

By "we" you mean Lizard people or humans? As long as it's a legitimate puzzle I'm all for it. Does it actually work? I'm not much on sudoku. Yes, I sometimes have to remind myself that I'm supposed to be more mature, reasonable and intelligent than the average 15 year old Wikipedian. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

194x144x90x118 RFAR

I've been reviewing the evidence in the 194x144x90x118 arbitration case. 194x144x90x118 hasn't presented much in the way of evidence. The only other person who seemed interested in presenting evidence that looked at both sides of these disputes was you. Would you be able to look at what I've said here and here? It might be too late, but I was hoping that more than three people would present evidence in this case. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied at the second of your posted links. It'll have to wait a few hours, but I'll see what I can add. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the first user you listed should be User:Quale, not User:Qualle, and I would appreciate it if you fixed that. (From my experience in working with Quale, as well as my observations of his work and conduct, I can tell you that he is a very mature and conscientous contributor to the encyclopedia. He is inclined to call a spade a spade, but he is even quicker to show appreciation towards people who contribute in good faith.)

Regarding your proposal to find a mentor for 194x, I do appreciate you looking for alternative remedies before bringing out drastic measures like bans, but I feel that it is very unlikely to work. While people around 194x may have made mistakes, the biggest problem has in my view been 194x's stubborn persistance in forcing his point of view in not one, but three different disputes, and coupling that with unsubstantiated accusations and attacks. The responsibility for that rests solely with 194x and not anyone else. 194x received ample feedback from the community that the behavior is problematic, including the user conduct RFC; yet the subsequent behavior at the European Union talkpage was more of the same. Lesser remedies like mentoring require some willingness to work collaboratively, and accepting that parts of the behavior has been intolerable. From the most recent behavior, including his August 21 posting on his talkpage (here), I just cannot see that happening. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly more than welcome to fix any typo I make, anywhere on the project. I appreciate your leaving me a note about it here. As for the arbitration case itself, let's talk about that on the pages set up for it, ok? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add here that I've never seen a case where so-called "callling a spade a spade" has led to any good result. We're here for good results; and nothing more nor less than that. I have also never seen any situation where making a determination about another editor's good faith has ever led to any good result. It's useless at best. I do not in any way deny that User:Quale is "mature and conscientious"; I assume he is precisely that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, I asked GTBacchus to present evidence because I wanted to see evidence from more than just the parties to the disputes (i.e. an outside view). As GTBacchus said, it is best to keep all the discussion in one place on the case pages. If you have questions about this, please ask over there where the arbitrators can see any discussion and comment if needed. Not sure if you have this page watchlisted, so I will drop a note on your talk page. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello GTBacchus just wanted to thank you for your efforts regarding my arbitration case while I still have the chance. Thanks.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Maybe things will work out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

congratulations

Congratulations for your qual! I take it as an opportunity to drink immediately (also taking into account your username). Cheers, --pma (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a qual? I was actually just talking about your time at the academy because the article on it, and the one on your church, are up for deletion. You may have some personal expertise and insights to offer? Anyway, congrats on your qual, whatever it is. I hope it brings you great glory and prosperity, or at least peace to the galaxy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Qualifying exam. If I pass two of them, I get a level-up, and proceed to phase two of the Ph.D. program. This one bought me enough XP's that I kind of understand some of the presentations at the workshop I'm attending. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)If you can't use D&D jargon to describe real-world achievements, then what's the point, really?

Cool. Am I to understand that you are a druid? Keep up the good work and enjoy your treasure hunting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging WP:UIAR into WP:IAR?

Since you're a major contributor to one or the other of these documents, I'm writing to let you know about a proposed merger which I wrote about at: Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means#Understanding IAR and Wikipedia_talk:Understanding_IAR#Merge. Any input on this would be appreciated.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've commented in both locations. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

diminishing returns

Your expression that I had never heard before took me off on a tangent and also today with some friends we have been discussing the phrase, sorry if I took off on a tangent. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I think Jimbo's talk page is a bit of a free-for-all anyway. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#.22Having_to.22_defend_articles_against_deletion

I hope this maybe gives you some suggestions. I have had a hard day with some articles. So I saw your post and started to vent. sorry. Ikip (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I quoted you today: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#If_this_doesn.27t_get_you_excited.2C_your_brain_dead

I thought you were more of an inclusionist. When I see peoples names I immediately get a bad or good feeling. I got a good feeling with yours. Caveat: that has nothing to do with whether you are an inclusionist or anything in between.

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Google_Book.2C_Google_News.2C_Google_scholar_hits_automatically_in_AfDs maybe float the idea on a couple of editors pages, then formally propose it. Better if I didn't a lot of people don't like me. :(

Ikip (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy that I said something that resonated with you, and simultaneously a little puzzled. You thought I was more of an inclusionist? I've never really identified with either end of that spectrum, taking things on a more case-by-case basis. Am I an inclusionist after all? The idea about automatic links to some sensible Google searches seems good to me, or at least good enough not to abort before trying it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I just have good feeling about seeing your name. We have been in contact before. It is unimportant where your views lie on the spectrum.

It has already been done on my pages: User:Ikip/2009 September 5, created by autohotkey and pasted here. I find these statistics incredibly useful.

Suggestions of what else you would like to see scraped would be welcome. I can have it done in about a week. Ikip (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a cool template. I guess what I would like to see is something it would be difficult to scrape, and that's a critical evaluation of the sources. To me, a count is much less important than whether the sources are independent and reliable, and whether the coverage really is non-trivial (i.e., someone actually writing about the topic, as opposed to mentioning it).

I have seen it happen in deletion discussions that people say "see, we have hits in Google books, therefore the topic is clearly notable". I find that to be the flipside of arguing that "Google counts are meaningless". Both (all too common) arguments are flawed, and neither can be repaired except through careful critical evaluation.

Another concern is that the byline "Brought to you by the article rescue squadron" will tend to alienate a certain segment of the community. The idea that there is a "squadron" (sounds military) devoted to "rescuing" (instead of critically evaluating) articles is going to come across to a lot of people as a kind of blind inclusionism. I would hate to see the work you've done discounted on those grounds.

It seems to me that a big part of proposing new processes and mechanism at Wikipedia is selling them to the community. Anything that makes them difficult to sell ends up working against you. The two things I could see alienating a lot of users are the "squadron" byline, and the G-links being presented as numbers. These aren't liabilities of the tool, as a tool; they're only liabilities because they might stack the deck against the community accepting the tool.

I dunno, does that all make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural nominations

Hello Mr. Bacchus in that the topic you brought up is a completely different issue than what the particular subject we were discussing, I figured it would be better to respond on your talk page. That is a work around that I typically use and other more experienced editors fall back on. However, in advertising or promoting this avenue does carry several risks. First, it does not address the systempic problem I see growing at AFD and that is just bad nominations, either through inexperience - POVpushing or Lazyness. The first one, inexperience, I have no problem with. We all went through that learning curve and most times, if I see it is a newer editor I'll try and explain to him/her what they should look for before nominating. The other two, just grate on my nervers. Two, there is a legitmate reason for the process at AFD and that is to get rid of the articles that do not meet our current notability standards. The reason for this is that being an encylodia, does differentiate Wikipedia from Twitter and FaceBook and even Fox News. In that we, as in Wikipedians, are trying to be the valut of world knowledge and not the tabloid of todays current news item. If we circumvent this process by showing everyone that they can keep their articles in a subpage we have just made ourselves the next up and coming MySpace. Finally, I know we all say, me included, Wikipedia is not bound by paper, so what difference does it make how many articles are kept, we have no restrictions. Sorry to say in the real world there are costs associated in keeping that many pages. The cost of electricity not only to run the servers but also to cool the servers is propotional to how much information is on the servers, not even counting the cost of the servers themself. So if we have countless articles on subpages, it not only circumvents the system, it costs additional real monies. That's my rational for not advertising. I know good intention, but could see it misused aggresivly. Thanks for listening. Let me know your thoughts. Take care. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm unlikely to do anything "aggressively". That's not really my style. I "could see" lots of things done aggressively that, it turns out, aren't.

I agree that userfying should be reserved for articles that someone realistically believes they have a chance of improving to standards. I suspect most people would be unlikely to ask to have articles userfied that they don't have definite plans to improve. After all, the goal is to get articles into the 'Pedia, and not into a non-indexed space where nobody will read them. I would find it very bizarre if someone were to simply accumulate stub after stub in their user-space, where the public will never see them. That would seem strangely OCD to me.

Of course, we're just comparing our predictions about what "lots of people would do", and I see no a priori reason to favor your prediction OR mine. The standard way to find out what "would" happen is to try it and see what happens. I'd be comfortable doing the legwork of deletion if such a plan were tried and led somewhere bad. I'm not going to be irresponsible about it.

I would be more interested in userfying articles for article rescuers with proven records of bringing articles up to snuff. Perhaps a cap on the number of articles one user could keep in a user-space limbo at a time would help. I'm certainly a lot more interested in finding things that could work than in guessing why they might not. I'm looking for solutions, not reasons to not bother trying. Ten years ago, if someone had said, "let's start an online encyclopedia that's editable by members of the public," it would have been very easy to say, "I know good intention, but could see it misused aggressively." Very few things aren't worth a try.

What I'm really interested in is avoiding the sterile debates that happen in so many AFDs: "Keep - clearly notable" / "Delete clearly non-notable". Once those positions are laid out, the inclusionist will gain nothing but frustration by arguing at AFD. I want to let the inclusionists know that such arguments are a pointless waste of time, and that there are altogether smarter options. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your offer in WT:AFD

Thanks for the kind offer, but I've been an admin for 9 months, and am perfectly capable of userifying things I care strongly about. :-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you know. In these discussions, I don't necessarily know who's who. These issues about AfD culture interest me. I'm glad there's a robust discussion going on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA

I have responded to your comments. Please try and understand that putting words in quote marks does not mean they are a "quote", in the same way that putting words in *stars* does not mean they are surrounded by stars. I'm sorry if my typographic convention offends you. Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Offends? Do I seem upset? I've had a smile on my face this whole time. I also caught your response already. I'm aware of more than two uses of quotation marks, but I was a bit puzzled by yours. Puzzled != offended. I'm raising a glass to you now; cheers, and may the road rise to meet you. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Only if it is of the finest red wine ...... :) Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(There are situations where I'm quite happy to have chosen a god of wine as my screenname-sake... or screen-namesake.... Aaah, punctuation!!! -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Although, to be fair, even a poor red wine will often do. No hard feelings I hope and off to bed for me. Best regards. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah last night's €€ «poor red wine» led to a poor mo(u)rning this morning. not that I wo(uld)n't do it again... ¡I don't use some [¿⅓,⅜?] of these symbols nearly enough! -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion musings

I've noticed your suggestion for offering userfication more widely as an alternative to deletion. By-and-large, deletion is too much of a big deal around here. Pragmatically, we have to accept that it has to happen, or at least is going to. The big deal is for the authors of articles who end up dragged to a deletion debate. I hope you won't mind if I muse on one option that I proposed once in relation to CSD.

I suggested a central, non-articlespace repository for articles nominated for deletion. When articles were nominated, they could be moved to the repository (under some criteria that I have yet to consider, but possibly author request) for a fixed time while the article was worked on to be brought up to our exacting standards. After that time had elapsed, the nominator could choose to retract the nomination, and only then would it return to the deletion discussion.

This is largely about giving article authors a chance to address AfD concerns without having to fight an AfD at the same time, but removing potentially poor material from the articlespace while it is worked on. By centralising it, it also lets us keep track of the articles in an easy way, whilst userfication is more awkward. I can also imagine a central respository making it easier for editors like those at the ARS to assist in cleaning stuff up.

I'm sure there are a lot of holes in the about that would need plugging, but I wondered what you thought of the general principle? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I like that it's a creative solution I haven't seen mooted before. I'm going to think about this. Just now, I'm off to get some coffee in me and attend a lecture, but I'll be back online soon. Cheers. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like the general sound of it, though I think the details would need to be worked out before community presentation Fritzpoll (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think community presentation is a bad idea. When ideas such as this are mooted to the community, everyone puts on their "It'll never fly, Wilbur"-hats, and proceed to dream up every possible disadvantage. As I often say, if we had said ten years ago, "let's make an online encyclopedia that's freely editable by members of the public", we would have been absolutely drowned in reasons why that would never work.

In my experience, it's better to do what Wales and Sanger did - don't ask anyone's permission; just start doing it. The details are better worked out in the field than on the drawing board (just like with aviation). Then, when it works, the unbelievers have no choice but to get on board.

By the way, I've taken this idea, started calling it an article "incubator", and mentioned it in the discussion back at WT:AFD. Now I'm going to go and mention that it's your idea, not mine! -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the only think we need to do is establish a page to hold the repository (so we can store the pages at Wikipedia:Deletion incubator/Some to-be-deleted article in stasis), work out an initial system for actually circumventing the deletion discussion and getting the articles stored, and get to work. But those things have to be sorted out first - the only reason for some community support is because the idea would be to end an AfD discussion for a while, and come back to it later if needed. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll need to make a page, write some text indicating what it's for, and then find a way to start farming actual articles from AfD into it. I wonder if the kids over at the "Article Rescue Squadron" would be a good group to work with in setting this up?

I have to go study some mathematics now, but I'll be back online in a few hours, and we'll keep thinking about this. If you're inspired to push forward in the meanwhile, cool.

We'll need a clever shortcut, of course. Nothing survives without one of those (eyes roll). A natural choice might be... WP:INCUBATE? Oh good; it's red. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Go do your maths, I'll do my robotics, and we'll meet here again at some point to contemplate further Fritzpoll (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it's a fresh new day where I'm staying, and I know more mathematics than I did yesterday. I was worried when I couldn't remember how to prove that two topologies are equivalent, but then I remembered. :)

Now, I'm imagining a process working this way: there's a central page, linked from the shortcut. We can call it a "Newpage Incubator", or something. Articles can be moved to sub-pages of that page, and linked in a list from that page. Each article will have some kind of template at the top, which will include the {{NOINDEX}} code to protect the tender seedlings from the harsh, merciless flood-lamps by which Google's pigeons slave through the night. A page sitting in the incubator for a certain amount of time (fairly generous, but to be determined in the field) will have to go to AFD after all, or we might just euthanize them on site at the incubator. (Love these metaphors!)

That all seems pretty straightforward. It would also be cool if we could automatically identify premature births in need of incubation. I notice that article-rescuers seem particularly upset when articles are nominated for deletion within a few minutes of being created. Perhaps there's a way we could scan new AfDs and find the ones where the time between creation and nomination is less than some small number (again to be determined in the field; maybe we'd start at 1 day). We could harvest those by yanking them from AfD before the vitriol has time to set in. Eventually, this could perhaps be automated, or at least semi-automated.

How does that sound, as a sketch of a process? If it works well enough, then eventually newpage patrollers could send pages directly to the incubator, instead of going through AfD.

Another thought: the PROD template might be a good place to mention about WP:INCUBATE, although I'd hold off on that until we see some success rate.

For now, I'm going to drop off a note at WT:RESCUE -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I left work yesterday thinking I'd solved a robotics problem, and woke up convinced that I had not! Much more work to do today to see whether the pessimist or optimist is the winner...

Most of the technical aspects sound good and are pretty much in line with what I was thinking. The social aspects (involved in identifying the pages at least) are a little more tricky - moving a page away during an AfD would probably be seen as trying to circumvent the discussion in some way. Although I suppose if enough editors were aware of it, we could get them to request "incubation" (such a good term by the way) within the debate and have an admin shut off the discussion. I can probably write a bot to sit and examine the AfD pages as they are updated and then ping a note to both the nominator and the article author to let them know about it - though I'm not sure how well the BRFA would go for that - might have to make it semi-automatic instead for the moment.

I think work will be slow to start with, but hopefully, if successful, it will naturally become part of the deletion process. Only a couple of technical points: we have an incubated article, and can't agree whether it should be kept or not, so you're suggesting sending to AfD. Irritatingly, that will mean returning it to the articlespace...I don't know why, but I have a nagging feeling that will prove problematic. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had similar thoughts to this idea of an incubator before, thanks for suggesting it. Precisely how it works will probably determine its success, both in getting adopted by the community and actually working in practice. I agree with the principle, as one of the reasons articles don't get worked on during AfD is the adversarial atmosphere, also the worry that hard work will be wasted if and when the article is deleted, and the feeling that deletionist editors won't bother looking at the current state of the article, so you're better off hammering them with arguments. I much prefer working on the Prod patrol than at AfD as I'm able to work in my own time and without all the drama of AfD.
But will the incubation idea work? Will enough editors direct their attention to the incubator to make it worthwhile? You could bolt it onto the ARS I suppose, if the ARS is willing, then you'd have a ready and willing community. Perhaps an incubation could be an alternative to relisting for admins to use? And requesting incubation should be an option so long as there's somewhat more than a snowball's chance in hell of the article surviving, i.e. the deletion argument isn't overwhelming. This could be the irreversible judgment call of an uninvolved admin to avoid wrangling like happens at DRV.
An alternative to moving a page to an incubator would be calling a truce or hiatus in the fighting voting debating at AfD to allow editors to make edits to the article. This could even be routine in all deletions - perhaps three days after the nomination and before debate begins in which editors can make edits to improve the article, hopefully adding sources. As so many nominators fail to pay heed to WP:BEFORE, this would allow others editors to do those checks and editing instead. Fences&Windows 10:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am at a loss about how this will work, but I never took robotics at the university either, so I may just be slower than you all.

Creating User:Ikip/2009 September 6 made me realize that the editors who tend to support deletion have a point: most of the items that go to AfD are bad, and should be deleted. I don't think we should incubate the majority of articles.

In the deletion debates the question is whether something is or is not notable. There is no objective standard which everyone can agree on. So how about we base whether articles go to the incubator on a very imprecise but objective criteria: google news, book and scholar hits. If an editor can demonstrate that their article is on either of those three, even one hit, they can be incubated, otherwise, they will be ruthlessly subjected to AFD.

As I mentioned at WT:AFD, many nominators do not know there are other options available to them, such as merge or redirect or userfy. I think 30% of all AFDs can be closed simply by policing all new AfDs and asking the nominator politely, on his talk page, if you can personally close these AFDs, merge, redirect, or userfy. If the nominator agrees before anyone else votes, then these AfDs can be closed. When I have sometime, I can put this theory to the test.

RE: "I notice that article-rescuers seem particularly upset when articles are nominated for deletion within a few minutes of being created.

Journalists are concerned too:

PC PRO magazine: "In the New York Review of Books article Baker explains how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation...but as a result...delete all new material without mercy or insight. This is such a strong claim that it needed checking, so I decided to attempt an edit myself…I wrote a roughly 100-word potted history of The Political Quarterly… within five minutes I received a message to the effect that this entry has no content…and has been put up for "express deletion".[5]

Ikip (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How it would work is a challenge, as both of you point out. One ideal would be for an objective criteria to be established, and pages tagged for incubation rather than deletion in the same way New Page Patrollers do CSD now. Pages can then be moved to the incubator for work and assessment. Incubation could be an alternative at the end of an AfD, but the ideal would be for it to be used to bypass discussion altogether. Not only is this less bitey, but it reduces the current swamp of articles listed at AfD. Ultimately, criteria also need to be established for removing articles from incubation, which will inevitably include hard-deletion. It's all a tricky balance, especially as it seems we're to try running this in parallel to the existing deletion processes. I suggest setting it up and presenting it as-is to WT:AfD to let them know it's there as a tool that can be used. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of this proposal. The chief problem with deletion is that it is effectively saying, "We don't want an article on this subject. Ever." However, mistakes get made: despite all of the good faith & honest work in the world notable subjects get removed for one reason or another. And unless the subject finds a determined advocate, the subject will remain uncovered in Wikipedia. However, as pointed above there is the problem of articles which are moved to incubator & forgotten: what do we do in those cases? Wait a certain amount of time before it is deleted? Or simply rely on the hope that eventually it will be found by the right person who will make it into a useful article? -- llywrch (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The latter would probably never gain acceptance as a methodology, so I think there needs to be a cut-off time. That can, however, be a relatively long time (compared to our deletion processes) - so you could have a number of weeks for improvement, or an inactivity level that defines the point for removal. The question is then, do you move it back to articlespace or delete it, and more importantly, how do you decide? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion...

Spun out of the above so that it is easy to find: shall we take this to a new page at, say, Wikipedia:Article Incubator to continue discussion? I think there is enough interest here for us to work out some terms of reference, but this talk page is not necessarily the most appropriate! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of boldness, it is done. I also employed your shortcut - the text at WP:INCUBATE is largely filler to stop it being MfDd - I'd leave the underconstruction tag on it. If you wish to change it, I obviously don't mind. I've also linked back to this discussion with a starting point for discussion at WT:INCUBATE Fritzpoll (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. If anyone MfDs it before I get back this evening, I'm gonna Ignore All Rules all over 'em! ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Objective notability

(I'm breaking this into a subsection so it doesn't distract from the main topic of this thread, namely, how does an article incubator work?)

I think the notability criteria that we have are more objective than they might seem. What I've seen in AfD discussions is people who seem to ignore or deny the Primary Notability Criterion (PNC) if it goes against their gut feeling. People say that something is "clearly" notable or "clearly" non-notable (as if to suggest that only a fool would disagree), and they seem to mean something subjective - something other than the PNC.

The PNC is, of course, "Non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources." The terms in there that need to be defined are "non-trivial", "multiple", "reliable" and "independent". I think these are all terms that we can define in sufficient precision. When someone decides that something a lot of people are interested in is "clearly" notable even without the PNC, we get trouble. (The recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedi Temple comes to mind.) Conversely, when someone decides that a topic is crap, and disregard sources that satisfy the PNC, we get trouble. (I think of, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination).) -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Inclusionist/Deletionist debate between two prominent editors Ikip (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Any luck?

Any luck recruiting the D's?

An unhelpful editor, who always interjects his opinion with nothing to back it up, followed me from WT:ARS to the village pump, where after three negative comments, I closed and collapsed the question about I's.

awaiting Ben's final assessment. Ikip (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Aw gee, I've hardly had time to think about it. If you love life, don't look at WT:NC anytime soon. Christ, I hate it when... never mind.

I think I'll post a couple of notes about this debate idea. It doesn't make me want to tear anything out.

By the way, I've made a lot of edits at WP:INCUBATE, and even told someone unrelated about it, following an acrimonious deletion discussion. We don't want to expose it too fast to nay-sayers, but we do want robust input from a variety of users. It's a balance to strike... -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to hold off on this for now, thanks for your comments and work. :) Ikip (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NC

I have read your comment on my talk page and I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you read the policy page as it was before the recent changes started to take place? What is is in you opinion that I have said that assigns "dishonorable motives" to anyone? -- PBS (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no idea what GTBacchus is talking about either (with respect to PBS' behavior). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the page again. I screwed up, mixed up PBS and PMA, and I've apologized, both personally to PBS and publicly at WT:NC. I'm stepping away from that page for a bit now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Joint with Fritzpoll for your work in setting up Wikipedia:Article Incubator. Fences&Windows 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I do hope it grows into something that can really help the project. I think it's got potential. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#Lets_start_today

you or fritz give me the okay, I will start adding articles. Ikip (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for filing this, and for letting me know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

re Lake Wobegon - apologies - I realise it's somewhat bad form to edit another's posts, but that redlink was screaming at me!  pablo_hablo. 13:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I make it red? Oh Lord, I started with Lake Woebegone, which is at least a redirect, and then half-fixed, only removing the first 'e'. I guess I'd better make another redirect now.

No worries, of course, about the "somewhat bad form". As the poet said, It's no hanging matter. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

While you're here, do you think it's time for us to start accepting articles into the incubator? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, why not? Where are you thinking of pulling them from first? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Image undelete

Hi. I did not know that images could not be undeleted. I'm pretty sure I have the original on an external hard disk. I probably did not save whatever cropping and tweaking I had done. No big deal.

As to my back story, I am a sockpuppet and spent some time banned. I've done an awful lot to work my way back. It's a few megabytes to read if you've ever a week to waste.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion
  would be the place to start followed by the talk page. Some dozens of other pages should be findable from there.

I didn't mean to seem coy about it; hell, it's all over the wiki so I rather figured everyone knew. Sorry to muddy things up on the incubator talk page with the image and my history.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, no worries. I was pretty sure I'd seen your name around, but I tend not to follow many ArbCom cases. I'm glad you're here, and presumably street legal. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the 'street legal';) Ya, hence the knock-off of the sock notice that was on my user page for 8 months. It was the AC that said to stick to this account, which is not my original, so I'm on the sock account and my original is blocked (and there are others, also blocked). I believe I'm the only full-on sock account with AC leave to edit. I don't pay the AC page too much mind these days. I'll offer statements once in a while and have been known to do a few clerkish things there. And two of my mentors are arbs, so there's regular contact. Terima kasih. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I am new to wikipedia, any tips on learning how to wikify or make articles better? Insert Clever User Name Here (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the project. :) Here are some pointers that you might find helpful

• Jump right in: There are lots of places to jump in, and I'd say the best principle is to do what makes sense to you. There are hundreds of conventions, and procedures, and "rules", but it's important to remember that they're not the main thing; the encyclopedia is. At the core, the rules aren't really rules. If you see something that seems wrong, and you have an idea how to make it better, just fix it as best you can.
• Quick summary: A good, quick understanding can be obtained by reading WP:5P, and following links from there, if you want more details. Technical stuff is easiest to learn by copying formatting from well-developed articles. You can find many of those at WP:FA. You can also learn a lot of good tricks on the page WP:EDIT.
• Shortcuts: Lots of us communicate in these cryptic shortcuts (as I've just done above). If you click those links, you can see which pages are indicated by "WP:5P", etc. (I often open the links in browser tabs, so I don't lose track of where I came from.) You can also go directly to these pages by typing the shortcut into the search box on the left, and then clicking "Go".
• Stubs: There are lots of articles in need of development, wikifying, etc. Those most in need, we call "stubs" (You guessed it - WP:STUB). It's not too hard to find stubs on almost any topic. For example, if the geography of Chile is a subject that interests you, check out Category:Chile geography stubs. If you're working on a stub, the best things to add are wikilinks (using double square brackets), and content that you can cite to some good external source. If you don't know how to do footnotes, don't worry. You can copy formatting from elsewhere, or just put a citation in parentheses and someone else will come along and format it.
• Categories: Look at the bottoms of pages, and you can see that every page is in one or more categories. Even categories are themselves in categories. Navigating through those can be a good way to find stuff.
• Talk pages: Discussions and disagreements about articles happen on the talk pages; each article has one, under the "discussion" tab. Most Wikipedians are friendly about helping new editors learn the ropes, but there are also some prickly people around. If you run into anyone who's rude to you, the best thing is to ask others to have a look at whatever is in dispute. We try to avoid fights, and I'm always willing to help mediate with anyone who... seems to be having a bad day.
• Watchlist: When you edit a page, click up at the top on the tab "Watch". That adds the page to your watchlist, which is linked up in the upper-right hand corner whenever you're logged in. That's a good way to keep abreast of what happens to articles you're interested in.

I could go on and on, but I don't want to overwhelm you. The main thing is to know that you're very welcome here, and that you can learn a lot by just trying stuff. You're certainly welcome to ask me about any specific question you have.

Happy editing! -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

spades

You should read the last paragraph of To call a spade a spade, and consider whether you might have jumped the gun there. Hesperian 06:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Well, I'll strike that part. I would still contend that many perceive it as a racist allusion, which is just about as damaging as if it really were one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be 100% crystal clear

I do not acknowledge for a moment that you gave me a 'final' warning. Your threat to block was laced with personal attacks calling into question my maturity and my mental health. If you block me over this issue--or indeed any in the future--I will make it my personal mission to have you desysopped for abuse of your tools. And no, I won't be watching this page; I don't much care what you have to say in response. → ROUX ₪ 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what you acknowledge. I didn't attack your mental health - every healthy human on Earth engages in neurotic needs occasionally. I'm a bipolar and a drunk; deal with it. If you think you can have me desysopped for stopping a rampage of personal attacks.... cool. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Now this is more my type of discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, right? I'm usually so bored... No wonder I drink. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I also like a drink. However I might just interject here and say that 1) We don't "do" personal missions to have you desysopped and 2) we don't "do" personal traits / behaviour - I'm a drunk that alone justify on-wiki actions. Just saying chaps that on balance we could let this rest? Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, sure. I'm not drunk right now, I don't edit loaded, and I think whatsisname is not watching. That's what he said, and I'm sure as hell not going to call him a liar. Nor have I tried to justif... what are you talking about? I can self-deprecate all I want! I'm a terrible editor! Why do people listen to me? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Already the discussion is deteriorating. It was good while it lasted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if I launch into a 9-paragraph screed... -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's so hard to stage the really good stuff: righteous indignation, vendettas, outrage, emotional breakdowns. And some of the trolling baiters are getting reined in of late. Is this the end of drama as we've known it on Wikipedia?

I found something on ANI about admin cabalism, but it's mostly heresay so far. Plus, I find it difficult to get worked up over admins coordinating off-wiki and then freaking out when their activities are exposed to the light of day. Just another day in the neighborhood. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin cannibalism? Heresy on ANI? This is something I should have known about! I'm still baffled at the idea that "I'm a drunk" was supposed to justify anything... -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Version vector

Sadly, this new article doesn't appear to have much to do with mathematics. But given your extraordinary article building expertise and unique insights, I trust you can evaluate it and make any improvements that are needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC) It appears to be related to Vector clock, if that helps. There is a nice graphic thingy in the article that shows something. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Extraordinary article-building expertise"? Unamusing. If you want to drop off notes about articles you think I can help with, in my minimal, gnomish way, leave out the jabs, eh? If you're trying to say something else, it's coming across as weird, veiled sarcasm. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comedy is a tough business. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, remember that you're online. If you're going to mix in "comedy" about people's writing skills (Who on Earth enjoys being the butt of that?) with otherwise sincere posts, you're going to confuse and offend people. If you don't think much of my writing - or lack thereof - then either stick to that, or don't mention it. Pretend praise just isn't funny. Memorize that, and you'll piss off fewer people. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering I barely know what the article's about, I think I made some pretty reasonable changes to make it more accessible. It's not close to FA status yet... -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hey I just saw on some sort of Arb noticeboard that you're willing to mentor. Durova was eager to be relieved of mentorship duties and she was involved with some interesting and challenging mentees. You might check with her if she still has some that could be passed on. Most of the issues that I'm aware of have simmered down, for now anyway, but I think she'd be happy to pass the baton on for whatever is left simmering. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • No, you think I'm bad at stuff. You disagree with "my approach", remember? I discuss way too much to be of any use as a mentor. Apparently, I think everyone should stop writing and discuss. If you can't shoot straight with me, go away. If this is your way of saying... something else, just say it. Tone comes across badly online.

    Go write an article. There's an Wikipedia:Article Incubator slowly filling with stubs that could use your attention. You are good at that; no sarcasm, no joke. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood your statement of interest in mentoring. Whether wearing mentees down with discussion would be a good thing or not I am incapable of determining. Some of them like to talk, so it might be a perfect fit. As far as article work, I don't think I've ever criticized you on that front. My attempt at humor was just a lighthearted way of noting my support for you doing more of it. I thought the article looked interesting and math related, but it wasn't, but I still thought somehow it might be intriguing to you (and it was over my head). The emphasis on expertise was because you had said, if I remember correctly, that you aren't any good at article writing, which I thought was silly. Oh well. I'm headed back to my corner of the Wiki. It's a good thing I removed my joke about Peter and his f-bombs. That was probably misunderstood as well. I will try to only laugh at myself in future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it is math related. Secondly, it's not like we're on buddy-buddy terms. I genuinely cannot tell whether you have any respect for me or not. You've made it pretty clear that you disagree with a lot of what I say and do, and you've never made it apparent that you think anything good about me without veiling it in "comedy". What makes you think I like you enough to put up with that kind of shit? Your attempt at humor managed to hurt my feelings, first thing in the morning. Congratulations. My day was worse, because you laughed at me.

Why do I say you laughed at me? I'm getting that from "I'll only laugh at myself in the future". That indicates that you were laughing at someone else - Whom? Get it? Laugh with, not at. Since you and I clearly don't share a sense of humor, don't try. You're bad at it.

You still dickishly think I'm all about discussion. I'm not, you're wrong or lying, and I don't like you at all. I respect your dedication to the project, but I think you are socially clueless. Your attempts to be friendly come off as offensive. I want you to stop posting to my talk page. Okay?

You seem to still think that when I said, "you don't have to discuss so much," I meant, "you should discuss more". That's incomprehensibly clueless to me. You think I want you to be like me. Ugh. Please - lay off the discussion. You're bad at it, and you do too much of it, while bizarrely claiming that you'd rather not. Take a look at yourself man. Start walking the walk you talk. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Shaku

Hey is there any way of closing the page move request without closing the discussion also? --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let me see what I can do. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep that looks good. Thank you. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Eie-manager

I originally posted this on WP:AI, but then decided best to see what you think first.

This one will never graduate. I can't find a single source on news, book, scholar, or the first 60+ google hits.

Instead of putting the article up for deletion, I suggest we redirect it to Norton Commander. Let me know if there is any concerns about this approach. Ikip (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok... maybe let's be careful in AfDs in the future not to suggest or support userfying articles unless they really seem to have a chance. Voting "delete" is probably the best, most merciful, thing to do in those cases. Deletion isn't "mean".

As for this one, let's give it some time. The deadlines I'm thinking of are in the 1-3 month range. Print sources exist, maybe not for this, but maybe. Have you tried a bricks-and-books library? A rush to decide that it will never graduate is no better than a rush to delete it in the first place, or a rush to save it without careful consideration. In 2 months, someone could come up with a non-online technical journal. Either way, let's decide in about 2 months.

For now, if there's already a mainspace redirect from Eie-manager to Norton Commander, super. If not, let's not create one unless Norton Commander actually mentions Eie-manager. Otherwise, that will just confuse people. No hits at all is a better search result than an unexplained redirect.

I don't think we need to be putting articles up for deletion anyway. Most of our clients have already failed that test; no sense repeating.

I guess that's what I think. Please be careful about what you userfy. I've been trusting you on that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I stopped a few days ago. thanks for your suggestions.Ikip (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Farmer and sons

Isn't it curious how much satisfaction we derive from solving these word puzzles ? If the same problem was posed in terms of already formulated equations/congruences, we all would have yawned and never taken the time to find particular solutions. Glad we haven't "grown" out of such simple pleasure. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. :) I wonder if there's a solution for any number of sons.... kinda think there is... but I don't quite feel like trying to prove that. That was fun though, and that farmer should get his head examined! -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Next post...

...will be thousands of miles from here. The taxi has arrived. Ciao. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Talk about bad timing. :-) I had come here to respond to what you posted here. I'm drawing up a list of cases where mentorship remedies were passed but no mentors found, and I will post a link here when that is done. What is also needed is to get others interested in mentoring as well. Carcharoth (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Made it. About to sleep. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion please

I just wanted to get your opinion on an editor's behavior at Talk:Kitchen Nightmares (here and here). I, and several others, feel that User:Roman888 is being tendentious, disruptive, and purposely obtuse. At the beginning, he canvassed for votes (and still complains about not using votes to decide and feels that one person disagreeing voids consensus). For over two weeks, he's been complaining that there was no consensus made about the issue, made a bunch of baseless accusations about the editors there, refused to move into dispute resolution unless it was on his terms (we moved forward anyway), and continually twists and distorts policies/guidelines around to suit his argument.

He shows no signs of stopping, even after we tried to disengage and not reply (which just led to longer replies from him), and we're not sure where to go from here. It's so odd though because the user is perfectly fine in other areas of Wikipedia. He seems to be focusing all of this behavior on this article, but does not do this anywhere else on Wikipedia, as if he has some vested interest in the issue. I know that WP:DISRUPT says to call for an RFC for their conduct, but, in the past, the user has made it very clear they won't participate in WP:DR unless it's on their terms. I just wanted get your opinion since you understand etiquette issues a whole lot better than I do. Please also let me know if our conclusions are just wrong here. Thank you. --13² 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Exchange at NC

Hello, GTBacchus. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Note to self:

• commons:Category:Agonoscelis
• commons:Category:Eurydema
• commons:Category:Murgantia

Help with disruptive editor?

I'm having harassment and wikistalking problems with an editor and if you are able, I would really appreciate any assistance you can offer. I've made a full report on AN/I here. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tothwolf. As I'm posting below, I've just beamed off the planet, as far as regular Wikipedia participation goes. I hope another admin was able to help you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)