User talk:GTBacchus

Archives
January 2003 – December 2005 January – March 2006 April – May 2006 June 2006 July - September 2006 October - November 2006

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the moves of the Korean Olympic pages! Andrwsc 06:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Intelligent Life in the Universe!

Hello! Intelligent Life in the Universe! I recently read the DMOZ article and it prompted me to see more about the cool popular new site AboutUs.org which is TRULY open! (Like Wiki). There was no mention of it... Only the old DMOZ is listed and AboutUs.org was googled and shown to have 1.4 million search results since it's opening in August 2006. Imagine how upset I was to see it up for speedy deletion. I requested help and was told I was SELF promoting. Please visit the new beginning article and defent AboutUs.org Thanks (I Hope)--WikiPersonality 19:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article a bit and removed the "speedy deletion" tag, after which someone immediately added a "proposed deletion" tag, which is the correct next move in the deletion process. Proposed deletion takes 5 days, during which time the article could be cleaned up significantly. I suggest reviewing our policies of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:Verifiability and making certain that the article is in clear compliance with those. Bubbly, unreferenced adjectives like "very popular" just aren't gonna cut it. That's what makes it look to people like an advertisement. I've got the page on my watchlist; we'll see what happens. If the "proposed deletion" tag is removed, the next step for deleters is Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, a five-day process that involves an actual debate over the merits of the article. It seems to me that AboutUs.org has generated enough press to sustain a verifiable Wikipedia article; we'll see what others think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You! For actually looking it up!

It boggles the mind how Wikipedians can be so closed off and not check first!

I am as glad to find AboutUs.org as anyone because of complete non responsiveness from DMOZ

But... just because I love the site, doesn't make me Ray King the founder, or co founder IName Intelligence / DomainTools.com.

It is written controversially about on some articles, some of which directly link to netscape blogs! (Owner of DMOZ).

Once this is resolved I may not want to add any new articles.. it is emotionally exhausting and I came to work to get things done.. I can see how this can be addictive!!

LOL--WikiPersonality 20:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is both emotionally taxing, and addictive - it's true. Welcome aboard, and please let me know if I can help answer any of your questions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your recent edits at Christmas. I was starting to feel like a troll myself because every single contribution needs either massive rewrite, or outright revert. It will get worse in the near future, so I'm glad to see you taking an interest : ) Doc Tropics 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Democrats userboxes

Not sure if you found someone to host the boxes back in July?

I created User:Orderinchaos78/Userboxes/User Aus DEM earlier today, if you have any other political ones you're having trouble finding a home for, let me know. Orderinchaos78 06:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism-like page move

Hi

Looks like Duja is not online. Could you help him out? See User_talk:Duja#vandalism-like_page_move. Thanks! --Espoo 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting MoRsE's unilateral changes. MoRsE's "reasons" and the source he provided and its opinion were already dealt with and cited in the article before he simply removed a large part and ignored the exceptionally well-supported RM on the same discussion page. Being an admin, he certainly knows what an RM is and knows about the need for an RM since he could see one had just been carried out and could see that his unilateral move had recently been reverted by an admin.

In the case of a normal user, such actions might be just being bold, but in the hands of an admin they seem to be in clear violation of the content and spirit of basic WP policies. And since an admin knows that cut-and-paste moves hide the history and prevent normal users from restoring older versions, it would seem MoRsE not only violated WP policies but in effect destroyed community efforts, which definitely is vandalism. --Espoo 05:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what makes you conclude that MoRsE's move was "vandalism". I will not entertain that conversation. Even if you're right, it's not a productive line of argument. It is very clear to me that MoRsE believes that this page should be located at Finland-Swedes, and I don't see any evidence that his goal is to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. The correct next step is hear and consider MoRsE's reponses to your arguments, and not move any more pages unless we have a consensus to do so. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Truly sorry that my posting annoyed you on the article's talk page, but i hope we can discuss it here. I really think that MoRsE should not be treated as any normal editor acting in good faith. Destroying an edit history severely restricts the rights and possibilities of other users, and when committed by an admin, this is apparently done with that intent and not accidentally.

In addition, he's advocating something that clearly falls under Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 because it's the view of an extremely small minority. He's slyly using the language institute's naming recommendations to imply something that nobody at the institute believes; just because one page at the institute says that "Finland Swedes" can or should be used (they inconsistently use other terms elsewhere) does not in any way mean that anybody at the institute thinks these people are ethnic Swedes. The whole point is that a) the institute doesn't realise that their naming recommendation implies and in fact means something in English that they themselves don't want and b) that MoRsE is engaged in POV pushing without a single reputable source to back up his wild claims. --Espoo 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and what you say about MoRsE's motivations may be true. I would encourage you not to worry that this editor will wreak any kind of irreparable damage upon Wikipedia. Once I've had an exchange or two with him, I'll probably ask about the cut/paste move. Seeing that he's an admin at sv:, I suspect it was a silly mistake, since he should know that someone would have to reverse such an action. We won't be moving that page without gathering consensus to do so, and if the sources clearly support your case, then you're all set, right?

Personally, I only dimly understand the point of contention here. I guess a word like "Swede" could mean "ethnic Swede", "citizen of Sweden", or even "speaker of Swedish", and I wouldn't know which way to take it, without context clues — similarly for "Finn". I'll have a closer look at the debate.

Please don't take my annoyance on that talk page personally. I know you're doing good work here, and that you have to deal with some difficult characters. The wiki is full of them. The best strategy I've learned is to eschew any kind of accusation of bad intentions, no matter how obvious they may seem. The trick is to just focus, focus, focus, and resist the urge to call "foul". When all else fails, get more people involved. We've got policies and guidelines to fall back on to prevent anyone from getting far without consensus; let those policies stop POV pushers and vandals without ever having to call them "POV-pushers" or "vandals". It's remarkable effective, and you avoid a lot of distracting and inefficient offense-taking, escalation, name-calling, etc. YMMV. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks once again for excellent advice. I guess i got upset because this same page move contrary to the very recent and exceptionally well-supported consensus decision has already happened at least twice. Could you please create redirects to block all those other possible synonymous page titles that violate the established consensus? Actually, i could do that too, but it seems they get deleted and then reused for this POV pushing. There is nothing wrong with spending time discussing even with people that have very strange ideas; it's when they are able to affect article names and create a need for time-consuming admin operations like your 13 steps and RMs to move the article back that it gets on my nerves. I also of course don't have anything against a new RM that attempts to move it back to a title i disagree with, but i do believe we should all conform to an existing RM decision unless a new consensus has been found. --Espoo 09:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was one of the more involved history merges I've dealt with; there may have even been a more efficient way to do it. Anyway, I look forward to see what kind of reply we get from Mr. MoRsE. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas controversies

Thank you for your appreciation, GT, I'm glad someone is noticing my edits. Since I would much rather a co-operative effort in constructing the opening paragraphs of the article, I'd really like your input on what could be added or detracted from my contributions, if anything. You can add any comments at Talk:Christmas controversies when you're ready. Thanks a lot for your appreciation.— OLP1999 19:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Abortion

Hello, GTBacchus. I feel as though WikiProject Abortion is losing ground, and would like to help move it forward, but I am at a loss as to what to do. I post things on the project Talk page, but, because very few editors are participating, not much gets done, project-wise. Some pointers or insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 22:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Self-Block :P

I did notice your first self-block but according to the block logs you did so again GTBacchus :P...long night huh?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got hit with an autoblock. Now at least I know what kind of screen comes up when you try to edit through a block. My record is no longer spotless! :( I've gotta be careful clicking on block links in page histories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh come now GTBacchus, I'm sure spotless record or not people are aware of your good intentions. Even the questionable I-Want-to-Self-Block-Myself ones...Just Kidding ;). Anyways, wish you a nice Wikipedia week.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Next couple of days

Hi. I'm about to head down to Portland again, this time to turn in my completed MS Thesis and give my presentation. I'm unlikely to log on to Wikipedia very much today, tomorrow, or the next day (Tuesday-Thursday U.S. time). If you need my attention for any reason, please be patient. In particular, I'm aware of the above requests for comment from OLP1999 and Severa; I just have to go and get this degree first, and then I can pay more attention to the wiki again.

Cheers, GTBacchus^(talk) 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite there...

I think it has to do with a unique vector to each of the two poles from a unique point anywhere on the sphere with a ninety-degree angle between each of the two vectors...

Allowances would have to be made for elevation, of course...

Your friend, jon hutchings, DAV USAF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.88.20 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Moving PEBKAC

Just wanted to say thanks for the move. - JNighthawk 03:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Swedish-speaking_Finns#note-0

Could you please explain what i did wrong; these reference links don't work as they usually do. Thanks --Espoo 16:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange, now they do; probably a cache problem. --Espoo 08:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

no link

the page dosent show where/how u can review, all it does is point out what it is and has links to the policy.

There's nothing wrong with the 'stub'. it contains no orginal research unlike the original article. U should allow it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Horseshoesmith (talk • contribs) 06:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Moving Birthright Israel.

Thanks. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[[Horseshoe Theory]]

[[:Horseshoe Theory]] ([[Special:EditPage/Horseshoe Theory|edit]] | [[Talk:Horseshoe Theory|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Horseshoe Theory|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Horseshoe Theory|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Horseshoe Theory|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/Horseshoe Theory|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:Horseshoe Theory|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views)([[Special:Undelete/Horseshoe Theory|deleted history]])

The shortened stub does not contain any original research Horseshoesmith 00:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your help, i hope i did it right. and sorry for my persistence, i just think its a good article that's worth including.

Ryūkyū Islands move

Hello. You recently moved Ryūkyū Islands to Ryukyu Islands with the following reason: " moved Ryūkyū Islands to Ryukyu Islands: per discussions at MOS-JP; see talk page for details)". That vote has not be concluded yet. There are new votes coming in even now. The poll is supposed to last two weeks. Please wait until at least December 13th which is when the vote is supposed to come to a conclusion. Thank you. Bendono 01:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You initially reviewed some of the Ryūkyū vs. Ryukyu poll. There is debate over the results of a poll and how to proceed with those conclusions. Would you please take a look at the poll and the debated issues? We need some input from someone more impartial. Thank you. Bendono 11:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the move

• Thanks for moving Machines of Loving Grace. And I hope your thesis presentation went well. -Freekee 02:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot

Hey,

Thanks for correcting my mistake and the friendly message. I'm new here, it looks like some other people have been using my IP to vandalize though. =(

--64.59.144.21 03:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Booyaka mediation

Bacchus, I'm sorry - but if Booyaka is allowed to get away with this there is inconsistency in Wikipedia policy. JB196 behaved in this manner also - and has been banned. Booyaka is a definite threat to the database and is taking advantage of the fact that there aren't many users from Australia, New Zealand and possibly Hawaii on Wikipedia. I'm not saying this is deliberate, but it needs to be taken into account. Wikipedia could possibly become an American only database (with pro wrestling) in the long term if this isn't nipped in the bud. That's why I said what I said. Curse of Fenric 21:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand - are you arguing that we should keep unverified material? Are there no publications in which non-American wrestling is discussed? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm arguing that verification is more difficult outside of the US because there aren't many members from other countries with such interests. Booyaka is paying that no heed at all. And to your question, the answer is no there isn't. And that's part of the problem. Even with proof (as the case is with PCW Australia) he still wants more. Ridiculous. Curse of Fenric 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that non-American wrestling should be an exception to WP:V because sources are hard to find or don't exist? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that this would be Booyaka's reverse argument (ie applying the exact same notability interpretation to US articles generally to articles from other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand especially). I'm not claiming an exception - I'm claiming more flexibility, which Booyaka has refused to give. The PCW Australia article is a great example of this. Curse of Fenric 00:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So how do you think we should handle the verifiability requirement for non-US wrestling articles? Do they need to be sourced, or not, in your opinion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How is the PCW article not verifiable? For example. It is - the cutting from the newspaper is more than enough verification surely. If it's not then I query your interpretation of verifiable sources. Anyway - I have added in the deletion nomination a source that can NOT be used for the reasons I described. But it still exists. Curse of Fenric 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the PCW article isn't a good source. I was just trying to figure out what you meant by "more flexibility". -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that coming up with third party sources in Australia is much more difficult because pro wrestling doesn't get anywhere near as much coverage in the electronic media as it does in the US as an example. So the demand for verifiability has to be more flexible due to local issues. I hope I've cleared that up. Curse of Fenric 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

O

u

t

d

e

n

t

i

n

g... Sort of. I mean, does "flexible" mean we allow a bunch of unsourced information to sit in an article for... a week? A month? Indefinitely? What does it mean? Better than writing an article and then talking about being "flexible" about waiting for sources, would be to write articles only after you've found sources, because you're writing them from sources, and not from personal knowledge. If the content in these articles didn't come from reliable sources, then where did it come from? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL at the de-indent! Have to remember than one!

Seriously though, the issue is original research - which is against Wiki policy. For example, the only sources usually come from personal reflections of shows and original opinions of others who saw events unfold. To answer your last question. This tends to be passed on by word of mouth. As an example. This is the past practice of information sharing in Australia and because of the lack of editor numbers on WP from Australia - even in local areas such as the state of Victoria where PCW is located - word does not get around. Not many Australian wrestling fans come here unless they are WWE marks. This is where I have the issue because being inflexible or sources means that information that would otherwise be rightfully placed in an online encyclopedia such as WP would be missing. There is rarely any issue with this sort of thing with WWE - but then that gets heaps of mainstream coverage so sources would be easy to find. To insinuate that if you don't have sources you shouldn't create the article is a rather restraining thought line, and if that was the case we wouldn't have half the articles on WP that we have. I'm not accusing you of saying that - I'm just saying that's what you appear to be suggesting so please correct me if that is incorrect.

It's not a simple issue. Normal third party sources are much more difficult to get in Australia - and New Zealand as well. I hope that helps your understanding of the issue.

PS - evidence has come up that all but prove that BooyakaDell is a sockpuppet of JB196. Take a look at the RFC for him and see what you think. Curse of Fenric 00:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really worried about whether BooyakaDell is a sockpuppet of JB196. If we can work with him, I don't care if he's a sockpuppet of Joe Goebbels. When I asked him to please refrain from describing others' edits as vandalsim, he responded agreeably enough. It seems that your issue with Booyaka is that he's demanding reliable sources for the non-US wrestling articles, when those sources are hard to find. To demand those sources is completely in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

As you say, writing articles from personal reflections is against Wikipedia policy. We're not trying to collect all facts that people know; we're just trying to collect facts that have been published by reputable publishers. It's true that a lot of Wikipedia is currently unsourced. That is considered a problem by those in charge, and we've been working to either find sources for or get rid of unsourced material. It will take a while. In the meantime, the fact that many Wikipedia articles are insufficiently sourced is not an argument against enforcing our policies in any particular case. If you get pulled over for speeding, and you tell the policeman that he can't write you a ticket, because a lot of people speed, what do you think he'll say?

If normal third party sources are more difficult to get in Australia, then it will be more difficult for us to cover those topics that are difficult to source. That's ok. Our goal is for all of our articles to be sourced, and to have no original research. It sounds like you're saying that we should allow original research on topics that are difficult to cite. If we do that, then what on earth will our policy mean? I certainly am saying that if you don't have sources, then you shouldn't create the article. That's what our core policies say, and that's what it says on the screen every time you edit a page. For a good summary of the idea, please read Wikipedia:Amnesia test.

You mention "information that would otherwise be rightfully placed in an online encyclopedia such as WP." Why would it "rightfully" be placed in WP without sources? WP's mission is to provide sourced information. Why is it "rightful" to violate our basic policies? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This reply worries me greatly. For an online encyclopedia to work and have the reputation that it has (a very good one BTW) you can't demand "verifiable sources" where there are none for wholly understandable reasons. Everything - even material that has been recognised as verified is based on original research at some point. My comment regarding "rightfully placed" on WP is a reference to WP's identity as an online encyclopedia. Such things provide research information. WP would be the only encyclopedia that rejects original research. That in itself is a problem. I'm not saying that a universal attitude of allowing original research should be applied because that would be open season on lies and so forth. And we can't have that. Where the flexibility should lie is in finding a place between a cast iron "one size fits all" rule on sourcing and verifiability, and the full allowance of original research. For example, what about people who were actually at events that took place? The cast iron application of the source and verifiability rules would effectively label them liars - and that would cost WP editors. One of the great things about WP is the ability to edit, but if this gets stopped the number of edits would drop dramatically.

The thing about the lack of third party sources in Australia. If this was penalised via Wikipedia policy, a lot of WP's database on Australia - particularly in pro wrestling - would be lost. I call this a bad thing. Any threat to an entire section of the WP database has to be a bad thing. It's like saying pro wrestling doesn't exist in Australia at the local level when it does. I am discouraged from starting articles on PWA and NAW (feds based in Melbourne, Australia) because of this as the source issue is impossible to overcome. This can not be a good thing.

BTW, the issue of sockpuppetry is important - because this is clearly a case of ban evasion. The issue has become clear on the RFC with Booyaka's latest edits giving away the fact that he is indeed the banned JB196. Take a look at the RFC and in particular the talk page. Curse of Fenric 02:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You say that WP would be the only encyclopedia that rejects original research. That's not true. Any general encyclopedia synthesizes and summarizes material from various primary and secondary sources, which in turn document phenomena in the world, including original research findings. Wikipedia is not in a position to confirm or deny the validity of original research, so we just don't host it.

Your example of an eye-witness to an event is a very pertinent one - we would certainly reject their first-hand account, and by doing so, we're not be calling them a "liar", we're just insisting that WP not be a primary source. We don't want to be the first to publish anything. If it hasn't been published already, we don't want it. People may want for us to publish original material, but that's irrelevant. Non-negotiable policy says "no".

You point out that even sourced material is based on original research "at some point". That's precisely why we require secondary source citations. Some original research is valid, some is bunk. It's up to secondary sources, written by experts, to determine which research is to be trusted, and then it's up to us to synthesize and summarize what those secondary sources say.

You say "any threat to an entire section of WPs database has to be a bad thing". I disagree. If we have a lot of original research sitting on our database, then deleting it is a Good Thing, because it brings us closer to compliance with our own policies. Original research makes Wikipedia less trustworthy, because we are just not set up to determine which original research is trustworthy.

What if somebody comes along and starts inserting factually incorrect information about Australian wrestling? How will we know to correct it? If our articles are based on personal knowledge, then it's your word versus theirs, and since you're both just screen-names to me, how can I tell who to trust? With no sources in which to verify information, we're at the mercy of what anonymous people on the Internet say. Surely you're not arguing for that?

If there is a lack of third party sources about Austalian wrestling, then our coverage of Australian wrestling had better be limited accordingly. This is ok because we are not trying to be the Encyclopedia of Everything; we are trying to be a trustworthy encyclopedia of verifiable, well-sourced facts — and nothing more. Some people find this surprising or objectionable, but it's what our mission is and always has been. If you disagree, don't argue with me, just go to Wikipedia talk:No original research or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and explain why you think the policy should change. Maybe you'll convince the community.

One solution occurs to me. The Pro Wrestling Wiki and The WrestlePedia are both open wikis that aim for complete coverage of wrestling topics. I don't think they have the same kind of citation policies that Wikipedia has. Why not write articles there, and whatever material can be cited to reliable sources, you can also add to Wikipedia? I'll bet you could help build a valuable wrestling reference without falling afoul of any inconvenient policies.

PS - If you're truly concerned about the ban evasion, you should bring it up with... maybe the person who banned him in the first place? I'm not convinced that I need to care whether this editor was previously banned. Unless he's hurting the project, I'm ok with him, and I don't consider enforcing our core policies to be "hurting the project", as long as he's civil about it. Something has to be done about all the unreferenced material around here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to address this on my own talk page because I need to dissect this. Curse of Fenric 08:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Piles. Sides. Mongo.

Reply to a message posted here

Look, from a philsophical and rational viewpoint I can certainly see where you're coming from. Obviously if you feed trolls, they just come back for more free food. But the problem here is that it's very clearly a matter that's not "simple trolling". There is a community of places out there --Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review, Wikiwatch, ED, WikipediaSucks, etc -- that exists to do nothing but denegrate admins who don't bow down to the trolls and the POV pushers. I don't think explaining to MONGO how his actions made things worse (if his actions were actually at cause, which presupposes the people who did this at ED actually have brain cells) is going to make him feel better. It's not a slam on you (and shouldn't be taken that way) but it's looking very much like the ArbCom is going to desysop him for dealing overharshly with someone, given MONGO's current state, was behaving in a very strange and trollish manner, or could be construed to have done so.

That being said, I find it darkly ironic that ED claims it mocks drama when it generates so much. Pointed mockery of something almost always ends up engendering more controversy than it makes look silly, and the attitudes of some off-wiki people who also edit on Wikipedia aren't helping. In my humble opinion. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered comments. I'm actually pretty well aware of what goes on at ED - I know those people. You might be surprised to know that ED is an odd-man-out on your list in the sense that they devote far less energy to Wikipedia than they do to other subjects. (Their category with articles about wikis is 3% of their content - that includes WP and at least two other wikis.) It's not a site about attacking Wikipedia; we're just the type of internet institution that they're going to ridicule to some extent no matter what we do. It's like MAD magazine making fun of Brittanica - of course they do it. I know what makes them laugh at Wikipedia, and I know what makes them laugh at some Wikipedians and not others. I also know what MONGO could do to become less of what they call at "lol-cow". They love MONGO, because he's a steady source of precisely the type of drama they love to generate, and then laugh at.

You say it's ironic that they ED mocks drama, but create drama. If you find that ironic, then you don't know where they're coming from. It's more like gonzo journalism, in which they'll cheerfully create controversy and document it in real-time. They're mocking those who, by providing just the right reactions, allow them to do it. I can assure you, they have brain-cells, and they have human reactions that are quite understandable - if one is willing to think of them as humans. I could expand on this point, if you like.

All that said, you're probably right that my comments won't make MONGO feel better about what's going on. Making him feel better in the short-run isn't my intention with those comments, nor is rubbing his face in what he did "wrong". What I want is for him to stop feeding the drama, and then he'll feel a lot better when it actually goes away because he'll be no fun for them to troll anymore. If he takes some constructive suggestions on board, then we all win. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A late hello

Hey GT, sorry for the late return of your greeting, but I've been rather tied up on Wikipedia.. but enough of that.

Thanks for the hello, you should come party with us sometime. But I know a respectable Wikipedian like yourself never would ;-) Still, it's good to hear from you, and thanks for the offer of "adminly help", but don't worry about li'l ol' me - you're far, far more of an asset here than I am, and I'd hate to see you get unfairly shitlisted for my sake. I do hope you're following my involvement in an ArbCom case; some of my accusers (which has become a big part of the case, somehow) are really being ridiculous, going as far as to say that my enthusiastic support for Kelly Martin is trolling, and as a result there are few people here I'd take criticism from, and you're one of them. So if you have any advice, please PLEASE feel free to lay it out for me, no sugar-coating needed, on my talk page or via email if you want to be discrete.

I guess this is the part where I'd select the prettiest picture I've uploaded and post it to your talk page, but well... maybe that's not such a good idea. It's the thought that counts! <3333333 Milto LOL pia 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologetics

Do you keep your brain in a jar? Is your IQ subzero? The answer to both of those questions is no. I respect you, you seem to act in good faith, and you're not attacking anybody. No, by apologetics I meant that pile of screed-dancing bullshit at ED that's supposedly listed as factual (the subpage). As if saying it's "fact" excuses the blatant asshattery they've committed. (exhales) I respect you, but there isn't any reason to bother trying to reach out to those people. They are nothing but a community of either trolls, immature children, hypocrites, and, sadly, people who should know better than to frequent a place inhabited by the above but continue to contribute out of ... what? I don't know why you and badlydrawnjeff and others associate with ED. None of my business. But I do know what ED has decided to do -- and this goes beyond wiki, with other pages they've made -- is wrong. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I suspect my willingness to associate with ED people makes me a mystery to more than one Wikipedian, but I'm comfortable with that. I'll see you around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No! You must be beaten with socks for your betrayal of the Wikiwiki! grins I don't care what people choose to do with their time, GTBacchus. But I found it vastly upsetting that some people at ED somehow think they are helping situations with their trolling. Outing people who don't want to be outed is very, very bad. Anyway, have a nice day. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ephemeral sources

My point is that one doesn't necessarily know in advance whether a source is ephemeral (WP:NOT crystal ball).

WP:V says nothing on the point.

Note that from other existing guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead") it is clear that media that afterwards (because one doesn't know in advance) prove to be ephemeral *can be used for source citation*. --Francis Schonken 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Ann

Hello, GTBacchus. Thanks for your very long and thoughtful post on my page. I'll begin by saying that I have been hugely impressed on occasion with your ability to see each editor as a human being. If you've fallen a few notches in my estimation recently, I still consider you one of the top admins, but not one of the very top.

Regarding your edit on Miltopia's page — you really don't owe me any explanation for that. I felt it was inappropriate, but you didn't do it on my page, and I'm sure you'd have the sensitivity not to :-)! I did learn in some of my linguistics courses about language being more or less appropriate according to context and intended audience. It's really not an issue for me, though it would be if an admin or user went around frequently adding such things to lots of different user pages.

Regarding the MONGO affair, I'll admit I'm puzzled. The link you left on my talk page to this conversation showed me the GTBacchus that I like and respect and trust. However, I'm at a loss to understand the GTBacchus who insists on slapping MONGO's face by proudly displaying an address (nowiki'd, to get round the ArbCom ruling) of a website that abuses him so horrifically, that says that "niggers" killed Jesus, that mocks and taunts some transexual Wikipedians, that violates privacy by giving real names, e-mail addresses, etc., and that makes fun of one of our editors by saying how fat he is, and that his "ass" was so big that even gay boys didn't want anything to do with it.

Because my experience of you has been extremely positive, and because I'm not the victim and am therefore not feeling angry and upset (well actually, I am, but it's never quite the same when it's happening to someone else), I have no problem accepting your claim that you never saw the link which Ribonucleic posted on the now-deleted page. Nor have I any problem in accepting that your recent posts to MONGO were intended as helpful. However, put yourself in his shoes. He sees someone who proudly displays that URL, who claims to be proud of his association with that website, who indignantly denies that it's racist, who even says he thinks it's "the cat's pyjamas", who defends some of the users that have been harassing him (I don't mean harassing the way that article does, but rather in the sense of taunting him or of pestering him on his talk page). And then that person arrives at his talk page at a time when he must be feeling very humiliated by the ArbCom proposed decision, and starts explaining to him that part of the blame for this appalling abuse lies with him. (People should not have to react the "right way" in order not to be harassed.) Some of what you said may have been true, but it would have come better from someone he'd see as supportive, such as Zoe, or Bishonen, or even me. Can you blame MONGO if the support you gave him concerning the IP discussion on Tony's page isn't enough to make him feel that you're one of the admins who is showing solidarity (as requested in the last ArbCom case)? Can you blame him if he doesn't want discussion with someone that he feels has not shown him appropriate solidarity? I can't.

Now, I'll ask you to imagine something. Let's say there's someone in your life that you care about deeply. Your wife perhaps. I don't know if you're married, but I'll assume you are. There's a website that trolls and harasses her and others, insulting her deeply, giving speculation about her identity and location, leading to her being harassed in real life. She's very upset about it, and you're very upset at seeing this happen to her. Let's say that the URL is http://www.infoaboutGTBacchus'swife.com . Do you think that I'd have that link on my page for one second after knowing what that website was doing (regardless of any ArbCom rulilng)? Do you think that if I nowiki'd it, so that the link couldn't be clicked on, but so that people could paste it into their browsers and still read that stuff about your wife (or your mother or father or sister), and then proudly displayed

http://www.infoaboutGTBacchus'swife.com

on my user page that you'd feel happy with that? Would you feel that I was showing solidarity? You mentioned that MONGO's reaction in a recent RfA ensured that people who hadn't heard of ED would now have heard of it. What do you think your user page does?

You say that if you showed solidarity in the way that MONGO would prefer, you would not be acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. You seem to imply, first that MONGO wants you to splutter with indignation against ED, thereby feeding the trolls, and secondly that doing that is the only other option to your current position. Well, I don't think I've been making any hysterical troll-feeding posts, and I don't think MONGO has any complaints at my lack of support (although I do feel I was negligent in not investigating this thing earlier), so no, I don't think that MONGO prefers what you think he prefers. Regarding the second point, I can see that you think that remaining calm and not shouting hysterically about trolls is better for Wikipedia, because the trolls will get bored and go away. But I can't see how your displaying of that URL is a carefully-made decision with the purpose of helping Wikipedia and MONGO. I can't see that it's there for any other reason than that you want it to be there, and that your wish to have it there (knowing that it may increase traffic to that site) is more important to you than your wish not to add to MONGO's distress and humiliation.

I don't doubt that you're sorry about the way he's been harassed. But I can't help thinking of that extract from Through the Looking-Glass (I haven't got the exact quote in front of me) where Alice says that she likes the Walrus better than the Carpenter because he at least felt a little sorry for the poor oysters, and then she's told that the Walrus ate more oysters than the carpenter. You're sorry about the harassment, but you still want to have that URL on your user page. Believe me, my opinion of you is so high that I've even tried to force myself to believe that it's there because you felt that taking it down would make the trolls double their attacks on MONGO. But it's not really plausible.

Am I being over-harsh? Perhaps. I don't know. It's long past my bedtime in Ireland, I've got mountains of study to do, and my mother hasn't been well lately. I'm not sure that I'll be able to reply to Miltopia, although I'd like to. That's another case that puzzles me. There's a lot of evidence that suggests a troll, and then there's some that makes me stop and wonder.

I hope you'll believe that it pains me to disagree with you so strongly. I may not be around much in the next while, so I hope you have a nice Christmas. AnnH ♫ 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is a reply to this pair of posts, and my reply was this pair. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What should be done at Talk:Mami Wata?

We've had a low grade dispute simmering for half a year on the talk page. It is descending into incivility and/or personal attacks. We have had what look to be single purpose accounts (one registered, one multi-IP that signs with a username plus their current IP.) with a conflict of interest present. I've opened an RFC [1] a bit earlier today. (I showed up from a prior one.) Since then, we've also had a pair of single purpose accounts appear whose only contribution ([2], [3]) is to a survey that the established editors to opine thus far is inappropriate. But I can't find where to go to move this forward and prevent more of what I believe are inappropriate attacks on a good faith contributor to the encyclopedia. GRBerry 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into this, GRBerry. The backlog is long, so please be patient. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The RFC I came to the article in response to was back in July. I'm certainly not in a tearing hurry, given that it is now December. I can have a bit more patience. GRBerry

7.92x57 Mauser

Thanks very much for your help moving some of the firearm calibre articles!

I was wondering if I could get you to move 7,92x57 mm back to 7.92x57 Mauser. The article's name is not in line with the Wikiproject: Military History guidelines on firearm calibre naming, and as no-one had objected in the two weeks that I had a notice of intended move up, I took the liberty of moving it myself- if it was controversial, I felt, someone would have objected. User:HangFire has moved the article back to the incorrect title (firearm calibres in English do not have commas in them for a start!)

Normally I'd list this request at the "Requested Move" page again, but really, it's fairly obvious that the title isn't in line with naming guidelines- you yourself moved 7.62x51 NATO, 7.62x54R, and 7.62x39 for us, and it's unlikely that we're ever going to get a huge consensus on this particular article. Since there were no objections on the talk page for 7.92x57 Mauser, I'd like to ask that you exercise Admin powers and restore the article to it's correct location, if that's possible. --Commander Zulu 06:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to be in-between cities for a few days. My quick take on this is that we ought to ask User:HangFire for some input, since that editor obviously has an opinion about it. Perhaps we can all get on the same page about how these articles should be named. I'd be happy to drop him a note, but it won't be until the middle of the week. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Bardock vs Burdock

Thanks for your note on the Talk page. It's a crowded page and I hope the next admin that comes along sees it. I am frustrated right now that we have been unable to build consensus on article names on this and a handful of other articles. Do you know of any admin with extensive experience that can read through the arguments presented and help to decide, one way or the other, what is the correct name according to wikipedia rules. I think we're running into disagreements over the reading of WP:NAME, vs WP:MOS-JP vs Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. It would be nice to get an official opinion on what rule trumps what. JRP 06:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

About Mikkalai and his sociopathic behavior on Wikipedia

I added a paragraph on my personal research of Secret Society and proofread it for grammar and logic. However, a user named Mikkalai edited out my content on the basis of it being "false", but without any proof. I told him through the history to proof his claims that my content was false, and then clicked on his contributions page. I checked his contributions towards the Template talk:Future article talk page and was horrified that he contributed to a closed Wikipedia section entitled Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America, with you intervening his comments.

I don't understand this. I am new to Wikipedia, but I do my absolute best to keep information as grammatical and logical as possible. I previously thought that such perverted behavior from Mikkalai and others who welcomed the Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America section was banned instantly from this website. What is the deal with Mikkalai? He has extreme arrogance offense in his contributions, plus he uses Wikipedia under different aliases (ex. Mikkalai, Mikkanarxi, etc.). For now, I would like for you to look over the Secret Society page, but I also want you to watch Mikkalai's activity as well. I know Wikipedia can be edited by basically anyone, but I care about education from any medium too much to have jerks like Mikkalai pervert the minds of people. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbui44 (talk • contribs) 08:12, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to sleep, then wake up and catch a flight, and then I'll be a guest in various homes for a few days before I'm planted at another 'net connection... so if I don't get a chance to address this concern for a few days, please understand that it's just life, distracting me from the wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving the page Duars to Dooars. Amartyabag (Talk) 12:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

JB/Booyaka info

GT, I just thought I would come back here after the JB/Booyaka situation was resolved and the user banned, to let you know I now know which rule I was applying - without realising it. WP:IAR. This justifies my efforts to preserve the database, because I am trying to maintain Wikipedia. Standards do apply of course, but I feel vindicated now that JB has been discovered and given the boot and that I can now work to preserve the database - and if needed apply WP:IAR over the notability and verifiability rules that were causing me such distress. I do realise of course that I would have to justify the application but I don't see a problem with that. Curse of Fenric 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

IAR does not obviate the need for verifiability. Verifiability is non-negotiable. If by "preserve the database", you mean you want to keep original research on the Wiki, I'm afraid we're not going to agree that you're doing the right thing. I think everything here needs to be verified or deleted. Thanks for the update anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Old requested move at Misery

Hi. You closed the dicussion after someone moved it to Misery (novel), but the point of the move request was to make way for Misery (disambiguation). Could you move that page into the redirect. -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To a boil

Damn the Arb case was closed before I could post a response, but this here seems to be a good recipe to follow, endorsed by Alice Waters herself... ~ trialsanderrors 05:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm... shoe... -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Eating my hat?

• Had some experience with that, huh? ;) Fortunately, I don't wear a hat, nyuk nyuk. Danny Lilithborne 06:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer to my question re: web site for both sides controversial issues

I'm interested in a wide range of issues. I tend to be liberal politically and enjoy discussing issues with some conservative friends. On some issues I have made up my mind but would like to understand the other side. On other issues, I'd like to get more information or at least a good starting point of the the key points of both sides and places to looks further. going on an issue-by-issue basis is OK but very time consuming. Also, you get a lot of misleading information by looking at sites that promote their point of view. it would be great if there was a web site that had already done this. Like having an intelligent person research each issue and then give you a one-page summary like "Here's the issue, here are the two or three main sides, here's the philisophical underpinning for each side, and here are the main points each side makes, backed up by these references."

examples:

• Global warming - Wiki is pretty good
• guantanamo
• stem cells
• big government vs small
• tax cuts for wealthy
• alternative energy policy
• civil liberties
• separattion fo church and state.
• funding for education
• solution to social security

and on an on

There are probably 100 or so of these type of issues.

thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweet music (talk • contribs) 22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

We try to cover controversial issues in the neutral manner you describe. ("Here's the issue, here are two or three main sides, etc.") If you can see where our coverage can be improved, we certainly would welcome such contributions. I'm not aware of another website that attempts to provide even-handed discussions of all sides of controversial topics, but then again, I'm here working on Wiki, and not out there looking for alternatives. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Page Move Request

Hello! You seem to have been reasonably active recently on Wikipedia:Requested_moves, so I'd like to leave a request for an uncontroversial (at least in my opinion) move of the Sensible Soccer page to Sensible Soccer Series. As you can see, the page deals with the series as a whole rather than the original game. If it's possible to leave a redirect on the original page (as I would imagine most people would search for "Sensible Soccer"), that would be great.

Thanks, --84.68.207.233 02:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)