User talk:GTBacchus

Archives
January 2003 – December 2005 January – March 2006 April – May 2006 June 2006 July - September 2006 October - November 2006 December 2006 - January 2007 February 2007 - March 2007 April 2007 - June 2007 July 2007 - October 2007 November 2007 - February 2008 February 2008 - April 2008 May 2008 - March 2009 April 2009 - June 2009 July 2009 - September 2009 October 2009 - April 2010

Please click here to leave me a new message.

The Darkside (Fat Joe album)

Well I said that before you did the page move. Someone else created a page with the same exact stuff as this page aleady had and made the move request. I took it to a Admin who merged the two pages history's. The album has been said as The Darkside in most places and it was called The Dark Side on Twitter. So the move was not needed. STAT- Verse 22:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Course Selection at Earl Haig Secondary School

Hi. The logs indicate that this article has been deleted and then re-created three or four times, and most recently deleted by you an hour ago. FYI. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I only noticed the previous deletions after I deleted it. Is there something I should be doing, because of this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion...

...on this would be appreciated. Do you think I'm right in thinking an RM is necessary there? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've replied there in context. I hope that's helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

PlaneShift article

Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Let the games begin

Hm, looks to me like Theirrulez has taken to understanding that this is some kind of a contest? "The one who expands the article most wins." Is this the case? This weird "RM" is becoming a little too surreal. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I just worked hard until now, following exactly the closing admin instructions. Thanks to the method GTB imposed (suggested) we are going to reach two goals in the same time: to finally develop the article and to give it back to the right title. There's two way we can approach it, I think: being an editor, trying to be good editor, or being a reviewer, a critic, spreading comments on others' work. - Theirrulez (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think of it as a contest. I think that, with the article being expanded, it will simply become clear which title is correct. Otherwise, it's just one of these stagnant disagreements that doesn't help anyone, and results in a long, slow move war. That's what I'm trying to avoid. DIREKTOR, what would you like to see different? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way: It would contribute significantly to good will all around, and take away the "contest" feeling, if Theirrulez were to find and add some sources using the Croatian name, and vice-versa. Surely, Theirrulez, in your searching, you find some sources that don't use your preferred name? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I even already added one in the "Neither primary/unclear cases" section and one in "Vrancic primary". The "Veranzio primary" I added were the ones I used just because they were more often useful, they seem to be a bit more reliable and overall a bit higher level. Even there isn't "primary sources" belonging to that age using Vrancic, and this is also evident.

I now trying to search more sources using Vrancic, no problem. This enormous effort and its until now good effect on article's improvement hadn't provide any evidence yet? It quite seems we are not able to catch it.. as if we all live in a yellow submarine. Theirrulez (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

GTB, Theirrulez is not assembling these sources alone. He is being assisted from itwiki. Here he thanks his 'colleague' for the "incomparable" sources. Theirrulez is the front man on a POV operation to demonstrate the entirely Italian nature/origins of FV. It's undoubtedly an ARBMAC 1 issue, as the objective being pursued is not to improve the encyclopedia, but to pursue that which is expressly prohibited, namely, that "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited". Due to his edits elsewhere, I drew his attention to WP:ARBMAC on 5 May [1]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahaa, oh my!!! No comment.. - Theirrulez (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I have a comment: Bacchus, I've cautioned you earlier against User:Theirrulez being a single-purpose POV-pushing account from itWiki. Having been blocked there, this account was essentially used by a clique of highly biased Italian nationalist ("irredentist") editors banned from enWiki. There are over a dozen such accounts, not counting the 40 or 50 socks over the years (you remember User:Kanalesi, the most recent one?). ALL the edits of this account include the translation of Slavic or Greek names to Italian - places, toponyms, people, anything. I invite you to check and verify my statements at your leisure through his contribs or by other means, I will not bore you with this stuff but I'd be happy to provide further details should you ask. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts to expand the article, as well as your rare willingness to really get into such an obscure issue. You should, however, be aware that this article is part of a wider, I'd say more sinister picture. I'm currently swamped with microbiology, and I will be joining you folks as soon as I'm able, I hope Theirrulez makes good use of my absence. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I want to comment, this definitely bothered me. Unlucky for you and for whoever has the same anacronistic approach as you, GTB worked very close to me on this page. He knows as well as me and as who is trying to implement the article about Veranzio that I upload several images, transferring them on Commons from it.wikipedia. I Found these images looking at the it.wiki article about Fausto Veranzio, probably the most complete available on the project until the actual revamping of the homonimous article here on en.wiki. In fact I thanks the uploader, counseiling him to use {{PD-old}}, instead of {{PD-Italy}} (this last not acceptable on Commons).

Your post above is the last of a indefinite series of accuse I received, It is unrespectful for my efforts, for my works and for my good faith, and I believe I will report it. Theirrulez (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The all-time favored preemptive report, eh? I really hope you actually will copy-paste my above post over to ANI. Save me the trouble. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. What a lot of drama. :) DIREKTOR, if Theirrulez is acting in a way that compromises the English Wikipedia, and if this is only visible by looking at his contributions across many articles, then I hope you will have some time and energy to set up an RFC/U (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct), because that sounds like something that is important to stop. Telling me about his behavior won't have much effect. If there is a larger discussion over the actions of the User:Theirrulez account, then I will certainly be willing to comment on what I have personally observed.

Replying now to User:AlasdairGreen27: Hi. Welcome to my talk page. I'm not sure what you want me to take away from your comments. Suppose Theirrulez is getting help assembling sources... is that bad? Is it bad to collect reliable sources that relate to an article.

Is is most emphatically not the case that "he who collects more sources wins", so I'm not sure what the problem is. As far as I can see, FV is a credit to both his Italian and his Croatian identities, and on my watch, the article will reflect both. What is it you're worried about, exactly?

Everyone: This is not some kind of game of "cloak-and-dagger" in which we try to expose secret agents. This is an encyclopedia, and if you feel that some article is biased, there's a remedy open to you: edit it. I don't understand what all the drama and intrigue is over. Just add sourced facts to the article, and everything else falls into place.

All of your time spent reporting each other for "infractions" would be better spent improving the article. And other articles. All of it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Drama and intrigue? As I said, this is a much deeper issue than it might seem, a veritable "tip" of the cloak-and-dagger iceberg as it were. To put it in the simplest possible terms, the iceberg basically consists of a large group/clique/lobby of editors who were banned on enWiki for essentially edit-warring without pause over the insertion of Italian language terms in the territories considered to be part of "Greater Italy". This, unfortunately for the both of us, targets primarily the Croatian regions of Dalmatia and Istria. Having been banned, these users were since increasingly intensifying their attempts to affect enWiki affairs. This includes the creation of "Cafes" on itWiki to badmouth enWiki users and admins as well as mark-out articles and people, the creation of blogs and forums to discuss and coordinate POV-pushing efforts here, the recruitment of any and all who might edit on these articles and "survive" a checkuser, etc. etc.... Cloak and dagger? Perhaps you're right.

The edits of User:Theirrulez have so consistently followed the pattern of a typical sock that I myself considered him yet another of some 30-40 socks of these folks that were banned here. Now he's turning this into a national contest where Italian users on itWiki are invited to contribute and help Italianize parts of this project. When I said this feels "surreal" I was underestimating the situation - Theirrulez has turned it into what looks more like a Italy-Croatia football match where the score is counted by the sources used in the article.

None of the above is fictitious, or a way for me to avoid discussion, this is real (e.g. [2][3][4], etc.) - and it should not be ignored. If you don't mind me saying so, I simply think you should be informed of the "big picture" since you seem to be getting into this that's all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I don't think it's fictitious, I just think you're addressing the problem in the wrong venue. There are two entirely separate issues here. (1) What should the article about F.V. be called? (2) What about Theirrulez?. If you wish to address issue #2, there is a whole world of procedures set up for you to do that. I am no part of that world. I'm only available for article editing and titling issues.

If there's a problem with Theirrulez, then you need to set up an RFC/U, and deal with it that way. On the other hand, if the article on F.V. is to stay at a Croatian title, then it needs to be clear that he's more notable in English literature with a Croatian name than with an Italian one. Do you notice how that criterion makes no mention of any editor by name? Yeah.

I understand that you're very frustrated by the actions of a set of editors. However, we can't make decisions about articles based on who certain editors may be, or what agendas they may have. Decisions about articles are based on sources. Full stop. If the article should have a Croatian name, then prove it, with sources. Otherwise, it's going to have an Italian name, because it currently appears that F.V. is more notable in the English literature as an Italian engineer than he is as a Croatian lexicographer.

Do you understand where I'm coming from here, DIREKTOR? I don't lack sympathy; I just separate one issue from another, and I'm not the person to deal with the other issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This joke is no more fun. I wasted nights and days in efforts to mediate your absurd fancy and your anacronistic pov. I spent hundreds of hours in a deep research of the highest-level and most reliable sources about this article. Here nobody is a kid. Your shameful attacks are the lower-level I ever see on wikipedia, and above all posted on the worst place you can.
You just performed a consistent number of disrupting edits on Veranzio's article. Incredibly you reverted Salvio giuliano, an user well known for his always neutral edits and appreciated for his polite approach, tagging it as Revert POV. It make me smile to read your non-sense, your slurs, while you are able to edit an article this way: [5]. No words.Theirrulez (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) sorry for not signing, I'm a bit tired.

I just edit-conflicted with this paragraph, and I have no idea who typed it or what it's about. Give me 5 minutes, and I'll comment. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, Theirrulez, the best response to reversions is to impersonally and impassionately document the edits you wish to make on the talk page, per Wikipedia:BRD. I wish I were seeing more discussion of edits, and less comments like what you've said right here. Phrases such as "...your absurd fancy and your anacronistic pov" have no place in a discussion about edits. Nor does "Your shameful attacks are the lower-level I ever see on wikipedia", nor "your non-sense, your slurs".

You're talking more about DIREKTOR than you are about the edits. How is such rhetoric supposed to be helpful? It cannot be helpful. It may feel very satisfying, but why not edit in the way our policies encourage you to? Why not? If you would both rather talk about each other than about the article, then you should start a blog, and do it there. Wikipedia is not here to host fights, but rather to be an encyclopedia. Please, you know editing is supposed to work. Why not lead by example? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Faust... something

I just came from RM to close Talk:Faust Vrančić#Requested move, and I must say I'm impressed. The discussion was all nationalistic nonsense and attacks (with a few exceptions), until you came along to get people on the right track. I hope your efforts will help turn Mr. V.'s article into something great. Ucucha 16:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope so, too. It can be difficult to jump-start the editing process once it's become bogged down in personal disputes. Any success that I might have is due in large part to the myriad mistakes I've made trying to do this sort of thing in the past. The trick, as with so many things, is to keep getting back up. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For the skillful (and light-hearted) way you're handling the mess on Veranzio/Vrančić's page! Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. He definitely deserved the award. Theirrulez (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvio. I hope you haven't spoken too soon. I don't know if the discussion on that talk page can be pulled away from the personal and towards the professional. How does one convince people to stop talking about each other and start talking about edits, in a neutral and academic manner? I don't know. :(

Nevertheless, I appreciate the vote of confidence. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant my above posts to be more of an insight into the context of the issue on Wiki rather than a comment on any specific user. I apologize, I merely thought such info might be useful. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's going to be useful to me. I mean, addressing editor conduct is best done in a different venue, such as Wikipedia:RFC/U, which I would encourage you to do

. I'm trying, in this situation, to focus on article improvement, and to shift the focus away from user conduct, because they're two issues that must be separated in order for good work to be done. It's difficult. What would be really helpful would be some focused discussion of edits on the talk page. I'm not sure how to elicit that. Any ideas? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest - the RM was and remains the primary source of this considerable tension. The fact that its still open is creating edit-warring on the article and arguing on the talkpage. Improv is as deeply admirable as your attitude and conduct on this page, but I'll urge you again to close. I of course, would prefer that the title is not italianized in light of the lack of consensus on the proposed rename, but I think its obvious this must be resolved either way before a more constructive attitude can be seen on both sides. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how an open RM can "cause" edit-warring. The solution to edit-warring is easy: don't do it. My concern with simply closing the move request is that people won't take a more constructive attitude - they'll just go away. Arguing is easier than improving articles, and apparently more satisfying on some level.

If you disagree with a round of edits, why not break the dispute down into small, bite-sized pieces, and start a talk page section to discuss them neutrally and impersonally? How is an open RM preventing you - or anyone else - from doing that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. People are here because they're arguing, i.e. because the WP:RM creates tension. This is my point - this exactly is the source of the unconstrucive attitude. The open RM does indeed cause tensions which lead to sporadic edit-warring (with or without me).

While I don't dispute the validity of your statement that people are here because they're arguing a point - a WP:RM is in my view no way to encourage article development. Why? People might leave if its closed, but even if we disregard the constant unavoidable conflicts, if such was the motivation for article improvement their contributions up to that point will be biased in a way that supports their POV about the title (thus causing edit-wars). Finally, is it really ok to motivate people by holding an RM open? In my experience on Wiki, very little or no good can come from this sort of atmosphere. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely in your hands whether any good can come of it. All you have to do is rise to the occasion. Whether or not it's "ok" to motivate people by holding an RM open, it's something to try, and you are certainly in a position to guarantee that it doesn't work, if that's what you want to do. You also have the power to make it work. If I close the RM today, the article will be titled "Fausto Veranzio". Is that really what you're trying to ask for? It's in your hands to make this productive. You have the power. What's your choice? Is it to argue with me about procedure, rather than improving the article? That's what you're doing now.

Direct this energy towards the article, and things will magically start getting a lot better. I'm a tenacious arguer, and this can drag out for weeks. Is that your goal?

Why aren't you posting about specific edits on the talk page? Why not oppose the edits you don't like in the constructive way, rather than by reverting? Does that really just not interest you at all? Don't you want to see the article improve? What are you doing to make that happen? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)