User talk:Father Goose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If I leave a message on your page, I'll watchlist it. Please reply there.


Monty Hall Problem[edit]

Just a note informing you that Formal Mediation has begun with 2 mediators. Glkanter (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Brooklyn Bridge[edit]

This is an awesome pic. Thanks for finding it and placing it! Acps110 (talkcontribs) 17:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That particular spot on the bridge is a photographer's mecca, so I was surprised we didn't have a shot of it in the article. There were several good candidates on Commons, but Jim Henderson's seemed the best. I've seen and liked his work before on Wikipedia; please express your appreciation to him as well.--Father Goose (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:BLP footer[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to query this template with you. I've already read some of the discussion that led to it's creation, but it doesn't appear to be used and is essentially just a duplicate of the BLP editintro template. What happened regarding the proposal to implement this, and is the template still required? PC78 (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a project that stalled. I'll move the template to my userspace on the chance that the project will be taken up again at some point. I appreciate your due diligence in contacting the involved users before sending it off to gulag.--Father Goose (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries. What about {{BLP help}}? It appears to be an earlier version of the same thing, though this particular format seems to have been opposed (and it's not hard to see why). PC78 (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll move that to userspace as well. It's an idea that had merit, but we didn't follow up and at present I don't have the time to continue with it. Oh well.--Father Goose (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

RIP Glen "Frosty" Little[edit]

Hi. Just letting you know that Glen "Frosty" Little, on whose page you worked, died on October 26, 2010, apparently of natural causes. (See [1].) If I remember correctly you didn't personally know him but if I'm wrong, please accept my condolences. Tipped off by an anonymous editor, I have made the necessary changes to his page but they could use another eye to check that all the tenses match et cetera. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know him, but it's sad all the same. I made a couple of additional fixes/expansions and tweaked sources. Thanks for your help.--Father Goose (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Self-criticism[edit]

No offence intended, but have you ever noticed that "sesquipedalianism" is not a word that the "general audience" would be able to cope with, either? Arolión Yolenda (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was using it jokingly to emphasize my point. Elaborate writing is great and all, but not a good fit for Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner / AFD[edit]

You do realize that the entire article is a violation of WP:BLP1E, right? Do you also realize that I had already speedily closed the afd before? --slakrtalk / 06:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, you have a clear conflict of interest in this area. Only uninvolved administrators should close AFDs. --slakrtalk / 06:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of the speedy close that was subsequently reversed with your permission. If you disagree with any of the points I laid out in my rationale, please rebut them specifically.
Again: realistically, is there any way we are going to avoid having an article on this person? Not just in the distant future, or near future, but already? A bunch of us could wheel war over the issue... and we'd still end up having an independent article about this person. So I'm asking that we be just a tiny bit far-seeing, and skip the wheel war, and further AfDs.
If you feel that I have initiated a wheel war, or that the handful of edits I made to 2011 Tucson shooting invalidate my closing rationale, by all means raise the issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard or before the Arbitration Committee.--Father Goose (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a suspect, which fails WP:CRIMINAL on its own. So, failing that, it failsWP:BLP1E, as the person is not notable for any other reason. This person is a suspect, and if the article is gutted of the facts pertaining to the alleged crime (which as a suspect we can't assume he's done until he's convicted), the article would be deleted or redirected, because the person has no notability apart from the crime. The crime is significant and notable, but until determined to be the convicted perpetrator, the person does not get their own article, as has been repeatedly determined in the past. --slakrtalk / 06:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
...and on a related note, I have no desire to wheel war or anything; in fact, just the opposite. I know all about torches and pitchforks, so I was basically coming here to implore you to allow the stupid thing to run and let it close uncontroversially, having already closed it apparently controversially once already. --slakrtalk / 06:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure your speedy closure was made with the same intent as mine: to ward off further pointless bickering over the issue. But contemplate how much is going to be written about this guy in the coming weeks, and how much has been written already. It's not going to make a difference that at this point he's still just a suspect, and that he's only known in relation to one event. WP:BLP1E acknowledges that when the event is prominent enough, there's no holding back the floodwaters.
I'd say we're about hip-deep already. I hope I managed to communicate as much with my closing rationale.--Father Goose (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please consider undoing this "close". It read more like a vote to me. There was a clear majority/consensus for merge/redirect, and most of the keep votes amounted to "he's famous" - now the keep opinions were gathering in number - so a keep outcome may emerge in time, or not. There's also a unanimous merge decision at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Proposed_merge. Given that, a "speedy keep" was highly inappropriate. I suggest you reopen this, move your comments (which may well be right) to an opinion not a close, and let someone uninvolved close this in a few days time. Otherwise it will be overturned at DRV and we'll be back for another AFD. It may well be that we'll end up with a keep either ways, but reopening the AFD and letting it run for another 8 days will avoid edit warring and forum shopping in the meantime. --Scott Mac 09:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that you seem to be off-line, that you'd already edited the article in question, and that there's an edit-war already between enforcign the AFD keep and the other merge, I'm going to re-open the AFD and let it run. It will probably end up being inconclusive, but at least it will give a forum and process for the discussion.--Scott Mac 09:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What is to be gained by trying to hold back the floodwaters? I wouldn't have made that closure if it wasn't pretty much a certainty that we would have an article on this person -- not just in the long term but in the near term. How long do we stave it off -- a week? a month? -- and what do we gain from that? What do we gain from a longer AfD or another DRV?
I suspect you understand that keeping this specific article out of the encyclopedia will be a losing battle, so why fight it? Why force everyone else to fight it too?--Father Goose (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You are correct in saying that the article will almost certainly be kept. (Whether I think it should be is neither here nor there). However, there obviously lots of people who want to redirect or merge it, and they are going to want to have their say. Speedy closures can be good things, but they only work where everyone says "yes, that's obvious" and moves on. That wasn't going to happen here. The result of your closure was that the debate betweeen keepers and mergers continued as an edit war and a discussion in other venues. So, to that degree, the attempt to move to a speedy result failed. Sometimes, even when the result is obvious, contentious issues need to be talked out so that when the conclusion comes both sides can accept it. As I say, I think your closure was good faith, and I agree was probebly the "inevitable result", yet it failed to close the discussion - and it is better that discussion continue on afd than take more disruptive forms.--Scott Mac 11:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If you were actually upset by the warring over this issue, what you could do is counsel your own side and say to them what you're saying to me: "We aren't going to win this one." Instead, you are leading the charge for your right to fight a losing battle.
This morning I opened the NY Times to one front-page biographical article about Loughner and another front-page article about the case being brought against him. I wasn't surprised to see that and you won't be surprised to hear it.
You have an opportunity here to demonstrate that you are a sensible person. This battle is lost. It's lost because the principle you fight for doesn't apply here, or won't apply for more than an instant, and that instant has likely already passed.
Don't acknowledge that to me. Acknowledge that to the people on your side. They'll listen to you. If your interest is actually in wanting the edit-warring to stop, you are in a position to stop it.--Father Goose (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there are sides here. And if you think I've the power to say "hey this is lost" and everyone will fall silent, then ... well, then you're obviously wrong. If this were opened now, I don't think I'd even bother voting on it - but there is a discussion people some want to have, and neither you nor I can prevent that. It is only a question of where it happens. If anything it is easier to ignore it if it works itself out in a debate that will obviously be closed as either keep or no consensus keep in a week or so.--Scott Mac 18:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner merging[edit]

As you were the closing admin, you probably should be informed of this. A discussion to merge this article began at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Proposed_merge. In less than two hours after the discussion began with, so far, only those supporting a merge participating in the discussion, a user merged the article. [2] I reverted it citing the AfD, but I'm sure users will try to merge it back. --Oakshade (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"You're coming on too strong, and alienating people"[edit]

Father Goose, can I ask you to remove this statement from the Analytical engine talk page? It doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. It's purely ad hominem. It's not a positive contribution toward resolution of a content issue. It's a personal opinion that is subjective and doesn't have any firm basis on what comes before it. And all that it is likely to do is become a self-fulfilling prophecy that turns the discussion into something increasingly about persons rather than about ideas. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You've seen it, so it's served its purpose, and I'll remove it. But I think it was important to say it. Once an argument is on full-bore, everyone stops listening to each other, and every point made becomes pointless. You are apparently outnumbered on the issue so far which means you can't win it by simply arguing harder: you have to convince everyone. And that won't happen while you're still provoking a defensive response from the other side.
I do think that there is something in how you are approaching the argument, and not the points themselves, that is provoking that defensive response. That's why I said what I said. I have a sense of how to recast your points in a less adversarial tone, but you'd have to be willing to yield the podium to me, which is to say, let me take over the argument for a couple of paragraphs and trust that I'll move it in a direction favorable to to your views. May I ask for your permission to attempt this?--Father Goose (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Have at it. Robert K S (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Flash Mob[edit]

Definition discussion under >U2 Streets could do with some help.76.175.193.153 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Up for deletion, again.[edit]

Social impact of thong underwear is up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social impact of thong underwear) again. Will you take a look? Aditya(talkcontribs) 05:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

An alternative solution to the navbox layout problem[edit]

Would you please take a look at and comment on this: User:Butwhatdoiknow/Sandbox. Feel free to edit it as long as you are there. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Capitalization bug[edit]

Hi. I have fixed the bug that you reported and released a new version. See my response at User_talk:Ganeshk/CSVLoader#Capitalization_bug. Ganeshk (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Father Goose,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talkcontribs) 23:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


This[edit]

...made me chuckle, dunno why. lol : ) - jc37 03:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Father Goose. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Navbox proposal - Attempt 2[edit]

Thank you for your prior comment regarding my draft proposal to modify navbox placement rules. I've revised that proposal to eliminate at least one of your concerns. Would you please take a fresh look at it and let me know if I am anywhere closer to having an idea that might work? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Another user has suggested a different approach that is likely to draw less fire from the community. What do you think? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC[edit]

You are invited to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Article: 8K Resolution[edit]

Thank you :). --Alonduro (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Road map, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Route (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Filling station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Road maps
Road map (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Thebes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Road map[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Road map at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hill Climbing source[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello Father Goose. I have a question regarding the following sentence you added in 2010 on the Hill climbing page. You added in the introduction: 'Although more advanced algorithms such as simulated annealing or tabu search may give better results, in some situations hill climbing works just as well. Hill climbing can often produce a better result than other algorithms when the amount of time available to perform a search is limited, such as with real-time systems.' I think I agree with the sentence, but I would really like to have a source from the literature (article, book, etc.) to be able to cite it. I hope you can respond as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

User:rolb2 (talk) Rolb2 (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Revived interest in Infernal Affairs[edit]

Invitation to participate in the poll for Infernal Affairs.

From your edits for the film Infernal Affairs there is presently a poll taking place on The Departed film Talk page regarding whether you believe a separate subsection should be included for (a) Infernal Affairs as a source for the plot of The Departed film, and/or (b) a second subsection for the recently captured crime figure Whitey Bulger as the source for the character played by Jack Nicholson in the film.

The recent capture of Bulger has revived the question from two years ago of Infernal Affairs from when it did have a separate subsection on The Departed film page which was deleted by User:RepublicanJ, now known as User:OldJ. Invite to visit The Departed Talk page, to the Bulger section at the end of the Page, to participate in the Poll currently taking place. 208.120.96.227 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your indefinite semi-protection of Maclaren[edit]

Hello. Please reconsider your indefinite semi-protection of Maclaren.

Per policy, indefinite semi is only advisable for "pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy". Also, according to WP:ROUGH,

If semi-protection is to be tried, its first application should be for a short duration, a few days or a week. If vandalism continues after the protection expires it can be added for a longer duration. At some point an administrator might determine that the semi-protection should be made indefinite. This is reserved for only the most vandalized articles

Activity that could be considered spam (not vandalism) was not heavy nor persistent and the spam episodes in the previous 6 months can be counted on the fingers of one hand with two fingers. Interestingly, in one instance it was an IP who reverted it.

There was plenty of good non-autoconfirmed activity prior to your protection. It looks to me like you found it easier to semiprotect than to engage the offender and explain to them how WP works and why what they were adding is considered spam here. 220.246.156.205 (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. The article isn't actively watched by anyone who seems willing to remove the spam, so the spammer's preferred version lingers for months at a time. I hope you have the time to watch the article in the future to counteract the spam.
You're right that I didn't bother to engage the spammer; Wikipedia's policies are at cross purposes to a spammer's interests, which is solely to have a page depicting them positively. If the spammer has the option to ignore me and keep doing what he wants, he'll ignore me and keep doing what he wants.
Nonetheless, you are right that I used far too clumsy a tool to try to counteract the problem. Wikipedia lacks the finer tools that would produce an effective response without collateral damage.--Father Goose (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. 220.246.156.205 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:UIAR[edit]

Hello, thanks much for your work on this. Exceedingly useful. p.s. I also register my lack of satisfaction with 'essence' in the first section-title. Maybe something flippant, like Ignorance For Dummies™ would help? But I would prefer something along the lines of the zen of encyclopedia maintenance, or the un-unwritten un-rule(s). "The first principle of IAR is that there is no IAR. The editor was enlightened before they asked." HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! It's been a while since I've done anything policy-related, but I'm happy to see that UIAR is still intact and serving a purpose. I wouldn't object to changing the section title. Take a swing. But I don't agree about adding zen-type stuff, as I feel it is cryptic, which is the opposite of what I was going for with UIAR.--Father Goose (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Recommend course of action?[edit]

Hi,

I see you just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of tablet computers as keep. Given the only people who participated !voted keep, I'm not terrible surprised, but I'd encourage you to relist it instead given not one of the keep arguments came with a valid reason for keeping (entirely variations of "WP:USEFUL" and direct contradictions of WP:NOT). If that's not a possibility or in your opinion isn't pragmatic, what is the next step? Thanks. --— Rhododendrites talk |  17:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has hundreds of "comparison of" articles of varying quality and currency. They all plausibly fail various aspects of WP:NOT, yet I believe a majority would pass AfD. Depending on your view of Wikipedia's rules, this either means people are flaunting WP:NOT flagrantly -- or legitimately, depending on how you regard WP:IAR. There is probably a consensual (but undocumented) exception to IINFO, DIR, etc. for this category of article. Ideally, policy should be amended to reflect such exceptions, but the reality is that policy editing on Wikipedia is as much conflict-driven as consensus-driven, meaning it is at best an imperfect guide to "how we do things" on Wikipedia. But you couldn't list every exception anyway -- a hair can only be split so finely.
Yes, it could have been relisted, but that likely wouldn't have changed the outcome. If you really wish to see the article deleted, I recommend renominating it in a few months. Alternatively, you could regard it as something other editors view as falling within Wikipedia's purview, for whatever their reasons, and turn your focus to other tasks.--Father Goose (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

Based on your comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoiding_harm, I am interested in having your feedback/criticism dialogue here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significanceMeropeRiddle (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)