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 - May 2008

Please click here to leave me a new message.

email?

Heyo,

I've been trying to contact you via email, but haven't gotten a response. Just checking to make sure that you've been getting those emails, that they're not getting lost in the tubes. Cheers! Leafman (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Wow, I am a space cadet, it seems. I got your email, but somehow didn't connect that today was today and what that meant. I feel very silly right now; please feel free to call or email and I'll apologize a couple of times and we can set something up. Sorry! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

About this: [1]. I have seen statements that lead me to believe that many believe this, both inside and outside Wikipedia. Read articles in The Register for example. Read what they say on Wikipedia Review for example. Read what the banned users say. And so on.--Filll (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to see it. I don't have time to read Wikipedia Review. I just read one Register article that didn't remotely approach the position you're claiming. I'd love to see (someday, when someone has time) one (1) link to somewhere that someone says that if we would just AGF more, then everything would be ok. I've never, ever seen that claim made. I would be very happy to see it, once. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If live examples do exist, why not link to one or more, when you say it's a charge that's "frequently leveled"? I have a hard time believing that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe claims of biting were made here, and I have certainly seen it. But not that frequent in terms of claims. Since the editors generally go away and don't come back, as I would definitely have done if I were of a normal disposition, you don't hear much about it. In my own case, I was bitten through massive deletions of material I was trying to improve, and massive fact-tag bombing, followed by requests for exact page numbers when I provided said citations. Biting often happens through wikilawyering. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-read all of the views posted on the recent RfC, and none of them approximates "too many established editors on Wikipedia are unfair, and are unCIVIL, and do too much BITEing and if they would just AGF more, everything would be ok." I mean, none of them even comes close to that. Am I just missing it? I see people saying, "You cannot just wikilove trolls to death," but I see nobody saying that you can. What am I missing? This charge is supposed to be "frequently leveled," but I've never seen anything close to it said. Can you show me one instance of one soul taking this position? I'm growing concerned that it is entirely fictional. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're correct. I tend to AGF in my reading, that is, I tend to jump to the correct interpretation and take the language as only a hint. But then I get what it should mean instead of what it says. So that makes twice in a couple of days just that you know of (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. You're asserting that if we would just AGF more, everything would be ok? Are you the "wikilove" guy Filll's been talking about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, actually I'm not too sure if Filll associates me with wikilove, really. Here is what I mean: you're right about what you say, the statement doesn't occur much. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being dense. I never can keep track of who's on which "side" in these things. I think that maybe the best thing that could happen in this general dispute would be for people to find out what their opponents actually believe, rather than making that part up. I'm seeing it pile up at the Arb case, too. "So-and-so says that I think such-and-such, but I've never said that and I don't think it." That's all avoidable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well rest assured if I run across a statement in that general area, I will direct you to it. But as usual, I will not dig around to find statements that might fall under this rubric since I have other things to do.--Filll (talk)

Many thanks, and I certainly understand not wanting to dig. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, have you read any replies to your AGF challenge that take the Pollyanna perspective? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What people say, and what people do, often have little overlap. I'll leave it at that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't leave it at that. I'm trying to learn here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have written over and over that people who argue for more leniency and less restrictions on editors and so on, are far more harsh when you ask them about examples like the AGF Challenge exercises. Particularly if it is not their own personal hot button issue. So "be more lenient on me, but crack down on everyone else" seems to be rule of thumb.--Filll (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a cigar. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have I argued for more leniency and less restrictions on editors? Either way, I'm interested, but I'm not sure I know what you're referring to there. Which restrictions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Be more lenient on me, but crack down on everyone else" was the bit I was responding to. Also I didn't have you in mind. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking that of Filll, more than of you. I'm trying to figure out who, or where, are these "wikilove people" with whom I've sometimes been associated. I'm still interested in hearing more of your thoughts too, on this issue, if you'll share them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't we have Wikipedia:Wikilove yet? Ooh. I see we do! Started on 11 May 2003 by User:Eloquence, otherwise known as Erik Möller, "...former member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Foundations' current Deputy Director." I also note that "If you follow this advice, maybe you will experience the spirit of WikiLove today!" has, five years later, become "Happy editing and let WikiLove spread over the internet!". Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I actually read the meaning of it is that Filll is making a generalization on all the admins and others who don't want to crack down on people who aren't, or whom he thinks aren't scientific. The "uncivil established editors" are the ones on the Raymond Arritt expert concerning pseudoscience topics strike page. The text should actually read:

Editors at the Raymond Arritt expert withdrawal believe that other editors percieve them as making bad decisions or acting in a rude and unethical fashion. It seems as if people think that these Wikipedia editors use the wrong approaches, and that they must change.

In particular, it seems as if some editors think that RAEW editors are unfair, unCIVIL, and do too much BITEing and if they would just AGF more, everything would be ok, and the fringe POV pushers would become good Wikipedia editors.

That's what I think he means. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well allow me to disabuse you of some of those notions. Some points:

• I do not believe that we need more BITEing and more unCIVIL behavior and less AGF. More would be nice
• Wikipedia has become so high profile now that many unCIVIL behaviors and profanity are going to come under scrutiny, sooner or later and be a public relations disaster or a legal problem. Better to be pro-active.
• I think that many of those arguing for more leniency and tolerance for letting any editor include whatever they want have not thought much about the consequences of that, or done much time in the trenches to experience what editing a controversial article is like.
• Wikipedia has a large number of internal and external critics. However, a lot of the criticisms are not consistent and contradict each other, or could have unforseen consequences if corrected in the way suggested. Also, again many of those criticizing have a very limited amount of experience in controversial areas.
• I have no problem with representing unscientific or FRINGE material or pseudoscience on Wikipedia; the question is how should it be done?
• I think we have to be open to considering new sorts of approaches and new policies. I do not suggest these be implemented wholesale, however, but in some test cases.--Filll (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Filll, I don't think anybody's suggesting that you're in favor of biting people, or against AGF. I certainly don't think that about you; never have. As for your point about "those arguing for more leniency and tolerance for letting any editor include whatever they want," I'm pretty sure nobody has argued for that, or anything closely approximating it. I've certainly never heard it said. Thirdly, nobody here has suggested that you have a problem with representing pseudoscience on Wikipedia, and I think we're all on the same page that the question is "how?". It sounds as if we're more or less in agreement, no? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, an observation. Your last post begins, "let me disabuse you of some of those notions," and then you don't disagree with anything he said. That's interesting. Of what notion were you disabusing Martin?

One other question - what does "unCIVIL" mean, and how is it different from "uncivil"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Martin mentioned some editors think that RAEW editors are unfair, unCIVIL, and do too much BITEing etc. and Filll responded with comments about CIV and BITE etc. As for unCIVIL and uncivil, I should think it was obvious -- "unCIVIL" refers to violation of Wikipedia's policy on civility, and "uncivil" refers to conduct that is uncivil in the conventional meaning of the term. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Martin didn't say that Filll or anyone else was unfair, uncivil, biting, etc. He said that RAWE editors perceive others as accusing them of unfairness, incivility, biting, etc. I'm pretty sure Filll didn't disagree with that, and that's all that Martin asserted. Thus, of what notion was Filll "disabusing" Martin?

As for "uncivil" versus "unCIVIL", I guess I do know the difference, but I was attempting to remind Filll of something I said earlier - don't grant your opponents the power to define the language. That is a defeatist strategy. Reclaim the word "civility" to mean what it really means, and join me in saying "there is not such thing as a 'CIVIL violation'. Our civility policy is not a law, and it's not susceptible of 'violation'". If we grant that there is such a thing as a "civility violation", which we do by using their language, then we grant too much. Let's reclaim the terms of the discussion, and stop using fiction words such as 'unCIVIL'. Don't even use the all-caps CIVIL. It means nothing, and if you allow it to mean something, you're giving your opponents power, hand over fist. Careful! -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"unCIVIL" hurts my eyes and I want it to stop for that reason, mostly. I think it is reasonable to draw a distinction between WP:CIVIL the policy, and civility as a general concept, but there must be a more aesthetically acceptable way to do so. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It hurts my eyes, too. What's worse than that is that, everytime Filll says it, he's acknowledging defeat, and I'm not ok with that, because I still think he can, and should, win. It's the pessimist's fallacy: granting your opponents the right to define the terms of discourse, and I'm not happy to see people who are essentially right committing that fallacy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see what Filll said as really responding to what I wrote. What I said was just how I really interpret the passage in question (the one on the AGF challenge). My interpretation comes out of my knowledge of where Fill has been doing a lot of discussion, and my knowledge of what they believe and how they see themselves. I would like to know who is " arguing for more leniency and tolerance for letting any editor include whatever they want..." because I've never met one of these people. Not one. Unless he means those who want to use, for example, any textbook as a source even if the textbook has not mentioned the subject. In other words, there was a push to do OR by some editors. But they weren't arguing it in those terms. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DGF

Hello, you made this comment a year and a half ago or so in the talk page of WP:AGF: “ I've noticed a lot of interactions here in which one editor throws an AGF link at another as part of a response to some point in a dispute. The effect of this is often an escalation of ill will, and a further wandering from the constructive point at hand, because they end up arguing over whether one person was assuming good faith, and whether the other was assuming the assumption of good faith... I would suggest, and maybe someone can figure out a way to include this in the guideline, that the correct response to a "failure to AGF" is not to accuse them of failing to AGF, but to explain your intentions, and show that you're working for the best of Wikipedia be refocusing the discussion on that, and not on who may have violated which civility-related policy. ” Well, "great minds, etc." as they say, I may have just done that in adding a new section "Demonstrate good faith", shortcut WP:DGF. I would love to hear feedback and please feel free to edit it all you want. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, an abbreviated version of WP:DGF seems to have assuaged the parties interested in reverting my edits to WP:AGF. The new version isn't quite as expressive as I'd have liked it to be but I'm going to avoid developing it further myself lest I spark more controversy, so since you've clearly done a good amount of thinking about this stuff I'd like to again invite you to edit it or add anything you believe fits with the spirit of WP:AGF. I don't think edits from you or others would raise quite the negative reaction I did. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The AGF Challenge, what do you think?

My reply is here, what do you think? In some essence we seem to agree. I'm just not as nice a person as you are, but I think that pragmatically, on the Wiki, pretending to be so, is the most effective strategy. Merzul (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiPing

Hi GTBacchus, I had a great time at Yeshi's. Find me at Bestchai (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugly duckling

I kinda liked the ugly duckling thing at the end of that section! Do you have any major objections to putting it back? I think it nicely closes out the section with a statement that evokes some of the spirit of WP:BITE.

No big deal though. :-)

Also, don't know if you noticed the discussion on talk (with Shoemaker) where I presented a comparison of spade and notspade in the context of strategy. Shoemaker thought it should be added to NOTSPADE and I tried to fit it in earlier, but I couldn't find a way to make it work. I was thinking, maybe rather than adding to NOTSPADE, I could create a new essay called "strategic editing" or "assertive editing". I still think that there's a lot of misunderstanding about NOTSPADE - Shoemaker's initial comments are indicative of that misunderstanding - and could use further clarification to sway the battle-weary. Any thoughts? ATren (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. A lot has gone on at that essay this last weekend, and I have comments about a lot of it. I very much appreciate your posts in that thread, and I agree that you're articulating the intended message of NOSPADE very well. I agree that Shoemaker seemed to get the wrong idea about that essay, but that means someone else could come to the same misunderstanding, so we might as well improve the page to make such errors less likely.

The duck business... I don't know. After some discussion over at SPADE, I came to the idea that the "if it walks like a duck..." adage just doesn't hybridize too well with the ugly duckling story. If you put it back, I certainly won't fight over it.

I need to drive from this computer to another one across town, but then I'll add some comments on the talk page there. Thanks for the note. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

admins open to recall-wording

Could you possibly take a look at my ideas on Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall and let me know what you think, maybe on that page? Merkin's mum 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

reply

A little bit, but I knew you what you meant. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminator 4

Hey, can you unprotect the Terminator 4 page? The film has already started production as confirmed here: [2] Thanks! — Enter Movie (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Terminator (franchise)#T4, there doesn't appear to be consensus that a split is a good idea at this point. Do you think that should be addressed first? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the guy said it was okay. I can try to make it look like Saw V, Final Destination 4, or Fantastic Mr. Fox (film). By the way, I think someone already started the article here: Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it appears someone's already unprotected it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You know

You know the issues. See what you think if you have time [3] [4] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted them; thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Interview

I am trying to find a wikipedia administrator who would readily do an interview for a research project I am conducting from the perspective of a wikipedia insider. If you'd like to do this, please email me at goat77 (AT) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goat77 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

Yes, we're obviously not communicating, and the non-apology (See WP:APOLOGY for definition) you left on my talk page and the message you posted on Raul's page, further escalating the misunderstanding, certainly haven't improved the situation. Funny thing, I was thinking all morning about how to find a way to understand each other, and was considering a conciliatory post on Raul's page to try to get back to a place where we can discuss the issues, but after reading what you wrote today, I'm in no mood for it. I don't understand how it is that my answers to your questions p###ed you off so much; I thought the questions were asked in good faith and my answers were in good faith. I think civility, while important in some sense, is a red herring when it comes to fixing what's wrong with the project, as the real problems are NPOV and RS, and incivility can't be treated in isolation. I don't understand why that opinion would make you so angry. I'm very serious about not sticking around without some assurance that NPOV and RS will be enforced by the community; I don't understand why in our conversations you keep hammering on that same nail (incivility isn't helpful) since incivility isn't an issue I have ( I'm not incivil with the editors I work with on articles, and the articles I'm interested in working on are not beset by incivility, only by intransigent refusal to follow the core policies of the encyclopedia in the service of fringe ideas). I would like some help with that, some assurance that if I did take on those articles (in a civil and professional manner, which is the only way I would do it) that someone would back me up on NPOV and RS. But when I raise these concerns, all you can offer is to keep saying over and over that incivility isn't helpful. Well, yes, I know that, I agree with that. But, how to proceed, is the question. But at this point, you're the last person I would turn to for help in that effort. I will say that I'm very sorry to have angered you, but still don't really understand your anger. You did ask the questions, after all. I can only guess it's a matter of personal styles; you just don't like my communication style, don't understand it. That would be too bad, but probably not fixable. Woonpton (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:APOLOGY A non-apology is an "apology" that, rather than communicating sincere regret, simply continues and compounds the misunderstanding that occasioned the perceived necessity for apology in the first place. A hypothetical example would be saying "I'm sorry you took it that way," or "I'm sorry you're so sensitive" instead of "I'm sorry I hurt you." In our case, your "apology" continued and escalated the ongoing misunderstanding, and at any rate was negated entirely by your continuing to exacerbate the misunderstanding on Raul's talk page even after this "apology" was offered. If you keep doing the thing you're ostensibly apologizing for, it rather neutralizes whatever good effect the apology might have. I hope that's helpful, but at the same time I'm rather surprised that someone who expresses an interest in dispute resolution would need to be told these things.

I had surgery on Tuesday and haven't been keeping up with Wikipedia while I've been recovering, so didn't see your messages til today. I don't know if there's any point in continuing the conversation, since either I am completely unable to communicate what I mean to say in a way that you can understand (which seems unlikely, since throughout my long life one thing that has always been said about me is that I write very clearly and that my explanations are easy to understand) or for some reason you are unable to understand me. Either way, it seems rather an exercise in futility and probably not worth the time and energy on either side. At any rate, I'm on my way out of Wikipedia, as I see no hope of being able to do anything useful here, so the inability to communicate shouldn't be a problem; we're unlikely to meet again.

As to your "dispute resolution" project, it seems immaterial to me whether it's (1) a full-blown "project;" (2) an idea in the development stage so far involving a couple of meetings, a page set up for discussion, and an eager following of fringe advocates; (3) just a half-assed idea that hasn't decided where it's going, or (4) nothing more than an obsessive one-note campaign ("incivility isn't helpful") that has been sounded ad tedium and perhaps should be given a rest until it can be coupled with some sound suggestions for how to deal with the real problems. It seems to have some of all the above aspects, but at any rate, if it's important to you how it's characterized, then it's important to you, and I'm sorry I characterized it in a way that upset you. Also see my apology to Raul's group for letting my exasperation get the better of me.

We obviously have very different ideas about what would make Wikipedia a tolerable working environment and a successful encyclopedia, but since I'm leaving the field, I doubt there's any useful purpose in our continuing to debate the question. The one last thing I intend to do is to write an "exit essay" for the folks at the "expert withdrawal" page. I admire their tenacity, stamina and commitment to the project; I sympathize with their situation, but have no taste for fighting windmills, and so won't be joining in their effort to try to slow the inexorable and ongoing downward spiral of Wikipedia into nonsense and misinformation. I won't say my brief venture into the wikipedia has been fun or enjoyable, but it's been most enlightening. Woonpton (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution page

Thanks for the info GTB. I'm not sure where I should go go with this. Somehow staying on Wikipedia proper seem most appropriate. I'm going into a really busy time too so that figures into the equation . Will keep thinking on it though and thanks. For perspective[5].(olive (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Not serious

Don't take things so seriously, and don't ask me to explain. Be happy (;

[6][7]

[8]

[9]

Don't take this as religion, just relevant content.

Barnstar of peace

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For all your good work in promoting peace, civility and community understanding ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Caution

Given your past record, I would be a bit cautious. Don't you think that is best?--Filll (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't know what you mean. I'm not being incautious, and I don't know what you mean by my "past record". -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

From looking at your recent edit summaries, perhaps he's thinking along these lines: Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Antelan^talk 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the time is wrong. I can't say more.--Filll (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you can. You can be as communicative or as uncommunicative as you like. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps related to this... GTBacchus, I agree with the sentiments you expressed on the Expelled talk page, but if you could stay and teach by example, and actually show how you deal with POV-pushers, rather than lecturing Filll on how he should do it, I would be more appreciative, maybe Filll too. Sorry, if this seems rude, but I think one should show some respect to those people, who are doing the hard work. I'm not saying you are not doing hard work elsewhere, but you just jumped into one of the most controversial articles on the Wiki and instead of helping out, you lectured one of the editors, who is working on that article since its beginnings, on how to behave. You must understand the frustration, or? Merzul (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That is vaguely related to about 5 percent of it. But this is not the time.--Filll (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, 5% is just about 5% better than my average, my acuteness in sensing what bothers people is improving, Merzul (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Merzul, I think your observations are good. If this were my first interaction with Filll, I would certainly not have said what I said. However, this is the n-th stop on a long series of interactions we've had. Filll, in my observation, has a history and pattern of including unnecessary and inflammatory personal remarks in posts that should be about content. That was a great example of why it's foolish to do that, and I pointed it out. Maybe Filll's talk page would have been a better place to do so, but when I observe counter-productive behavior that exemplifies a pattern I've already mentioned to the editor, I may very well point it out. Eventually, Filll may realize that keeping it professional and courteous is in his best interest; that will be a good day for the project, because he does good work, aside from the tendency to disparage others.

Filll's suggesting that I "be a bit cautious" is mysterious to me, because I don't know how I'm being incautious, or what sort of danger I'm trying to avoid here. He can explain that or not, as he sees fit. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. I'll let Filll continue here, if he wants to explain the why you should be cautious. ;) Merzul (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If he does not know, I am not going to tell him at this point. Sorry, this is not an opportune time.--Filll (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Best Essay Ever

Have you seen User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism‎? It's wonderful and it spells out the "professionalism" ideas that you talk about very eloquently. Merzul (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus- building

A really simple chart Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg has appeared at WP:CON. Does it gell with any of the work you are doing? The flowchart is looking for a home, lol, we have lots more at WT:CON if you are interested. Just a stray thought, cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

ED

[10] - it kinda is per Jimbo 01/2004. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Even so, AC were very specific about banning links, twice, and the guideline that came out of it (WP:LTEH) would restrict a link to ED (and I'm not a fan of using URLs to bypass the spam blacklist anyway). Sceptre ^(talk) 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ED URL

I just read over Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and the only thing mentioned in the page is that direct links to ED may be removed whenever they are found. It doesn't say anything about text-based URLs, and consensus seems to be in favor of restoring a link anyway. I would like to at least readd the text-based URL, as not even listing a site's URL makes it seem that we're trying to hide something (which we shouldn't be), but I would like to get another editor's opinion on this first.--Urban Rose 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're not in a hurry, and I'd like to see a more broad-based demonstration of consensus before doing something that's very, very likely to be reverted. I don't agree with adding the URL, but I'm not religious about it. We may disagree on that point, but I think we both agree that we should take a measured, consensus-based approach. We're on the policy high-ground with that position, because ArbCom has tasked the community with developing a policy solution to precisely this type of situation.

If the community ends up adopting a principled stance that implies we should host the URL, or the link, then I'll support that consensus. It isn't, however, here yet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish everybody involved in the debate was as reasonable as you... I happen to be on opposite sides from you right at the moment on the specific issue of whether the site ought to be linked, but you're presenting your arguments from reason instead of blind appeals to authority or emotional outbursts, so I'd have no problem accepting a consensus that went against me if it were made up of people like you. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. I don't always succeed at presenting my arguments as you say, but I do try.

In connection to the link we're talking about, I would point out that ArbCom made a specific exception (asked, answered) to the "no links to ED" ruling for an unlinked URL that was on my user page from 13 October 2006 until 14 April 2007. That was the closest thing we had to a neutral article on ED for those six months, and it didn't cause the sky to fall.

True, I oppose including the link in the article, for reasons that are in a state of flux right now, but I think there's a big difference. The URL on my page wasn't going to be used for trolling, whereas one in the article is much more likely to be. I also hadn't really thought about the legal aspect at that time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

the "civil POV pusher" section in NOSPADE

I've been thinking about that for a while, and I decided to take a shot at documenting my thoughts in NOSPADE, but I seem to have struck some nerves. Feel free to edit as you see fit, or remove entirely. I just figured I'd try to start getting more of these ideas in concrete form so we can start hacking away at them... ATren (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the section. It's a good idea to address that term as it is being used. Thanks, and thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy, again

I don't know if you are following the developments at the homeopathy article. I have the impression that there is a lot of meat puppeting going on there, with people taking turns to push an anti-homeopathy POV. I wouldn't be surprised if it was coordinated by a mailing list somewhere. There is also some pro-homeopathy POV pushing, but that's completely ineffective. Now it could be that I am completely wrong about this. Perhaps I am a pro-homeopathy POV pusher, after all? In any case it's likely that the way I am dealing with the situation can be improved.

I just wanted to let you know that if you are watching the situation, I would really appreciate your advice (the latest is that Peter Morrell has left in disgust). --Hans Adler (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Studies

GTB,

If you really want to help the pro-science Lobby on the article on Homeopathy, please mention the word studies in a positive way in Para 2 of the Lead and tag the references I'm providing:- e.g.studies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selection (talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please notice that User:Selection is a most probably a sockpuppet of User:Dr.Jhingaadey and that any cooperation with him would make you act as a meatpuppet --Enric Naval (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. When and if I decide to edit that article, I'll be acting as an editor, not as any kind of puppet. Thanks for understanding. At this time, I have no plans to do anything with the above. That may change in the future. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Seattle meetup this thursday (6/19)

Hi GTBacchus, just a reminder that you've signed up to attend the Seattle meetup this Thursday (6/19). This one's going to take place at 7:30PM at Thaiku -- a restaurant\bar in Ballard. See the meetup page to add more agenda items, see attendees, etc. Hope to see you there! Bestchai (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Not sure where to ask, so here goes:-

If an article is too negative/critical or doesn't have any 'criticism' at all and the other editors aren't willing to listen, to who should one appeal?-New kid on the Block

Hi. Sorry for being slow to reply; I haven't logged in much lately, due to travel and other obligations.

There's not one simple answer to your question, or if there is, it's: "go to the community." If there's just one other editor, then Third opinion is a good place to start. If there are more people involved already, then a content RfC can sometimes be helpful. If that doesn't work, then I'd say the next step is to go to relevant wiki-projects and (neutrally, to the extent that you can) request input from people who work on related articles.

While doing all of this, a good dose of patience is very helpful, because you may have to repeat yourself a lot. If you can find a way to succinctly explain what edits need to be made, then perhaps you can direct people to it with a link, which can be more efficient than typing it over and over again. This being a wiki, the argument could be improved and clarified by yourself and others as the discussion goes on.

I hope some of these suggestions are helpful. If, at long last, a broad spectrum of the community have considered the issue, and they're not buying your arguments... well, if it were me, I'd want to re-examine my interpretation of NPOV as it applies to that subject.

If you can point to specific articles, I may be able to say something more concrete. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article on Homeopathy is extremely negative, I hope you can get some higher ups' to get rid of the allegation (even if a magazine has made such an allegation, it remains an allegation and can't be considered a reliable source) that Homeopathy is, 'placebo therapy at best and Quackery at worst (some evidence can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Colonel_Warden/Selection_of_Studies)"

There aren't really any "higher ups" here. ArbCom generally refuses to handle content disputes, so it's up to the consensus process. The only thing "higher up" than a group of editors who've worked out an agreement is a more broad-based group of editors, with better arguments and better edits.

Looking at that list of studies... are you the same person who's posted that list on my talk page twice in the past? I'm only asking out of curiosity; I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. Never mind, if you prefer.

Regarding that source, my question is: Why is the journal "Archives of Surgery" not a reliable source, in your opinion? If someone supporting that source were listening, I'd ask whether its statement of results ("placebo therapy at best, quackery at worst") is the most representative statement we can find of what mainstream studies tend to say, or whether its wording is more severe than most comparable studies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I had other things in mind; there is something like: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation

Yes, I'm the same person.

I don't consider the, "Archives of Surgery" as unreliable. The allegation was made by a Nigerian Journal (Nigeria is full of Quacks and cheats - the e-mail scams bear testimony to that - so language like that in Nigeria may be acceptable, but not on Wikipedia). I believe the allegation is offensive even if it has been printed in a Journal. Even if 'mainstream' Doctors make that allegation, it is a fringe view (see WP:FRINGE). Some argue that Homeopathy is the fringe view on the Homeopathy article, but how can that be - clearly the article on Islam gives the view of Muslims as the Main view and that of skeptics as the fringe view, the same goes with Chiropractic and Osteopathy, so why isn't the same yardstick used in case of the Homeopathy article. One rogue Admin (Scientizzle) keeps banning/blocking anybody who is pro-Homeopathy, what can we do about him? — J

The Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM

Hello, Mr. Jacobs

my name is Zachary Valdez and I am currently working with the Santa Fe Institute in Santa Fe, New Mexico as we are updating our files on our Graduate Fellows program. I am not entirely sure if you have ever been affiliated with the Institute, but if you have spent time here, could we please have your most current e-mail address where we may reach you?

If you are not the Tony Jacobs we are looking for, I apologize for this comment

Cordially,

Zach Valdez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.12.129 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am the Tony Jacobs who was a graduate fellow at SFI in early 2000. My most current email address should be the same one it was then - if you use this page to email me, then I can reply, and you'll have my address without me having to list it right here, in public. Take care. -Tony Jacobs/GTBacchus^(talk) 20:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RD question and response

Thanks for your courteous response at the math desk. It really is a pleasure to have someone as yourself acknowledge a positive experience or for that matter acknowledge anything at all! -hydnjo talk 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As a mathematics student and teacher, I find the math reference desk here to be one of the most useful resources on the internet. I have used the desk from both sides - both asking and answering - although I've been online so infrequently of late that I haven't been around. When I start a Ph.D. program in late August, you may be seeing more of me there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, so, when you're Ph.D'n you'll have more time to enlighten the masses, I'm ...perplexed! Oh well then, whatever your schedule permits. I for one enjoy your clarity and persuasiveness you future Doctor Bacchus you. -hydnjo talk 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when you put it that way... I guess I was thinking I'll be more immersed in mathematics other than the high-school classes I've been teaching, for which I don't often need the reference desk.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I've been pretty inactive lately, partly just due to life, and partly due to a series of interactions that gave me a lot to think about. I'll be surprised though, if my participation doesn't pick up soon. After all, I'll have all sorts of grad-school responsibilities to procrastinate, and Wikipedia is incredibly useful in that regard. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I was wondering if you could take a look at the page honorific titles in popular culture and give me opionion on what needs to be done better so it may be kept Kelvin Martinez (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Honorific titles in popular music
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music

I've made an edit to the article, with a comment, and I've added the page to my watchlist. I'll have another look later. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hipster

Hey, I was hoping you might add your tuppence worth over here on the Hipster (contemporary subculture) talk page. I am suggesting the two articles be merged into one good article, since neither of them is all that great at this point. I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at the talk page. These articles would certainly benefit from some careful attention. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man!!

Thanks for the support!!! Check it Out Honorific titles in popular music with any feedback it looks good nowTalk:Honorific titles in popular music Kelvin Martinez (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hey GTBacchus! I don't know if you remember me or not, but a few months ago you were helping me out with admin coaching. Well, I got busy with school and stuff and had a few months of inactivity from Wikipedia (only have about 50 edits since the end of April). Well, I back on now, not a whole lot, but doing some editing. Well, I was wondering, if you're still interested, if we could continue the coaching? I might need to get reajusted to what has changed the past months so i'm up to date. Anyways, I was just wondering if you would like to continue that or not, since I'm back now. Thanks Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 22:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm currently on the road, moving from Seattle to Texas. I'm still happy to coach you, but I can't focus on anything but traveling until I get to where I'm going. Let me message you then? It's great to hear from you; I hope things are going well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be great! Take your time, no rush, just when you get settled, it would be cool if we could continue. Good luck on your move! Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It took me a few days longer than I expected, but I finally made it to north Texas. It will be a couple of weeks yet before I'm in any way settled in, but watch this space. Now that I'm in grad school again, I should have lots of important work to procrastinate, so I'll probably maintain an active presence here again... -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep an eye out for updates. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Head's up

Since you closed the last request, you might be interested to weigh in: Talk:Novak Djokovic#Requested move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Riv

I've run across a user by the name of Samuel Riv who is convinced I have a hidden agenda or work for a marketing company promoting memristors. I see that you've dealt with him the past and any suggestions you might have on how to best handle his false accusations would be much appreciated.

See my talk page for further details

Lordvolton (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:DeSysop

G'day GTB... haven't popped round here in ages! - I saw your comment at a page discussing removing admin.s rights, and wondered if you'd mind taking a look over here. You'll see from some of the discussion that it attracts me because it could be easy, using a familiar process, and I perceive benefits to wiki culture generally in making adminship a bit less of a big deal (did you know, btw that in an arb discussion recently, losing the 'bit' was described as traumatic?... I don't really like that mindset....) - I'd love to hear your thoughts... Privatemusings (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

merger of Navarch and Nauarchia

I've proposed that Navarch and Nauarchia be merged, as they seem to be about the same topic. As one of the most recent editors of one or both of the articles, please feel free to discuss the merger at Talk:Nauarchia. Thanks, Gentgeen (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: The great Dangerously in Love capitalization war

To respond to your inquiry, no, "in love" 'technically' isn't a prepositional phrase. Grammatically, the phrase is an adjective. So, if you applied WP:MUSTARD rigidly, the capitalization would be Dangerously In Love. However, the reason this spelling seems to be shunned so much is what I believe to be an application of WP:COMMONSENSE. That is, it doesn't make much sense to capitalize the album as Dangerously In Love when "In Love" so closely resembles a prepositional phrase. It's a perfect example of how you can ignore rules on Wikipedia. So I guess the battle between me and Journalist was whether to follow WP:MUSTARD or WP:COMMONSENSE in this case.

This can also be applied to In and out of Love. "Out of" is technically one single preposition, so a rigid following of WP:MUSTARD would suggest having "out of" capitalized. However, the phrase closely resembles two prepositions, so we apply WP:COMMONSENSE and don't capitalize either word. Xnux the Echidna 01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. As far as I know, every prepositional phrase is either an adjective or an adverb. Rather than argue about it at all, I'd like to see a reference to an accepted grammatical source or style guide on this topic. It's my experience that grammar aficionados trying to convince one another of anything is pretty useless, unless one considers it fun. I do not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rules

I'm guessing your and my experiences of Wikipedia are quite different. In either case, doubtless, we adapt our behaviour to the situations to best improve the encyclopaedia.

I don't know about you, but I've been involved in quite a number of content disputes in article space, perhaps more than is good for me. Let me explain how these tend to go...

Someone makes an edit. Someone else reverts it. There's discussion on the talk page. There's a bit more reverting as other people get involved. Sometimes there's a clear majority of people who are both willing to revert and consider that the other side has nothing further useful to say ("rough consensus"), and that usually ends the matter. Sometimes this isn't the case, and discussion and possibly reverts continue. Sometimes an admin steps in and protects the page, which slows down the dispute but does not resolve it. Sometimes other people step in.

So how do things get resolved? People disagree with each other over content, so addressing the content by itself doesn't help. But almost everyone agrees that the content rules should be followed. It's the one thing that can be used to come to a consensus between very different points of view. So people carefully examine the content rules: WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR and other acronyms as well, and tries to make arguments based on them. In this situation, any particular detail or loophole in the wording is taken as is, since there's no other basis for establishing consensus. "WP:WEIRDRULE is quite clear: secondary throbbles can't be included in the lead when there's no reference to a flibble"... and everyone has to pay attention or show how the rule doesn't apply. No-one even bothers invoking IAR, it would simply never be taken seriously. What's taken seriously is, firstly, WP:CONSENSUS, since that actually gets things done and moves us past revert wars, and secondly the content rules, since even bystanders (who occasionally swoop in) respect them so consensus can be achieved. It's not always pretty but it by and large works.

This is not to say there are a great number of loopholes in the content policies, but only because people patch up the policy if they can. There may be some issues over which the loophole status is disputed, of course. But if it's in the policy, then it's taken seriously.

I think if one spends a lot of time doing admin-ish stuff or even just plain maintenance that doesn't need the mop bit, then IAR is likely to be quite a bit more relevant. People haven't necessarily considered every little possibility and just going ahead and doing the right thing is often more appropriate. —Ashley Y 03:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you do not assume that I am somehow sheltered from article-space disputes. Quite the contrary, I am regularly involved in such questions, albeit more often as a referee than as a participant. I find IAR to be alive and well in content disputes. You don't need to "explain" to me how they go, because I've been around that block, many times.

It is true that many people read our policies and guidelines as rules that must be followed ("must" in the case of policy, anyway). This is a problem, and it hurts the project. However, if someone quotes WP:WEIRDRULE and someone else points out that here is some good reason to ignore WP:WEIRDRULE, then in my experience, the appropriate conversation happens, and anyone suggesting that rules are somehow fully binding finds out that they are mistaken. I find that people are pretty good at understanding that the written rules are distillations of good ideas that people have had, and that they are always negotiable on a case-by-case basis. I see WP:IAR cited regularly, and correctly, and it is taken seriously when the application makes sense. If you like, I can point it out to you the next time I see it happen in a content dispute. It is not always explicitly cited, and I can see how someone thinking in terms of rules (such as yourself?) would not recognize a valid application of IAR without an explicit citation.

One thing you've written above disturbs me: "...any particular detail or loophole in the wording is taken as is, since there's no other basis for establishing consensus". That is neither my experience, nor is it acceptable. The absolutely is another basis for establishing consensus, namely: reasoned discourse. Good reasons trump rules, rightly and regularly. The idea that an imagined "loophole" should carry more weight than a well-reasoned argument is shockingly wrong.

The core content policies - WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR - are better understood as definitions than as rules. I make that statement based on long experience, and not based on some metaphysics that you wish to condescend to. It is a practical statement, based on editing pages in practical settings. Anyone exploiting what they think is a loophole is rules-lawyering, and they hurt the project by doing so. They should be discouraged, not enabled - and I am definitely talking about article content disputes.

I have written a bit of other material in response to your post here that will probably wind up in an essay about the various roles of rule-pages on Wikipedia. I'll certainly let you know when it's posted. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"involved as a referee" is quite different than "involved as a participant". In practice, editor A says such a thing is a loophole, editor B says such a thing is part of policy. In my experience editor B will gain more traction among other editors. Editor A's best recourse is to go to the policy page and push for a change. Now sometimes the rules just don't say anything on a matter, and then we have to try to come to some consensus of judgement. That's usually where the longer disputes come from.

WP:CONSENSUS is always the key policy. IAR is only relevant if there's a consensus in how to apply it, which there usually isn't in a dispute. You are right inasmuch as if everyone agrees to ignore a rule then it will be ignored. This may happen often in general editing, but rarely in a dispute. —Ashley Y 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you seem quite well-convinced that I don't really know what content disputes are like. I'll just let you believe what you wish. Have a nice day. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you please see GoGo DoDo's speedy deletion of entry Carmela Santucci. Sources were cited. Not sure why he insisted on deletion. Sources cited and confirmed were NY TIMES & Vanity Fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnytravolta (talk • contribs) 02:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

On name changes and consensus

Thank you for your comments on my moving of the Anonymous (group) article. I moved it in such a way because I found no specific policy against this type of action. I gave the courtesy of creating a talk page section explaining my specific reasoning behind the move, but did not expect it to be moved back. Being a new wikipedian I didn't really know how to react, so I just assumed it was "normal" policy after Cirt reverted it.

As a result of it being moved back, it will require an admin's action to re-move it to an existing page. Now that we're back in consensus mode, I'll go ahead and wait for a few more opinions. But I might page you in a few days, should I get enough support to move it back again. Anyways, Thanks again. Spidern (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Yakooza

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Yakooza, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Yakooza seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Yakooza, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Corollaries redirect

I just wanted to say I changed back the Corollaries redirect to Corollary. As this reverses your previous decision, I thought you deserved a heads-up, Widefox (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries; I only changed it because it was a double-redirect at the time. Thanks for letting me know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris Westphal

Hi, I noticed that you had "wikify Chris Westphal" as a task, so I did it. That page still needs some cleaning up, but the wikification is done. Iudaeus (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. That task list is automatically generated, so I don't actually know what you're talking about, but I'm glad you wikified an article. Cheers. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

acts of terrorism

I have a long list of acts of terrorism committed in Argentina in the seventies - many murders but mainly kidnapping of foreign and Argentine executives or their families. The source is an unpublished document prepared by journalists working for an international news agency, who copied it to me. Any reason why I should not upload? Croesus1 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If the source is unpublished, then the material is not verifiable in sources that can be checked, so we would likely delete the information as original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds more like something for Wikileaks. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

3n+1 Problem

I wrote an article for h2g2 ("http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2") entitled "An Approach to the 3n+1 Problem" (you can find it by doing a "Browse"). I realize this doesn't constitute much of a critical review (and they rejected the article as an "Edited Guide" anyway). I use these home-brewed "least-residue trees" and compile an impressive list of properties of these trees (without actually proving much of anything). Do you think there is any hope for me? Beslobber (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm guessing you found me via my h2g2 account. Otherwise, what an astonishing coincidence. I'm going to go ahead and reply there, where I think my comments would be more relevant. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Could use some advice

Hi GTBacchus,

If you have some time I would appreciate some of your expertise.

I am editing an article about David Sheffield Bell and am having disputes with another editor. I believe I am adhering to WP policies but wouldn't mind some critique and advice about how to improve my editing and dispute resolution skills concerning the article. As full disclosure I am also editing several other articles associated with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and am having similar issues with the same editor. This article is fairly small and I believe fairly representative of the issues with the other articles. I can give you a full list if you wish. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've looked at the article, and made a few minor wikifying edits. I've also read the talk page, and scanned the history. I haven't yet looked at the sources, or at the edits in detail. I'm just posting to let you know that I am having a look into the situation. My initial impression is that there are really only the two of you involved, so I think seeking outside eyes is a great step to have taken.

The notability issues are likely to echo many previous notability discussions, so finding people who've worked with a lot of those might be a good way to avoid repeating past conflicts and misunderstandings. Such people can probably be found at WT:NOTE, although that page... is the talk page of a controversial guideline, so it's hard to say what might happen there.

Of course, one way to generate input regarding notability in an article is to take it to AfD, but that might not be the tack you want to take...

If you've got a list of articles that seem to make up a larger conflict of which this is part, cool. I'd look at that. If something that spans many articles is really one conflict, then we might as well look at it as one thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are the CFS related BLPs that editors have been trying to delete or reduce (that I know of) Patricia Fennell Daniel Peterson (physician) Julia Newton Leonard A. Jason Malcolm Hooper Sophia Mirza. Paul Cheney and Byron Hyde have already been deleted. All Chronic fatigue syndrome articles and sub articles are very much changed and reduced from the middle of 2008. Some material needed to be cut, but much of the physiological research in CFS has now been removed. Probably a fairly reasonable spot on the talk page is start is here.[11] If you want a very comprehensive view, you will need to start from last summer.

One very weak part of the article IMO is a frank discussion of the illness naming debate within the patient groups, the researchers, and clinicians in various parts of the world. The politics of the name is a large factor in what medical research groups get funding. It's very polarized in real life and of course polarized in editing the article, but the article itself only lightly describes the differing views. Some reasonable talk page discussion on the name is here.[12] Thanks for looking. Ward20 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, so now you have seen a good bit of my editing. I would appreciate some pointers, not to win arguments as you pointed out, but to become a better editor. If you would rather e-mail or wait for a more opportune time that is no problem. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

<-Yeah, I reckon I can give you some pointers. Free advice might be worth what you pay for it, but... that's life. I thought about some of the interactions at Bell's page, and I started making some notes, and before I knew it I'd written a short essay. I hope that's not terribly presumptuous. I've had some of these ideas on my mind anyway.

• User:GTBacchus/Dealing with conflict

That's clearly a lot more general than this conflict with the CFS pages, and you can decide to what extent anything there applies to you, or appeals to you. More particularly...

Here's one thought: In an RFC, I think it's fine for someone to change the part of the article in question. You could simply document their action with a diff in the RFC section. Unless it's a BLP violation or something, reverting it isn't urgent, and it simply becomes part of the RFC. Other editors know how to use the history tab, so nothing is really lost.

There might be other things, but I'm not thinking of them now. Anything about specific article edits, I just respond to by making other edits, if I've got anything to say. I am interested in this topic (CFS), and I might start looking more closely at some of the other articles you mentioned above. If so, I'm sure we'll have the chance to collaborate more soon. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the afd close. Guess I should have checked what TW was doing more closely when I originally opened that request. I assume when I do it properly by hand that I should do it as a 2nd nomination or should it be a first one again, since the original one wasn't listed every where it was supposed to be?

The Gokey AfD

Your last comment there was really unhelpful. Take a look at what the IP has been trying to force (against very clear editing consensus) into the article. H₂O Shipper 01:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Reminding editors to stay on-topic does not seem "unhelpful" to me. Is there a question in that AfD that is being decided for anything but source-based reasons? How is straying from that topic "helpful"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He made ludicrous accusations and I responded. Saying "get a room" was the part I considered particularly unhelpful. As I said, take a look at what that IP has been trying to force into the article. H₂O Shipper 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, by responding to those accusations, you prolonged an off-topic, irrelevant conversation, using the forum of an AfD discussion to engage in personal disputes. That's inappropriate, hence, "get a room". If you really want to pursue the topic of what that IP thinks your bias is, take it to User talk:

The correct way to deal with an editor like that is to refuse to be dragged off-topic. There is nothing relevant in an AfD discussion other than the existence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Red herrings are not to be chased. That's if you want AfD to work properly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Gokey] - please read my latest addition. Dalejenkins | 21:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• I can't deal with the overlinking and "lawyering" from Jenkins anymore, GTB. I meant it when I said that was my last post to those pages. I mean, he pointed me to something called POPULARPAGES because I dared point out that all three have 1000+ Google News hits. I feel like a "heads-he-wins-tails-I-lose" scenario is being constructed by him there, and I don't have the patience for it. Good luck to you, and again, I apologize for taking out my frustrations on you initially. H₂O Shipper 23:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No worries about earlier. I understand that it can be very frustrating to collaborate with someone who plays pedant with the supposed "rule book". (As original writer and sometime editor of WP:WIARM, I have a certain bias regarding rules.) The silver lining is that this might be the event that leads to a wider consensus forming regarding AI finalists, one that is clearer and less susceptible to rule-play. One can only hope... -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Now Biruitol thinks perhaps a good suggestion might be to just IAR and delete it. And the IP guy is still attacking at the Gokey talkpage. sigh H₂O Shipper 04:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't worry about anyone Ignoring All Rules with this one. It's likely to be decided more or less "by the book".

        On a related note, you might want to think about not letting arguments here get to you too personally. Eventually, we'll probably have a well-sourced article on Whatshisname, and any delays in the meanwhile aren't going to take away anyone's life or liberty. Your desire to improve the Wikipedia is great, but you don't want to let this project cut into your enjoyment of life. There are some good tricks for dealing with vexatious editors that you might look into.

        Best of luck to you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Dalejenkins

I just now realized that within minutes after I recommended keeping the Gokey article, the above user went to my userpage, and clicked through the six articles I created, until he found a stub (Appeal to loyalty) that he could nominate for deletion. He never informed me that he had nominated the article for deletion, nor revealed his obvious conflict of interest in nominating that article for deletion. In my view, this is well outside the bounds of acceptable behavior, and he should be called on the carpet for what he did. And, if he ever does anything like that again, he should be topic-banned from AfD altogether. H₂O Shipper 21:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh. You seem to take a real crime/punishment view of what goes on here. I really don't. If someone is a jerk, the best reaction isn't to "tell on them" or to try to get them censured in some way. It's to just set an example by being better. I'm the last guy you should be asking to "topic-ban" someone. All I'm going to do is advocate that you learn how to work with them, because, ultimately, you can't topic-ban them all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to know my advice for dealing with tendentious editors, read User:GTBacchus/Dealing with conflict

Not "crime and punishment", rather a hope that those who treat the project as some kind of battleground, and act subversively (as this guy clearly did) would not be allowed to simply slide along, treating others so poorly. I apologize for wasting your time. H₂O Shipper 00:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you take my position as allowing someone to slide along. That's not what I'm talking about. I wish you luck. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• He clearly created an AfD in retaliation, not even bothering to inform me that he was AfDing an article I created. You made it sound like I was doing something wrong by letting you know about his disruption, and made it clear you weren't going to be even discussing the issue with him. That at least seems like letting the guy "slide along" to me. I have no idea what to make of this whole experience. H₂O Shipper 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  What's the great harm in an AfD? If the article is worth keeping, then it won't be deleted, and that's fine, right? There's no point in me discussing it with him. No rule says you have to inform an article's author if you take an article to AfD. It may be an obnoxious thing he did, but what do you want me to do, spank him for it? Just go to the AfD and calmly explain why the article should be kept, and then carry on with whatever other editing you're doing.

  I don't mean to make it sound as if you're doing something "wrong", I just know that there's no point it trying to get justice here. This isn't court, it's an encyclopedia. Being a jerk is eventually its own punishment; he's gonna have to lie in the bed that he makes. Don't sweat it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  It's already been kept, but the principle of the thing really bothers me. I guess I just thought it was a rule of some sort that if you nominate an article for deletion, you inform the creator and any significant contributors. Am I really wrong about that? If so, how does one go about changing the policy regarding AfDs in that way? H₂O Shipper 00:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  Informing the creator and major contributors is very courteous, and is a great idea. Many people do it. You're very unlikely to convince Wikipedians to create a rule about it. A huge amount of site culture exists against that sort of thing.

  What you might not realize is that Wikipedia explicitly does not function according to rule of law. This surprises the hell out of some people. It's very anarchic, and the most ridiculous thing about it is that it works. Please read WP:IAR and WP:WIARM. This is not a game where you get to appeal to rules.

  The good news is that it's better this way. Anyone who keeps making stupid AfD nominations is digging their own grave, and you should learn that "letting them dig" is an incredibly powerful position. Take the long view of things, forget about rules, and enjoy Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, but to answer your question, WT:AFD and WP:VP/P are places to discuss new rules regarding deletion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for the advice and the links. I don't think I was trying to "appeal to rules" at all. I was simply trying to understand how an open culture could let someone be so disruptive as to AfD an article simply because of who created it. There do seem to be rules here, especially against disruption, unless I'm seriously misunderstanding the nature of protecting and blocking. H₂O Shipper 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree it's weird. The only rule is "good encyclopedia". Everything else either falls into line under that, or else it's vapor. Lots of things that look just like rules are really just conventions, written down because they work most of the time. Eventually though, working is more important than being written down.

  There are certainly disruptions that must be prevented, in the name of maintaining a good encyclopedia, and we'll do what it takes to prevent them. Spurious AfD's aren't so bad, unless it becomes a pattern, and then people start to notice, and something gets done. That last one he started, about the Scottish band, will be SNOWball closed quite soon, I'm sure. Maybe I'll close it myself... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  I just checked into that one, and it is a rather poor nomination. I just made a speedy keep recommendation. H₂O Shipper 01:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Moishe's Bagel

Hi, thanks for your message[13]. No problem; I guess there's an element of me being obsessively tidy as I look over the AfD pages ... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lone Star Report

Thanks for the publication stub tag! I was wondering where to find that. 64.221.15.66 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Georgina

"The name is more primary". Wow. Where do you get that from? On what do you base your argument that a non-existent article about a name is more primary than an article about a town? Even if there was a Featured article about the name, I dare say it would be rarely linked to. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I base it on the arguments made in the discussion, as I said. I certainly didn't see consensus for a move, nor do I see your reading of the guidelines to be unequivocal. If you disagree with my decision, I suggest taking the question to a wider audience. If it becomes clear that I made a bad call, I'll accept that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves might be a good place to try. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there was no consensus for a move and I'm satisfied with it at Georgina, Ontario. I could have been convinced that Georgina should be a dab but the argument for that was never put well despite my attempts to pull out elaboration. I found your closing rationale perplexing however. There is no way that the name "article" is the primary one. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't make any practical difference, I'm certainly willing to agree that I didn't articulate my reading of the argument very well. I think "Georgina" is used a lot more as a woman's name than as the name of a town in Ontario. That's different from "Paris", despite Miss Hilton's popularity. It might be more accurate to say that there is no primary usage, because the use as a name isn't really singular, but many usages taken together.

At any rate, Georgina now points to a dab page. Is that appropriate, in your opinion, or should it redirect to the town, or should something else happen? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing. There may be many people who have the name "Georgina" but none who are named simply "Georgina" and so would not be linked there. It is preposterous, in my opinion, to add up the number of people who have the name in their name and say that thus the town is not the primary meaning when it is, in fact, the only article named Georgina. I would have changed my opinion on the move if anyone could have told me that an article about the name could be created but no one did despite my requests. I'm not that surprised; I doubt that there are sources to create an article about the name. The sub-stub created should be honestly deleted but I'll leave it in the hope that someone may create the article some day anyway. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point here. Adding up the uses of the name doesn't make sense. I guess it's kind of a lazy way of saying that the town may be the only thing truly called "Georgina", but it has so little individual weight that it makes sense to declare "No primary use". If we were talking in the abstract, it'd be one thing, but I don't think a simple plurality is enough to warrant Primary Use status, complete w/ redirect. I think more readers will be served by the dab page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to say that Georgina redirecting to the dab is satisfactory for now. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Which I guess makes this kind of a moot point, but you're right to point out that the rationale I typed wasn't very clear. I'm happier, as a writer, with what I've typed above. I think my instinct knew it at the time better than my words did. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true that it's moot and it appears we don't disagree much. I am just concerned about precedents and clear arguments. I would have not participated so much in the move debate had not the original objections simply been of the sort "I've never heard of the town but I know some people have that first name". I'm glad that you took the took the time to answer my questions and you have relieved my concerns somewhat about your closure. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And what did you mean by it is "FALSE that editors are required to argue from policy only, and not introduce external reasons"; was this related to the story of the guy getting lost on the way to the girlfriend's motel? DoubleBlue (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a direct reaction to Mindmatrix's statement: "If you disagree with current policy, then discuss it at the relevant policy pages, not here. Discussion on this page should reflect current policy, not personal opinion. If you disagree with my analysis, please explain why based on current policy." He's incorrect to argue that way; that's the opposite of how Wikipedia works. General policies are determined by decisions made on a case-by-case basis, not the other way around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

If you set your browser to reject cookies, do you still get this one? *Dan T.* (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Afds

Afds run for 5 days, not 18 hours. Probably others would have noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between Scots and Jews and supported me and added material. I did a quick check to show it was rescuable, but it shouldn't have been necessary for me to immediately rewrite it. There was no attack material in the article that called for immediate deletion & in fact part of what was there was usable. Yes, I know I can reconstruct an article, & I do not need help in recovering the text. But afds still run 5 days. Its an important principle, to give people a chance to comment, and not go by the first few people who see a possibly dubious topic and !vote to delete without examining further. Things should not disappear overnight this way. I can take care of myself, sure, but other people can't. DGG (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You needn't tell me how AfD works. I don't speedy close for fun, or for no reason. That article was, in my opinion, a liability to the project as it existed, and we're better without it. It was worse than a nonsense article or a vanity page. The only possible outcome of the discussion other than deletion would be to start from scratch, and that's possible now.

Not all AfD's run for 5 days, and that's always been true.

All of that said, since you questioned my close, I'll post at WP:AN for review. I don't want to be getting things wrong. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And here it is: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request review of speedy close. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Free Beer moved

I think I may as well keep the redirects because theres no problem with them being there. I also question such a rule but at the end of the day... who know? It just seemed better to be on the safe side dispite being unable to find such a rule myself. Thanks for moving the page. Mczack26 speaktome 09:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons between Scots and Jews

I missed this discussion. This should be immortalized at WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Máté Csák

I agree with moving it. If someone demonstrates a more commonly used name in English (with evidence), we'll start a new discussion. Squash Racket (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WMDM over WMDM-FM

Is there anyway to change the page name back to WMDM-FM the way it is supposed to be according to the FCC....and someone tell this anon to back off of business he doesn't seem to understand. I have been working radio station articles for 3 years and dealing with FCC call signs for longer and not to toot my own horn, but I think I and the FCC know better than an anon. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 6, 2009 @ 05:47

That's taken care of now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

According to[14] it is WMDM. According to the call sign history[15] it has not been WMDM-FM since 2006. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, the people who work on these radio station articles are quite consistent, and these requests cross through the Uncontroversial Proposals desk without any trouble. If you disagree with the way they're handling the naming of radio station articles, I suggest you take it up at the project talk page, [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations]. Arguing it out over particular articles is pointless, because we're talking about a general practice here. For now, I'm gonna trust WP:WPRS, because they've been doing good work on these articles for a long time.

19.125.109.102, I'm not going to tell you to back off business you don't understand; but I will suggest that you take your dispute to an appropriate venue, which in this case is the talk page link I've given you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Libingan ng mga Bayani" article, vs. Cemetery of the Heroes

I see that you have just closed this discussion here, giving "no consensus to move page" as the reason.

I question whether a consensus is needed to move the page. I am more concerned in this regard with the application of WP policy than with the results of this particular discussion.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions styles itself as "an official English Wikipedia policy", and says: "Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form.".

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), a related guideline, says: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)."

I argued, "(A) that official Wikipedia policies appear to clearly indicate that the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject should be used as the title of the article; (B) compliance with policy is the expected norm on Wikipedia; and (C) action contrary to policy {i.e., invoking WP:IAR) requires consensus support."

It seems to me that WP:IAR has been invoked here without consensus support to name this article against policy with a non-English name. The discussion might be taken as having established by consensus that "Libingan ng mga Bayani" is more commonly recognized by readers than "Cemetery of the Heroes" (though I personally doubt that conclusion). Closing the discussion with that conclusion as the reason would appear to satisfy policy. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So... are you unhappy with the decision implemented, or are you just addressing the rationale I gave in closing the discussion? The decision was to leave the page where it is. By any name, that's what happened.

I generally close those discussions in one of two ways: "page moved", or "no consensus to move." In this case, it seemed best to leave the article where it was. Thus: "no consensus to move." It came down to the argument that more of the English language sources seem to call it "Libingan ng mga Bayani." That makes it a foreign name that tends to be used in English, much like the cited comparison, Così fan tutte.

The policy on naming is that we follow reliable English language sources. (This is also a major content policy.) If the policy page says something that seems to contradict that, then it may be that the policy page is wrong. That can happen sometimes.

If you'd like, I can ask that my decision be reviewed by a larger audience. Just let me know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Created a Wiki Login

Tag! DECouch (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Content copied to Internet vigilantism

Hi. I had a question about content from YouTube cat abuse incident added to Internet vigilantism. WikiScrubber retrieved the content from Google Cache. In my understanding, such unattributable content is not compliant with WP:GFDL, but a full section rewrite based on the sources would be okay. I am approaching you because, as an admin and experienced editor, you are more likely to understand my concerns. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good catch. You're absolutely right, that we'll need to rewrite that section from sources, so it's got a visible history. I'll pull it out of the article now, and start a talk page section. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your responsiveness. I've inserted a rather dry rewrite. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wolfberry

Wolfberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think you would be interested in this ongoing dispute at Wolfberry. You will see Badagnani's hyper disruptive manner and usage of "unreliable sources".--Caspian blue 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered a request for commment? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. let me tell something for your information. When he was numerously attacked by Korean editors for his erroneous edits to Korean cuisine articles, I was once a defender of him for a while because he is a rare editor interested in Korean cuisine regardless of what intention he has. But well things got sour after I've seen too many cases of his erroneous edits/original research/wikistalking/attacks. Several people declared to him/her to file a RFC/U, but it did not occur. (yeah, that requires quite "time").--Caspian blue 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to go away for a few hours now, but I want to reply to this post. I'll get back to you after I do some mathematics :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you can keep cool in a discussion even if somebody has attacked you for a long time (that is not the first case)? I'm sorry, but I just a human unable to tolerate his behaviors/editing. --Caspian blue 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I don't think the discussion is no longer necessary because he can't prove any evidence that the linking is allowed to here. That kind of arguing is "very familiar" to me.--23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Keeping cool under fire is difficult. Many worthwhile things are difficult. The most worthwhile things are nearly impossible. When you give in to frustration, and express your anger towards another editor, it undermines your effectiveness. I'm sorry that's true, but it's true. I am ready to help you, a lot, to deal with this editor. However, the only way I can help you is by teaching you effective strategies, and the first lesson is that you will never be effective while allowing yourself to stray into personal comments. I didn't make that true, but it's true.

Editors such as Badagnani, who seems tendentious, can be dealt with effectively. Let me show you how. Let me help you.

As for whether the discussion is necessary, don't underestimate the value of getting the arguments into clear, focused text on the talk page. The discussion may not be necessary for you, or for him, or for me, but we're not the intended audience. The people we need to communicate with are the next 50 editors who come along. They have to be able to separate the important, relevant, source-based arguments from the personal conflict. Your job is to make that easy for them, by (a) Omitting all personal content, (b) Explaining the source-based and policy-based arguments in a focused way, and (c) maintaining an extreme level of professionalism, courtesy and focus, thus making outsiders want to take your side.

If you are seen as the gentleman, and he's making racist remarks, they're almost certain to agree with you. They'll revert for you - more likely if you refrain from reverting, on principle. Once you're both reverting, and once accusations start going both ways, very many outsiders will simply see you both as part of a viper pit of POV-warriors. The truth won't matter. Their perceptions will matter entirely. Think about those perceptions, every time you post. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the calm and helpful advice and time that you've spent for this dispute. As I read through your advice, my stirred mind is getting settled. You're right; if I do the same behavior that he does to editors, people might group me together with him and I don't want that. I'll heed and keep it in mind.--Caspian blue 00:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Meetup/Seattle6 invite

My intent was to invite you to participate in a focus group hosted by my research group at the University of Washington, but it appears that you are now living in Texas. My guess is that would make you less likely to participate. :) However if, by chance, you are still in Seattle or are in contact with other Puget Sound Wikipedians, I'm including the relevant info.

We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided - one is April 8 (Wednesday) starting at 6 pm and the other is April 18 (Saturday) starting at 10 am. (Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration.) Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For your work on Energy accounting. Looks like a consensus as to your comment/question on the bottom of the talk page. skip sievert (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IMDb.com

Your support at WP:RS has been quite helpful. What I could really use is some support at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models‎. Feel free to comment over there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment

Thank you for your comment, which I believe to be based on a fundamental misreading of our guidelines. The link is essential to the article, and removing it plays into the highly disruptive and unceasing efforts of Korean-nationalist POV editors. We should not encourage the behavior of nationalist-POV editors of any nation. Badagnani (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I will sincerely reconsider your suggestion given this repeated racist attacks regardless of your effort to put down the fire.--Caspian blue 02:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you . . .

. . . for moving this article. It's really appreciated. Unschool 06:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

New user

Hi friend!, could you please to check the references of this article: Crystal habit?Tranletuhan (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard

I replied at my talk page, to keep everything in one place. I was a grad student in physics at UW by the way.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

I believe this conclusion to a discussion over the Dio disambigution re-direct is incorrect.( and not just because I was on the losing end of the debate and I feel like whining :-D ) I have read through the section several times. In the early part their was some dicrepency over which article was the primary topic and a few editors voted to support the change simply because they saw that ther 'was' debate. And careful reading of all the supports show that there was not really a consensus amongst them as to 'why' they voted support. And if you review the oppose votes you can see a clear consensus among all of them as to why they voted that way. Yes the overall vote was a near tie with only 1 extra oppose vote in the tally. With 7 or 8 (I forget already) oppose votes all with the same reasoning... 'that Wikipedia statistics for page reads clearly show that Dio (the band) was Wiki readers primary topic.... an overwhelming victory at that'. A pint was made in the debate that if readers were going to Dio but not wanting the page they ended up at... they would click the other uses link and move on to their intended target. But the page counts clearly show that this was never the case and that Dio (the band page) was their intended target. Note that Administrator Prolog was one of the 'oppose' votes with a reason that matched all the other 'oppose' votes. Some of the other oppose votes even quote "per Prolog" both in the 'vote' section and in the earlier discussion when Prolog posted his first comments on the re-direct question. There.... my 1 whine fest is done for the day. Hope I didn't waste too much of your time. But I did want to point out my concern. I have been a regular editor for 5 years. Losing the odd debate doesn't make me lose too much sleep *sniff* *sob* :-D. Have a nice day! Take care! The Real Libs-speak politely 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew it was going to be a controversial close either way. The argument that I found most persuasive was the fact that, if you search Google Books or Google Scholar, then the band drops way down the list, and Dio Chrysostom shoots way up to the top. Simply counting Google hits is one thing, but if you restrict your search to sources that are more encyclopedic, then you get a very different picture.

That said, the title you gave to this section is "Question", but it's not clear to me what your question is. If there's something you want me to answer, please let me know, and I'll do my best to do so. I'm also going to post at WP:AN for my decision to be reviewed, because I do that whenever I have a move decision questioned. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request review of page move decision. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And you're right... "comment" or "concern" would have been a better choice of section hdr. Now, after the fact, my hidden question was "Could you explain your decision a little further?"... which you have now done. so again... thanks!... and take care! The Real Libs-speak politely 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

GTBacchus, if you get a chance, would you please tell me if a POV tag can be removed from an article without consensus. My understanding is that it cannot: "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved….if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

As you know, a majority of editors at the abortion article support inclusion of an image. A minority of editors are blocking the image. I think a POV tag is appropriate, given the charges of censorship and POV. If I insert the tag, can that same minority of editors require the tag to be removed?

I am willing to abide by all pertinent Wikipedia rules here, but I need to know what the rules are. It seems like not just a majority --- but a consensus --- is required to remove a POV tag, right?[16]

In the past, I have been part of a majority of editors that has opposed inclusion of controversial material in a BLP, but that info was inserted by an admin over our objections.[17] Likewise, I have been restricted for life here at Wikipedia, for such "offenses" as suggesting that it requires a consensus to insert new info into an article, rather than consensus to remove it.[18] So, I support the rule that insertion of info requires a consensus, even if others have steamrolled that rule. But insertion of a POV tag does not require a consensus does it?

By the way, see Wikipedia:SCROLL#Scrolling_lists for info about hide and show.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll find that I don't think of Wikipedia in terms of rules. I authored the original version of WP:WIARM, which is the closest thing we've got to an official explanation of the policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If you grok what's on that page, then you'll have a pretty good idea of how I approach Wikipedia. I tend not to read policy pages, nor to be impressed when people quote them.

I agree that it makes sense to leave an NPOV tag on a page when there are disputes regarding the neutrality. I would probably replace an NPOV tag that someone removed when there was still a neutrality dispute. That doesn't change what I said at Talk:Abortion, which is that, if the tag is removed (and replaced or not), we'll end up back on that talk page discussing it.

Sure, it's the nature of an NPOV tag that it takes a consensus to declare "no dispute". I just kind of don't care about tags; they're ephemeral. When there's a dispute, we've got to talk about it. That has to happen with or without the tag in place. If it makes people happy to keep the tag up, I'll help keep it up, but please realize that these considerations are extremely artificial. The dispute over the article is what's real; the NPOV tag is a flag that we can raise and lower at will. It's not what matters. What's allowed at Wikipedia, eventually, is whatever you can get people to agree to.

If using a hide-and-show format turns out to be the best solution, then that fact will trump your WP:SCROLL, which is nothing more than words on a page. That's a very big "if", but remember: reality always trumps policy. Therefore, making reality do what you want is a much more important skill than making policy do what you want.

To very directly address the point at hand: if you add an NPOV tag, I support that, and I would be inclined to replace it if someone removes it, arguing that there truly is a neutrality dispute. However, I won't edit war, and I won't use my admin buttons to gain advantage in a dispute in which I'm involved. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a very useful answer, thanks. To my mind, if we can't work something out here, it will be a continuation of what's been going on for a long time. I just think an NPOV tag would help readers understand that they should be on their guard, and take everything with an extra grain of salt. The hide-and-show thing is probably worth considering further. Maybe it would be less objectionable if it's put in an infobox? Anyway, I'm past my bedtime. G'night.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

It's just a coincidence, as several editors at several different pages have begun engaging in very insistent campaigns of blanking, always refusing to discuss in a thoughtful or collegial manner beforehand. Pointing such behavior out and maintaining the request that they do, out of consideration for other editors and the community, discuss prior to making such large deletions certainly does not involve attacking another editor, simply pointing out the behavior and requesting, again and again, that they moderate their behavior. Thank you for your personal interest in me as an editor, however. Badagnani (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.... telling editors that they're breaking rules almost never helps a situation. If you have trouble with people deleting material against consensus, why don't you tell me where the problem is, and maybe I can help out? It is generally a good strategy to bring outside parties to a dispute, and let more eyes see the problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That is very kind of you, and greatly appreciated. Badagnani (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Objectivity

I do still think that you're a nice and kind person, but I've had a question regarding your objectivity. Compared to your comment toward Bulldog123, your advices to Badagnani are too soft although you said you warned him enough. You explained that Unless your goal is become a jerk" is just a literal meaning, but that sounds to me "Bulldog123, you're currently acting like a jerk. You can accuse me not to assume good faith on him, but well, this accusation against my advice just hit me (I have to not feed the user with AGF any more according to our guideline). I think you're treating Badagnani like someone very fragile who needs a special care and affection more than others. That is my view.--Caspian blue 00:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely have never accused you of failing to AGF. I haven't even mentioned it. My insistence that there is a better approach has nothing to do with AGF, and everything to do with dry, cold pragmatics. Pragmatically, you win more by making fewer accusations. Counter-intuitive but true. Forget AGF. You're here to WIN. Win by being pragmatic.

You disagree with my approach to Badagnani, but that has nothing to do with my objectivity. My expectations vary from person to person in accordance with what I've seen of them. I strongly suspect that Badagnani hasn't got much time left on Wikipedia, and you'll note that you already have my support at the RFC. Convincing Badagnani to change requires that someone extend a hand to him. I'm willing to be that hand. It may be a one-in-a-million shot, and I won't complain if he gets banned before he hears a damn word I say, but I'm going to extend that hand. Partly, I'm just an optimist. Partly, I'm also trying to lead by example, and show that in the long run, the only effective weapon against tendentious editors is unfailing professionalism and smart dispute resolution. Partly, it's helpful to have someone playing "good cop" sometimes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my rhetoric comment toward you. I misjudged you.... I don't know actually the RFC would get some positive effects to him.(I've seen too many failed cases) I have to face him in Korean cuisine/culture articles so forth, so I hope something good comes out.--Caspian blue 00:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[19]

I will not respond to this comment, as I believe you wish me not to respond when editors attempting to remove me from Wikipedia follow me to pages they had not previously edited (this has been happening a very great deal over the past week or two, in every case these editors undoing my edits rather than enhancing or supporting them). Kindly advise. Will not responding ensure such following does not continue? Badagnani (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, you're being very funny with another false accusation. I'm a member of WP:WikiProject Food and noticed the article for this dreadful threats by your "friend" on Eugene's talk page, you will see "my name" on the thread. Since then I put it on my watchlist. Do you think you can excuse for your long-term wikistalking and harassing me? (eg. Yeongeunmun Gate, Liancourt Rocks, Seongdong-gu, and many others all are far from your interest) I think the community is really better off with you. Good luck.--Caspian blue 05:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Caspian, as there are many articles on Wikipedia, it seems very provocative to choose to work on an article on which you haven't edited previously where Badagnani is involved. I accept that you saw it on a discussion page (as did I) but if you are engaged in an RfC against an editor, surely doing your best to avoid working on articles with them makes more sense than engaging them in a new and unnecessary dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnigh, as long as you overly defend the disruptive editor, you don't get my respect much. Perhaps, you can instead explain his recent hounding of my newly created articles[20][21][22] (Galbitang, Jatguksu, Gopchang jeongol) that he did not previously edit (could not edit). The user've known that I hate his such hidden comment. At the same time, the editor accused me of a stalker because I advised him? I think you're seeing too bright side of the user. If someone complains about long-term stalking, that should be me about Badagnani's behavior. Why are you also following Ronz? You never previously edited the same article that Ronze edits. I don't like irony. --Caspian blue 06:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggested avoidance where reasonable seems like a good idea, which I don't think is equivalent to defending him. I haven't looked at those diffs and I don't really want to, but I think you should both try to leave each other alone as much as possible. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, the solution would be very simple; he stops the habit of "wikistalking me" first, I stop caring his disruption happening somewhere unless that comes into my "turf".--18:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, guys. If you're not talking to me, please take the conversation elsewhere. Thanks. Caspian, I look forward to seeing how you practice de-escalation with Badagnani. Any other approach - outside of the regular dispute resolution process - would not be very helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, GTBacchus. This is your talk page, so Midnight should've left the message on my talk page and I should've replied that (eg.). However, the best and fastest way to de-escalate the situation is for Badagnani himself to look back on himself and stop such making false accusation spree which makes the atmosphere toxic. Thanks--Caspian blue 18:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be, Caspian, but neither you nor I controls Badagnani. De-escalation is the responsibility of whoever decides to be responsible. There's a situation, and an opportunity to make it better. Take that or don't. Learn how to better handle people like Badagnani, and your whole life will improve. We're working on Badagnani in the RfC. Working on your own reactions to hostile editors is your job. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My first post was indeed a message to you, requesting advice. Badagnani (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's true, and others replied before I had the chance, it seems. I apologize for that.

When you're troubled by other editors, the best thing to do is to respond only regarding article content. If there are personal attacks, ignore them. If they try to make the topic personal, then you be the one who insists on professionalism.

If people make it hard for you to edit, then seek outside opinions, but don't accuse the people of anything. Seek outside opinions about the edits. When outside people come to observe, if there are behavior problems, they'll notice. You don't have to accuse anyone of anything. If someone's behavior is clearly a chronic problem, and you know that other people have noticed it, then an RFC may be appropriate.

In summary, my answer is that it's fine to respond, as long as you rigidly limit your response to dry talk about the edits. No accusations, no exaggeration, no emotional language. Remaining professional is incredibly powerful, much more powerful than fighting.

Remember focus on the edits, ignore the personalities, and resolve conflicts by bringing more people to look at the edits. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for this thoughtful response. In the past few moments, I seem to have been followed to several more articles, with editors again somehow newly discovering many articles I have created, in all cases attempting to remove text or delete the article entirely, rather than building on or supporting my edits. The thing is, I thought this was not permitted (at least, the policy page I just read about this says "policy" at the top, and I thought Wikipedia policy was something that was very important to our project?). Now that I am not permitted to point out such behavior, and the editors doing this (whom I am not permitted to name) are never asked to stop, I wonder how I should proceed in such a case? Do you see that this leads to a lack of a "teamwork" and collaborative spirit I feel very strongly about maintaining? Badagnani (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that you're "not permitted to point out" difficult behavior. I would say that pointing it out directly to the person, via an accusation or warning, is a terrible idea, because it makes the situation worse, not better. That's unless you can warn someone so tactfully that they accept your criticism and take it as a friendly note. At that point, you're a true diplomat, and I have nothing more to tell you!

The best thing to do is to treat each dispute as a content dispute. In those terms, you can ask others to look, and then trust that people will notice behavior patterns. If you're consistently the one talking patiently about edits, and someone else is consistently the one making personal remarks, then you'll end up obtaining more support, and whoever is making personal attacks will just look bad.

Now, if you can point me to an article where a conflict is happening, I'll have a look at it, and probably weigh in with some opinion. If you do this a few times, and we start to notice that the same editor is making spurious arguments about your contributions, then we can look at addressing that behavior issue. We can't address the behavior issue though, until we can separate it from the content dispute, and that can't happen unless someone focuses on the content.

So, which article are you thinking of? Pick any one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)