User talk:Writegeist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
NY stock exchange traders floor LC-U9-10548-6.jpg   Writegeist is on a deadline and trying not to be distracted by Wikipedia, bourbon, or booty calls (his phone is in a Faraday bag).
* * * If I opened a new topic on your talk page, please reply there * * *




Flag map of Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a WikiProject which aims to create, edit and expand articles relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please feel free to join us.


I find it interesting that a user defends a condescending comment to another user with the novel argument that a dead author has used the same words (probably before he died; and almost certainly not in addressing the same user). I think the idea that any words attributable to dead authors are wikipermissible because they have intrinsic literary merit is really rather witty. The purveyor of the literary gem in question promises to leave the project if this argument is not allowed to prevail. I fervently share the hope that it wins the day. Then we can all start condescending to each other with literary quotes of unimpeachable provenance and high merit. I'm thinking "You're an asshole" (from Norman Mailer's The Executioner's Song, for anyone who didn't instantly recognize the provenance). Not to mention Shakespeare's "Thou misshapen dick!" or "You are a tedious fool." Or Vonnegut's "If your brains were dynamite there wouldn’t be enough to blow your hat off." Or Hemingway's "I misjudged you. You’re not a moron. You’re only a case of arrested development.” Or... You get the idea. What fun if this glorious new frontier of literary wikidiscourse opens up!

Oh and—how could I forget?—there's Lewis Carroll's dear little Snark, of "intellect small", known for being "meager and hollow " and for its "slowness in taking a jest."

Wikištrajku[edit]

Ja sam u wikištrajku! Ne panic! Ja ću urediti, bez zaustavljanja, u ovom teškom trenutku. Smirite se i nastavite.

Various thoughts on retiring, from famous dead people[edit]

  • When a man falls into anecdotage, it is time for him to retire...Benjamin Disraeli
  • Calm of mind, all passion spent...John Milton
  • ...with calm mind embrace a rest that knows no care...Lucretius
  • I'm dreaming of a White Christmas...Irving Berlin
  • Beguiled by the terrible incantations and your ambiguous undulations in the grip of eccentric propositions and distant miseries from afar, I beseech you to reconsider...Anonomous
Tra! ```Buster Seven Talk 16:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Disraeli's dead? He hasn't been answering my letters so I thought he was on strike. Interesting coinkidink: my fourth wife's name was Lysistrata. Boy, did she know how to get her own way.Writegeist (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
This page clocked up a massive total of 19 views on September 27 and 28. An awesome level of interest, particularly in a living person, as I think you'll agree—the number is so high that not even the prodigious Stephen Hawking has enough fingers to calculate it. Yet it was exceeded by the gargantuan total of 21 at my user page on September 28. This easily tops the number of people (12) who paid their respects to the body of well-known dead person Vladimir Lenin (famous quote: "A lie told often enough becomes truth") between 10:15 a.m. and 10:16 a.m. on September 28 1970—the same day, incidentally, that Gamal Abdel Nasser (famous quote: "When I met Lenin I was struck by his remarkable, almost eerie, stillness") became another well-known dead person. Anyway I was immensely flattered by the attention, natch; particularly when Twitter lit up and the TV news led with the story of my sudden celebrity. Later when I recovered my composure—not that I had been decomposing, you understand—I began to wonder why the sudden surge in interest? And who exactly were these new fans? Then Lysistrata told me: zombies. Which would account for the lingering smell. Writegeist (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes! And accounts for the stray appendages littering your front yard. At first, I thought you had left one of the promised refrigerated mouse morsels, but then realized that the morsel was a digit finger. It had most likely been waved/wagged too vigorously in your direction by a visiting zombie and had fallen off. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Police are combing the neighborhood for zombies with fingers missing (some index, some middle). Neighborhood is large, police-issue combs are small (budget cutbacks). Don't hold your breath. Writegeist (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Police are looking for this man, now believed to be missing the nose
According to a document released to me by a friendly NSA contractor currently on vacation in Russia, visits to my user page spiked at 34 (the truly monstrous size of this number becomes apparent when you consider it's also the distance in miles to the outer reaches of the known universe) on September 10. Yours shot up to 19 on the same day. A contemporaneous report by an NSA analyst conjectured that a September 10 comment I posted to your talk page and deleted a few minutes later may have piqued the interest of a nosey parker who then made repeated intrusions. Which would explain the very large nose I found in the Acme Trap-a-Schnozz nose trap ($4.99 from Walmart, dependable, washable, reusable, and worth every cent) in my underwear drawer when I got home. I'm drying it, with a view to using it for nose art. Writegeist (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Update! In an encrypted communication which I recovered from a famous dead person's crypt in [location redacted] last night, my NSA contact says surveillance of my talk page rocketed to a stupendoud total of 43* separate instances of eavesdropping in one day, specifically November 7, 2013—the day after Tim Berners-Lee reportedly described as "appalling and foolish" the decisions by GCHQ and the NSA to break the online encryption software that hundreds of millions of users rely on to protect their private data. Clearly the spooks mistook me for Mr. Berners-Lee. To be fair, this was an understandable mistake for intelligence operatives to make, as Mr. Berners-Lee invented the world-wide web and I didn't.

*Yes, 43. The immensity of this figure becomes apparent when you consider it's greater than the total number of stars in the known universe [source: Wikipedia]. Writegeist (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Obamacare[edit]

I sure wish that the POTUS would sit down with Speaker of the House Jim DeMint and resolve this predicament we are in. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It will come as no surprise to you that as advisers to the First Lady on all matters relating to tea-time etiquette, Lysistrata and I are invited to tea by all kinds of people. We would of course decline an invitation from Mr. DeMint. We would offer a diplomatic excuse such as "We have a previous engagement with the Capitol Earl Grey Appreciation Society" or "We are on teastrike." But you never know when you might run into the gentleman at a tea party hosted by someone else. Tips: Do say: Mr. DeMint, would you please make a long arm for the fairy cakes? Don't say: Mr. DeMint, are you a closet teabagger? Writegeist (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

<g>[edit]

User talk:Jclemens#stalking

Skoal![edit]

Have a beverage on me!
In honor of Bamboozle Busters everywhere!

```Buster Seven Talk 03:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My kind of bamboozle! Thank you my friend. I hereby drink to your health. Any time you'd care to join me, help yourself to the comfy chair by the fire and put your feet up on Santa Claws the stuffed cat. (Given my talk page's astronomical number of visitors, there's a chance that someone with nothing better to do than to snuffle around in its darker recesses will seize on "stuffed cat" as a reference to him- or herself. Oh well. I'm a hospitable fellow. Be my guest, I say. Carpe cattum!) Writegeist (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


The best take so far on paid editing[edit]

From Jimbo Wales' talk page [1]:

Hi Jimbo, and whoever else may be interested,
First, I wanted to thank you, Jimbo, for your concerns with paid advocacy. I think you've taken a very helpful stance. I just wanted to follow with some thoughts; I'm sure others have written all this before, but anyway:
In academic publishing, if the author of a paper has received or will receive tangible benefits from someone who has a financial interest in the subject of the paper, this conflict of interest is supposed to be noted clearly within the paper. Not to do so is academic fraud. For encyclopedias this is not even an issue: Authors of entries are always supposed to be independent of conflict of interest for the subject of their entries. This is because encyclopedias are not supposed to be position or argumentative papers, but general, neutral accounts. Conflicts of interest have always been recognized in the academic world as undermining this neutrality to such an extent that it is rigorously avoided. For example, if it was discovered that Robert Duce accepted money from the aerosol industry in order to write the entry "Aerosols" in the Springer Encyclopedia of World Climatology, he would be rightly scandalized, and his department at Texas A&M would try to remove him as best as they could. We should keep this encyclopedia at the same high standard.
Paid advocacy editors have responded that Wikipedia already has policies to keep things neutral and that their edits— or those of the responsible ones among them at least —are kept within these policies. This response is a non-starter. Every academic encyclopedia has neutrality as an editorial standard, but their editors still do not accept authors with a conflict of interest. We should not fail to learn from the best practices of the academic world.
Paid advocacy editors cannot produce even a single example where an effective paid editor has produced an overall negative impression for the firm or a client of the firm which pays this editor. Of course this is the case: If such a paid editor is going to produce a negative impression of the benefactor, then the benefactor has no interest in paying out money for such a service. Overall unbiased editing from such paid editors is a contradiction. A necessary condition for the continued practice of paying editors to produce content about oneself or one's clients is that there be a systemic bias in the production of content. Neutral editors have no effective mechanism for dealing with this biased production apart from banning it: Neutral editors are volunteers who can only act in their free time, the paid editors have as much time as their pay can afford them.
Claims that the community here is divided on whether to maintain the high standards of academic publishing are suspicious. The community is that body of neutral editors who are here to write an encyclopedia collaboratively. The editors who are paid to produce content concerning a benefactor, insofar as they take that role, are not part of this community. As such they are not here to work collaboratively, but are rather here to benefit themselves. What percentage of those who want to allow, and indeed expand the number of, encyclopedia articles written with a conflict of interest are actually part of the community, and what percentage are themselves paid editors? That is hard to answer. Instead of counting votes on what practices to take up, we should look to the academic world, which has soundly rejected conflict-of-interest writing. Thanks for reading. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Brought to you by B7...Buster Seven Talk 16:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Buster for bringing this to my (admittedly short-spanned) attention. A voice of reason that rather reminds me of yours. How very different from the dimwitted defenders of the bamboozlers. Writegeist (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks need to be redacted. Thank you. v/r - TP 21:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have of course complied with this paid-to-edit administrator's request. And made the requested change for free. Writegeist (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it all got a bit silly at ANI (surprise!) and there was a funny smell so I've taken it off my watchlist. Writegeist (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Remedy[edit]

The next time you feel the urge to point out the truth where it is not welcome, I suggest listening to 3 or 4 ᗅᗺᗷᗅ albums. Fleer Logo.svgs ```Buster Seven Talk 15:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that welcome (and free!) contribution, dear Buster. As it happens, when I'm speaking the truth where it's not welcome I often listen to cheery ᗅᗺᗷᗅ tracks. Recently one such soundtrack was So Long Dum Dum Diddle. And another was: I Let the Music Speak. Watch Out! When All Is Said and Done, The Name of the Game: Money, Money, Money. Does Your Mother Know? Writegeist (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Being a considerate fellow . . .[edit]

I note that a certain user, one I consider a problematic editor whose contributions really needs watching by admins—his history here includes dismissive behaviour towards other users, misrepresention of others' comments, wikilawyering, false acccusation, crass name-calling (calling me a bastard! My mother would blush!), and solidly supporting (and therefore encouraging) another user who persistently showered me in really quite vile abuse—is troubled by me making good-naturedly humorous reference to any of his wiki-antics in my posts here and on my user page, even though I'm at pains to grant him total anonymity. I am loath to cause him (or any other living creature) distress. After all, for all I know, he may be a thoroughly decent, highly sensitive chap in real life, and quite unlike his wikipersona. Therefore, as I am a considerate fellow, (1) I've decided not to post any further references or allusions to his behaviour on "my" pages. I hope this will afford him relief from his agitation, and that (2) he will do me the courtesy of refraining from any further malign engagement with me. I bear him no ill will—the person behind the user name is of absolutely no interest to me, and his wikibehaviour has only ever amused me. That is all. Writegeist (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now changed my mind about (1) because my hope for (2) has been unpleasantly disappointed. On the upside: gratuitously toxic comments, devoid of wit, often provide the greatest amusement.
Hey there. First, thanks for your kind comments on my user talk page. Second, I don't know who you're referring to above but I do notice that you've been keel-hauled recently by one of the members of what I would describe as the Paid Editing Lobby. Obviously paid editing is not engaged in simply by hare-brained losers and slack-jawed corporate ninnies but is a sophisticated form of riding the Wikipedia gravy train. There are two forms of paid editors: the dummies and the smart ones. The smart ones play by the rules, and of course, notoriously, include administrators who are supposed to be living examples of best practices. But they also work the hardest and therefore are most likely to feel resentful and put-upon, and therefore most likely to want to cash in on their Wikipedia experience. That's basically what you're up against in this paid editing brouhaha, as paid editing is institutionalized, and has become a kind of moonlighting thing for the Wikipedia elite. They can be teenagers or wage slaves in real life, or pushed around by the big boss, but here they are Princes of Wikipedia, used to being kow-towed to and having their rumps kissed for all their selfless service to the Project, while of course you are a lesser being, and God forbid you should imply that they have the ethics of a lampshade. That's why you're coughing up salt water and that is why the Paid Editing Lobby is quite so strong. Hang in there. Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
(friendly stalker)@ Writegeist. I just wanted you to know that Core is an admittedly older geezer . This may explain future lapses in memory, typing errors (probably caused by shaggy-beard droppings), that unmistakable odor of "old fartedness", etc. I bear him no ill-will. He is a quality editor with a sharp (while admittedly old) head on his shoulders. You are my best wiki-friend so I felt obligated to inform you. If, sometimes, Core doesn't respond....he's probably napping. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
That's the problem with you young whipper-snappers. You don't respect age! Coretheapple (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Walmart[edit]

I've started to pay attention to the many Walmart articles. Specifically the Family wealth mentions and making sure they are kept up-to-date. Heck, just a few days ago there was $40 Billion dollars missing. A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon you're talkin' about some real money! While investigating, I ran across this...[2]...which reminded me so much of what we are afraid of regarding paid advocates/editors/operatives. Love your user page. Hope you had a splendid Thanksgiving. TRA!```Buster Seven Talk 20:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kind Sir. When my own $40 billion went missing I realized too late I shouldn't have kept it under the mattress. Looking on the positive side, the bed felt a lot less lumpy after it had gone. Writegeist (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Santaclausjf.JPG Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Attn. 84 and BB[edit]

Familiar edit pattern emerging again at Vega, although the frequency is not quite as frenetic as before. Vacation visit from our old friend?

It appears that the article is indeed getting frenetic attention from a number of anonymous editors.842U (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Vega's recently arrived single-purpose anon editor 24.191.190.85 exhibits the same distinctive practice (multiple quick-fire edits) as blocked Vegavairbob/Barnstarbob, and geolocates to within 9 miles of Vegavairbob's blocked sock IP 71.167.61.206. Hm. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I haven't checked back through the article history for other Vegavairbob sock IPs timestamped after his indef, but I wouldn't be surprised if . . . Writegeist (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Wolf of Wall Street[edit]

The Wolf of Wall Street uses animals including a four-year-old chimpanzee, Chance, who spent time with actor Leonardo DiCaprio and learned to roller skate over the course of three weeks. In December of 2013, just prior to the film's premiere, the organization Friends of Animals criticized the use of the chimpanzee and organized a boycott of the film. Variety reported, "Friends of Animals thinks the chimp...suffered irreversible psychological damage after being forced to watch the 3 hour movie that depicts the sordid behaviors of his fellow "actors". Chance, who was subject to cruel circus-trainer teaching methods early in his life, could suffer from neurotic behaviors and sleep deprevation, ultimately becoming incapable of socially interacting with other chimps, due to his watching of the movie." I know the feeling!!! Best 2 U. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Play[edit]

The play you wrote in userspace should be deleted as it does not appear to be part of building the encyclopedia. It's clearly a parody of Kevin Gorman's recent sally against Eric Corbett, so it likely falls under WP:ATTACK. I think you should nominate it for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User page
The autobiography you wrote in userspace should be deleted as it does not appear to be part of building the encyclopedia. It's clearly a humorless parody of George and Weedon Grossmith's The Diary of a Nobody, so it likely falls under WP:BORING and WP:CRAP. I think you should nominate it for deletion.
On a more serious note, I was sorry to read about your rocky marriage. I sincerely hope the rockiness didn't come as any great surprise. Writegeist (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
More thespian news
Thank you for so generously recommending a nomination for Little Kermit and the Curmudgeonly Soothsayer. My first-ever nomination! Thrilling! Oh God, where to start. I want to thank my agent Stella Gushington . . . the play's darling director Max "Stuffy" Clark, who can do no wrong . . . er, my adorable wife Lysistrata, where are you babycakes, oh yes there she is in the aisle seat! And by the way don't believe what you read, those are real! Where was I, oh yes, Lysistrata's hairdresser Crispin Primp . . . and my mother . . . and . . . Oh, okay, later.
Binkie, without doubt it was your review that helped lift the play from its relative obscurity at the off-off Broadway Prints of Whales theatre, which in turn precipitated its recent successful transfer to the storied Wikipediocracy Palace. As a token of gratitude and esteem, and encouraged both by your thespian credentials and the beard in your headshot, the producers are willing to offer you the opportunity to try out as understudy for the small but pivotal role of the troll in the new, all-star Wikipediocracy Palace production. Writegeist (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
How about a third act? People want two intermissions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this seductive idea Gerda. I'll work on it. (You should be my agent :-) ). Perhaps even a musical version? First I'll need to make sure the management of the Wikipediocracy Palace theatre can cater two intermissions for a full house. Overheads are high, profit margins are slim to non-existent these days, and of course It's hard to get minimum-wage bar staff who know their Mai Tais from their Mojitos and don't pilfer from the cash register. Writegeist (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Your actions are commendable. Thank you for that. Best wishes. Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like you chose the cheapest version for the Wikipediocracy Palace theatre ;) - I have a new red link on the bottom of my user page, play, - playfully yours, or should I say playemptily? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gerda, I enjoy your page's playfulness so I'm aggrieved by seeing it diminished. Sadly the loss of the link was a price we had to pay for Littlle Kermit to transfer to its sumptuous new venue. Proper lighting! Plush seats! A gilded proscenium arch! Actors who can act! (Although Benedict Cumbersnatch is young and admittedly rather odd-looking, he brings a thublime lithp and an almost catatonically lazy "r" to the role of Kermit.) But we can't have everything :-( . (Unless we're in the top 1%.) So no link. And talking of having everything, did you seen the documentary film The Rape of Europa, about the pan-European looting of art and artifacts by the Third Reich? Göring et al. sure did have it all. But not for long. Links, schminks! Good to see you here. Writegeist (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I like pp (page's playfulness). Actually, I think the red links add life to it ;) - Kermit seems still to be on his stroll, no fourth act. Did you know that we now not only have WP:Great Dismal Swamp, but also Ethics of Dissensus, thanks to a venerable arbitrator. Play is nothing compared to reality ;) - Leaning back in plush seat, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Dammit! Did I miss it? I thought you had contracted for at least a two month run? The critics can be so harsh. Just remember...Bedtime for Bonzo didn't stop Ronnie from achieving great things. Hang in there! ```Buster Seven Talk 05:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
New topic perhaps: ... that Rachel Mahon played the music of Star Wars in "five-inch stiletto heels and blue sequined spandex"? - with a little IP edit war i a cathedral, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
ps: critics? I noticed only raving reviews, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Moar ideas to play with: I have a sharp bird on the Main page, related to the everlasting saga that would be good for a Cycle, one episode/postlude linked on top of my user (or the bird talk), - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Banjos[edit]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5gNuj8UkyC4

Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinions[edit]

Hi, you've left a message on my talk page. I have responded with some curiously apposite words. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt it. Writegeist (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Technicalities[edit]

It seems to me that, as a general rule, when an article becomes increasingly politically charged, the likelihood also increases that experienced and ruthless users with a habitual POV agenda may seize on whatever technicality comes to hand as a means to rid the article of contributions from users they see as opponents.

Indeed. In these circumstances, the best path is to ask for third opinions and get uninvolved editors to weigh in by posting in the various noticeboards. Having said that, one needs a thick skin to edit this pedia... Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Totally. And I'm ¾ armadillo. Writegeist (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for your cool head, which should always prevail in WP. Cwobeel (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a genuinely pleasant surprise! I appreciate the appreciation. Incidentally, we armadillos have the advantage of unusually low body (and head) temperature. Writegeist (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Crap[edit]

I'm crap at working out reverts. That said, I think these may possibly be the ones they got you on, as they are all reverts within (just) a 24-hour period:

[3], [4] (a revert, it seems to me, as it reinserted content removed by another user), [5], [6]

I do think the block was rather uncalled-for as you have no history (as far as I know) of edit-warring, and you didn't show any intent to keep ignoring 3RR; you might have just misunderstood what constitutes a revert. So it looks more punitive than preventative.

Actually I think a 3RR block is a rite of passage, so really I should congratulate you : ) . Writegeist (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(adding) Interestingly, the blocking admin has a truly vaaaaast log of blocks and obviously loves pulling the trigger!

Blocked[edit]

Happy 450th birthday, Will!

William Shakespeare was a prolific writer whose works include The Merry Wives of Windsor (filmed for TV as The Real Housewives of Orange County), The Tempest (filmed as The Perfect Storm), Two Gentlemen of Verona (filmed as The Italian Job), Julius Caesar (the play is the theme of Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas), and the Harry Potter books. He hasn't written anything for many years because of writer's block.

Another birthday, not quite as sensational, alive, mentioned for another one in the condition, and it is all my fault, how could I think of this birthday gift, Remember not, Lord, our offences (in case you want to write another play - or two) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
for helping a newbie (me) out with this site. The K (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure, any time; and thank you for the acknowledgment. Much appreciated! Writegeist (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks Writegeist. My tolerance for interminable BS is lower than most people's, I guess. It was very nice of you to join in, and it will make me feel better for a long time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mine is right down there with yours, believe me :-) . It seems the new lot are resolved to live down to the expectations we had of the old. Plus ça change... I'm glad to know my 2¢ provided a degree of consolation, and only wish it had helped bring about an equitable outcome. (Even a banana republic needs better than a bunch of bananas to run it.) I share your sense of frustration. And while Acton's dictum obviously holds true, I very much hope you won't let the consequences in this instance drive you off. Best wishes, Writegeist (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Singing along with you two precious. My scream about a missed user is on the Main page again, - I screamed only the first time, and the sad list is too long already. Look for "consolation" on my user page. I escaped to a red category, - feel free to join me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Tales of Wales[edit]

Greetings, Trident13. As an avid collector of tales of Wales, I dug out the Weiss/Daily Mail thread linked at your user page ("I will be the first to admit I don't always get it right - and the typed internet is not sometimes the best medium through which to have clear communication. But I hope the contribution I make is useful and valued ... even though Jimbo Wales doesn't think so, and made a personal attack on me." — Emphasis added in the link, for clarity.) It's a long and rather chaotic thread, and I didn't find the personal attack; I must have missed it in the to and fro. Doubtless you can go straight to it, so please would you do me a favour and quote it, at least partially, for me (on my talk page if you prefer) so that I can find it when I search again? Then I can add it to my precious (off-wiki) collection of quotes from our revered founding father, who is now also of course a world-renowned champion of free speech. The page is archived, so here is a working link to it for your convenience: [7]. Many thanks. Writegeist (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message - I hope that I find you well! I don't seek a 1on1 confrontation with Jimmy Wales, nor do I wish that to be the outcome of the post on my FP. My great disappointment with Jimmy Wales choice on that occasion - and on numerous occasions since - was that it cut straight across the rules and accept practises of Wikipedia, something which Jimmy claims to live by. The reality is clearly different, in that (1) he thinks he can cut across any Wiki rules, for what ever reasoning, and that (2) a series of underlings hence go forth and do his work, in the vain hope that they may drink from the same table. Jimmy's upset with my edit was further fuelled in that I had chosen to reference the Daily Mail, which as he is someone who is presently married to a Blairite-Labour insider, he considers a sacrosanct sin (if you follow the mentioned above underlings, you will note that they hate the DM even more as part of their commitment/pledge to the JW cause. The DM also on an at least annual basis heavily critic's Wikipedia, most often on accuracy. But the depth of hate between the two organisations goes beyond the public evidence). I fully accept that I made an error in this particular edit, but then so did the newspapers who printed the story (DM, Telegraph, Observer - I have copies of them all), as it was based on a "revenge"-powered false press release pointed towards the victim, who was later compensated by all of the above media outlets. However, does my following of the Wiki rules and quoting references (which I fully accept turned out to be false) justify Jimmy's choice to (1) cut across the rules of Wiki, and (2) send out judgements on others? As personally the rules of Wikipedia are written on a far more collaborative principles - possibly even with socialist aroma's - Jimmy's chosen action illustrated to me the duplicity of the rules here: hence my warning to others, that however you may view the rules here, the "popular/powerful" consider themselves above and beyond them. I have soft and hard copies of all of the above mentioned documents and the exchange on Jimmy's talkpage, but as I said I don't seek a confrontation with Jimmy or anyone here - much as though he broke the rules. So on this occasion I hope that you will understand my choice not to presently provide you with copies of the requested items. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the trouble to respond. I appreciate you're not seeking confrontation with Wales, but I don't quite see how pointing out his alleged attack on you to a third party would constitute a confrontation. Anyway that's not really important. I've revisited the thread. Unless I'm still missing something, your accusation doesn't seem at all justified to me, and if I'm correct (I'm often wrong!), such an accusation itself constitutes a personal attack under WP:NPA if it's unjustified. I wonder if you're alluding to this reference to you from Wales: "[A]n editor in good standing added an outrageous and false statement from a notoriously salacious and unreliable tabloid." Surely describing you as "an editor in good standing" can't possibly be construed as a personal attack? Whereas your describing another user as Wales's "yelping lap dog" surely can be? I just don't get what it was that led you to accuse Wales of making a personal attack on you, so I'll just leave it at that. Again, thanks for the response. Writegeist (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Robert Dulmers. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

So glad to see this go up—and sure the same will be true for everyone who's ever spent time with this courageous, mischievous, conscientious, exasperating, and lovable fellow. Risking life and limb for coffee and bonbons with the Assads encapsulates him perfectly :~) . Thank you! I have another shot of him in Sarajevo, microphone in hand, interviewing a defender in the street. When I find it I'll add it. Writegeist (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Please do. It's up at DYK already, Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Dulmers, and I would love to have a picture in there, but the current one isn't really suitable, since it barely shows him. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I found a different one—the one I had in mind turned out to be a profile shot; I'd forgotten. Please feel free to move it or whatever. Writegeist (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What the hell[edit]

Is a UTP? Also sorry, I misread your comment and came across as a twat I suspect. Sorry about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

User Talk Page . . . (I'm so sick of the Wikipedia alphabet soup, yet there I am dispensing it myself.) Actually I mistyped. I should have written UP or "user page", because that's where I commend your articles. I didn't see any twattishness to your comments. (And my Twat-O-Meter is set to super-sensitive.) I couldn't be happier that you've jumped in. My work there during the conflict was strongly focused on crimes against women; particularly rape, and the rape-death camps, and the stories of the survivors. Nuff said :~) Writegeist (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed the cat below. Are you from the area? Is that why you do not edit it? You know I will do my best there, as I do on all such articles. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Not from there, but was running around in BiH, Croatia, and RSK (lol, what a crock that was) during the war—freelance reporter/photojournalist. (My first-hand knowledge is too deep, memories too vivid, views too well-informed to be unbiased, sense of connection still too visceral, and associated emotions too volatile, for me to risk tangling with revisionists in editing that article.) How about you? I feel gratitude for your work here. Writegeist (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with a Bio[edit]

Hey Good Buddy. Can you check out Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page/sandbox. I think #7 might be someone you know or may have had positive discussions with. Thanks for anything you can add. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings dear friend. Your editor retention project is laudable and I wonder if you might consider diversifying into memory retention? Incidentally, studies by scientists whose names I've forgotten working in universities whose names I've forgotten have proved that caffeine improves the memory, or maybe that it doesn't, I can't remember which. After a cup of coffee this morning I did remember the name of one of my children, whose names (and number) usually elude me, but that might have been helped by Mrs. W slapping me upside the head.
I had a sizeable aunt who suffered from a painful bowel obstruction and her life was only saved by (1) a doctor's diagnosis of acute editor retention and (2) a skilled surgeon's incision that released fourteen sizable editors, including my uncle, himself an editor (of Trouser Gusset Quarterly) who had gone missing six weeks earlier.
I do in fact remember #7, and rather wish I didn't. I fear the award would only encourage him, so in all seriousness it's best I don't get involved in this one. All the best, Writegeist (talk)
Not a problem. I remembered (a year ago) you chatting over the back fence with some auto guy. Must be someone else. Coincidently, I also had a sizable aunt. During gall bladder surgery, the doctor found a plastic army man with parachute, a frisbee, a balsa wood gyroscope, a Lady GaGa CD, a superball, a lawn dart, a ref's whistle, a slinky, a giant gummy worm, some confetti and a dozen water balloons. The surprising thing was that not a single member of the family knew that she was a Lady GaGa fan. Beers! ```Buster Seven Talk 22:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC) 
Balsa wood gyroscope :~))

Happy 4th[edit]

Hey Writegeist,

Long time no see. I just wanted to stop by and wish you a happy 4th of July. One thing I really miss about the old days at SP is coming in every day to see what you'd written. Thanks for all the fun and good times. Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Zeitgeist
Thank you for capturing the movement of the Zeitgeist in precise wording, realising that "Wikipedia is a humorous parody of Uncyclopedia and Conservapedia" to be edited "boldly, satirically and immediately", for doing so, for knowing about Fucking and Socks, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you playwright were the 536th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Serbs of Croatia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Milan Babić]] (1956–2006 - former first president of the self-proclaimed [[Republic of Serbian Krajina]],

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marzieh Rasouli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian. 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) 08:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

Emily Nussbaum[edit]

First, that's quite a collection of Signposts you have on your front porch. I don't know why but it makes my remember a quote by Ms. Nussbaum, TV critic for the NewYorker Magazine...

If I have but one rule, it's that critics shouldn't opine on subjects they know nothing about, or use the word 'opine'. (www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture)

All the very best to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]