User talk:GTBacchus

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

Please click here to leave me a new message.

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 The source is an unpublished document prepared by journalists working for an international news agency, who copied it to me.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If the source is unpublished, then the material is not verifiable in sources that can be checked, so we would likely delete the information as original research.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.[1] 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.[2] 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[3]. 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[4] it is WMDM. According to the call sign history[5] 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?[6]

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.[7] 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.[8] 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)

I'm not very good at writing code. Can you please check this out?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

All fixed.[9]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So, do you think this is ready for prime time?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You want to use it as the top picture? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For several reasons. First, guidelines allow hide and show for infoboxes, and say that hide and show is not acceptable elsewhere due to accessability, readability, and printing. Second, I don't know how to write code for elsewhere in the article. And, third, using hide and show will make the thing relatively small and unobtrusive, even at the top of the article. I would obviously prefer to not use hide and show at all, in which case the image could go where it was proposed lower in the article, but this seems like a reasonable compromise for the time being. What do you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea that the hide/show rule is absolute. I know what the argument for it is, but that doesn't make it absolute. These things are not laws, and they're not meant to be interpreted technically. The coding thing is clearly not a problem, because we're surrounded by people who know that code. Why don't you post a link at the talk page, and see what other people think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it's absolute; I just think that there are benfits to accessability, readability, and printing if the hide-show is done in an infobox. And I know that we have people who could code the thing, but whether it would actually happen in a reasonable time is another matter. I'll post a link at the talk page tomorrow. It might be more persuasive coming from you than me, though.

There are also other reasons for doing it in the infobox. For example, WP:Jargon says to explain jargon. The words "embryo" and "fetus" are used in this article from the get go, without any hint about the difference between the two terms. How is a reader supposed to know which one to click on if the reader has no idea of the difference? The image shows the difference to a large extent. Ferrylodge (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, regarding infoboxes. I don't actually know what's going on with that rule, because there's something technical about infoboxes that make it make sense. If I understood that, I could say something more intelligent. The jargon issue could be resolved most simply with words, I suspect. I think finding someone who is willing to immediately code up a hide/show box on Wikipedia is a roughly 30 second task. I'd be perfectly happy to do that legwork, and get them to teach me about it at the same time. Even so, I don't think we're in a hurry, are we?

I'm certainly willing to take the idea to the talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. The RFC is ending, and it would be nice to get something resolved before the matter becomes stale and everyone forgets about it. If that happens, then I can expect the usual accusations of incessant whining and that sort of thing.  :-)

Incidentally, I have tried to resolve the jargon issue with words, to no avail.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just reading about that now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) We'll see how it goes.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:52, 27 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)

[9]

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[10][11][12] (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)

I guess, what I'm really saying, is this: the only way to really deal with personal conflicts is via content disputes. Maybe it's because this is an encyclopedia and not a courthouse, but dealing with things via the articles works, and dealing with things via the "rules" doesn't. It eventually gets you canned. I've seen long-standing admins fall from great heights for this very reason, and you don't see them around anymore. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I am really getting snowed under by this; it's been nearly 20 distinct pages over the last week, always with the same editors doing their best to undo or delete content I had added (or try to delete entire pages), never the reverse. I really need your help since I am not permitted to point out the fact that such editors are doing this at the individual discussion pages. Badagnani (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help! I have just been followed to yet another page, where huge deletions have taken place prior to discussion. I don't know what to do. Badagnani (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It has happened yet again. Please help. Badagnani (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I thought, however, that following another editor to many articles is not permitted--the policy page I just read about this (Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding) does have the term "Policy" at the top, and I thought Wikipedia policy was something that was very important to our project? If nothing is done by admins about such conduct, and all edits made in such a manner may not be reverted, is this not an unbalanced and untenable situation, particularly for long-time editors who feel threatened by such conduct? In the past, when summary large deletions have been made, and I utilized "Discussion," the deleting editor basically said, "It's been changed; deal with it," and the material remained deleted, following the "possession is 9/10 of the law" rule. Whatever the case, the failure to discuss prior to, rather than after such a deletion (even after many reasonable requests from long-time editors to do so) is damaging to our collaborative spirit. Badagnani (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, you need to stop worrying about that, stop talking about that, and let the process work. You will never win until you put 100% of your energy to edits, and 0% to personal stuff. Forget those policies, and edit with me. We'll take care of the bad behavior. Don't worry. Be calm, be patient, and talk to me about liqueurs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help. Is edit warring not frowned upon for all other editors (when removing large areas of text or links prior to discussion), just me (when undoing such edits, requesting such discussion)? Please help. Badagnani (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is WP policy not important? I thought you were a trusted and even-handed administrator. What shall I do if you do not wish to assist in an even-handed manner? I thought you were, from your previous messages to me, but now you tell me not to worry about WP policy, to forget about this policy? I cannot forget about this policy, because it is hampering the efforts of one of the most productive WP editors. I don't know what to do. Badagnani (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is important. However, there is a necessity to work effectively. Dealing with the behavior policies as you have been doing is not effective. In fact, it is very counter-productive, and it can get people banned.

If you just trust me a little bit, and watch how I enforce behavior policies, I think you might be surprised. I need you to help me do it, though, by doing as I suggest. Please trust me. You can be a much more productive editor if you learn some better conflict skills. Will you at least give me a chance to show you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

However, I have been reported (and the RFC canvassed by one editor only to editors with whom I have had problematic relationships). Things must be even-handed, or Wikipedia cannot function effectively. I was under the impression that our admins were even-handed and did place great value in our policies. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You must not have noticed that I've been responding to those who report you in precisely the same way I've been responding to you. If that's not even-handed... what both sides of the dispute need to realize is that we've got two choices: We either talk about each other, or we talk about edits. If we're here to talk about each other, then the project means nothing.

Also, recall that an RFC is not a formal "report" of any kind. It's a group of people, making comments.

What I'm trying to do is to help resolve the problematic relations, but that can only be done in the venue of talking about edits. Please talk to me about edits, Badagnani. Please? Show me how you collaborate, already.

If you trust me, the behavior part will follow naturally, and you will see the policies enforced, okay? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You said:

“ This is a practical recommendation. If one editor is pursuing you to multiple articles, then the most powerful way to defeat them is to stop moving, and deal with them on one article. If you can do this in the right way, they won't follow you anymore. Think about it. ”

It just gets worse and worse, and huge amounts of content go away. Don't admins take an even-handed approach, rather than penalizing only long-time editors who restore large areas of content (requesting prior discussion), but not the editors who remove the content, ignoring reasonable requests for such discussion? I just can't understand or believe this lack of even-handedness. Badagnani (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help. Please help. Badagnani (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help. Badagnani (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, be calm. The content won't go far, and people won't die as a result of not knowing about some brand of liqueur. I strongly suggest that you make note of the content that is missing, help me put together your case, like I've been trying to get you to do, and focus on one article. Please, can we do that? This is how you will win. Trust me. You have to slow down and focus, in order to win. Can you do that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I am a long-time editor and am very familiar with our policies and how we handle references and external links; your question implies that I am not, which comes as a surprise to me. I have responded in the appropriate location, in response to your query. I have not received an answer regarding our policy of Wikihounding, after having asked about it four or five times now. May I gather that you do not enforce this policy? For example, you have not even queried the editor doing this even once, while you have sent me many messages pointing out problems you feel I display. I had thought, from your earlier communications, that you were an even-handed admin; is this not the case? I thought all our admins applied our policies in an even-handed manner? Badagnani (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I enforce the Wikihounding, once it is clear to me exactly what's going on. You're not making it very easy for me to figure that out, because instead of presenting me with the information that I can use to defend you, you avoid my questions. It makes enforcement very difficult, when you seem to expect that I will do it blindly, without looking into the situation. I draw my own judgements as to when someone is being Wikihounded. I thank you in advance for respecting my ability to do that, and for providing clearer answers to my attempts to gather information. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have answered every question you had asked with great seriousness and thoroughness, presented you with links to some of the articles I had been hounded to, waited for your help, then you did other things instead of helping. I cannot believe it, because I had trusted you to act in an even-handed manner. Badagnani (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You haven't breathed a word about how you know there is consensus for your links. Not one. I am completely even-handed, asking anyone who wishes to add links to commercial sites how they know they have consensus. I'm still asking. Name three editors who agree with your edits. Who makes up this consensus? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help. Badagnani (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help. Badagnani (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I should have been more clear. The editors having made the RFC against me (canvassed only to a dozen or so editors who dislike me and apparently wish to have me removed from WP by one of these editors), are Wikihounding me to many articles they had never before edited, probably at least twenty over the past two weeks, increasing each day, and always undoing or reverting my edits, or attempting to delete articles I have contributed to or begun. I thought I had been clear about this earlier. Please help. Please. Badagnani (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me the same thing, over and over again, and it's not an answer to my question. I agree that they're hounding you, but I can't do anything about it unless you help me. You have to explain to me how we know that most Wikipedians support your edits. How do we know that? How can I tell what the consensus thinks? You tell me about people hounding you, but I want to know what the Wikipedia community at large thinks of your links in the List of liqueurs article. This is the very important question you must answer: where is the evidence that your links are supported by the community. Find it, and show it to me. Do you understand? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me do my best to answer your question, though the answer may actually be apparent. Many of the pages I edit are on fairly esoteric subjects, yet I edit on such subjects out of a love and desire to accurately and completely document these lesser-known subjects for the world. This often means that there aren't many, or any editors who assist in creating these articles or discussing their content, but what has happened is that there have arisen a handful of very active editors who have been Wikihounding me to many pages they had not before edited, always in an attempt to undo my edits or entirely delete pages. This has been increasing over the past few weeks, today increasing to many, many pages. This takes the form of a sort of "tag team" reversion, is against WP policy, and thus artificially biased against me. I have edited for many years, in close collaboration with many editors, working productively and very rewardingly, but in these cases the pages are not highly frequented, and I do not canvass others (unlike what has happened for my RFC). Since WP's focus is creating the most encyclopedic, best-sourced articles possible, and thus our community consensus is that we use the best sources available. As a long-time editors, I always make a point of doing that. However, the wikihounding, which I have asked you to help with at least 14 times, has not stopped, but only increased, you continue to ask me to explain my edits again and again, yet have not spoken one word to attempt to dissuade the handful of editors who have been wiki-hounding so intently. Please help. Badagnani (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, there's a problem here. I can only defend you in terms of edits, so if you won't talk to me about those, then it is very difficult for me to help you, understand? Now, the hounding is a problem. I can help you address it, but it has to be done my way. If you don't like my way, get someone else to help you. You'll find that I'm willing to do a lot on your behalf, but you have to do your part.

Are you willing to do this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You said:

“ Yelling at people for hounding you will never have that effect. Think about it. ”

Earlier, you said you take a hard line against Wikihounding, but now you say you support such behavior, and will not enforce against it? I cannot believe this. You are stating that you are not even-handed? I thought all our admins needed to be. Please help. Badagnani (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I will enforce against it, if you let me do it my way. Right now, you're in the way. You have to cooperate with me, or I cannot help. I only work my way, and I'm very effective. If you want my help, it's on my terms. Take it, or leave it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry, I don't understand the above; I had answered all your questions as thoroughly as possible. The hounding is being done by about four different editors, for the past two or so weeks. It has reached a crescendo in recent days. Badagnani (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I can help you, but only if you explain to me how I can know that your links at List of liqueurs truly are supported by most Wikipedians. I know that we have a long-standing policy not to link to commercial websites. In order to make an exception to this policy, we need to confirm a broad-consensus for that exception. How can we prove that most Wikipedians agree with your edits?

You have said nothing about what Wikipedians think about external links. You've told me that you think they're very useful, but does the community agree that we should use them in that way? This question has not been answered. If the community does not support such linking, then we can do nothing about that edit, no matter about the hounding. I can only defend edits that are supported by the community. Do you understand? Are you willing to work my way, or not? If you want my help, then we have to focus on edits, not on hounding. No negotiation, no exception. Do you agree? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I sent you a message explaining that many of the pages I edit are not frequented by many editors. This leads to a consensus being built by the interested editors who do work on the article, but an artificially skewed consensus may form through Wikihounding, as has taken place in recent weeks. I do avoid canvassing, but what it seems it that you are telling me to canvass. This would seem to be the only way to draw in more interested editors. The problem is, I am being Wikihounded rather severely, and without a single word from an admin (such as yourself, although I have asked at least 16 times) to put that to a stop. As you suggest, I will begin canvassing interested editors, to seek more support for what is at its root something all WP editors do, from our founding principles: produce the best, most thorough and encyclopedic, and best sourced articles possible. There is strong community consensus for that, and, as I explained before, I always add only the best sources available, none more or less. Badagnani (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help. Badagnani (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand; I sent you a very thorough response above but you only sent me something like an ultimatum, not addressing the Wikihounding (which is crucially important for you as an even-handed admin to put an end to). Badagnani (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What don't you understand? I'll break it down: I can help you in 1 way. It's not what you're expecting. You have to trust me, and do what I ask. If you do, then after some time, the hounding will end, because we will deal with it.

That's the only way I can help you, so you either have to agree to trust me, or there's nothing else to talk about. If you want someone to simply yell at those editors, or revert to your version, then ask another admin. There are hundreds.

I will help you, in a way that you may not even imagine, but only if you agree to put the hounding question "on hold", and do as I say. Otherwise, I can't help you. I'm sorry. I only work one way, and I'm very effective. If you agree to work my way, you will be very pleasantly surprised. Otherwise... I guess I'm not the admin you were looking for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; this is a mysterious response. Badagnani (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Page move closings

Thank you; that is indeed a rather interesting list. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Protected areas

Hi Tony,

There are currently 45 articles about protected areas in a given region, and all 45 now employ the title format "Protected areas in x". If the concensus is to move the Tamil Nadu article, and that does seem to be the case, my recommendation is to move the other 44 as well. I don't mind in the least making as many of the moves as I am able, although I won't be able to do some because I'm not an administrator. I don't regret attempting to standardize the titles, but in hindsight, "Protected areas of x" would probably have been the better choice between the two. The points that Rmhermen made certainly make me think so, in any case.

Neelix (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony,

Thanks for being so understanding about all this. I have been able to move everything to the "Protected areas of x" format except for Protected areas in Russia and Protected areas in Kerala. I appreciate you agreeing to move them for me. On a related note, what do you think is the most appropriate naming format for the lists of protected areas in a given region? At the moment, most are called "List of protected areas in x", some are called "List of protected areas of x", and one is called "List of protected areas within x". I would like to move them all to the "List of protected areas of x" format, but I want to make sure that's the most appropriate choice now that concerns were raised about my last similar decision.

Neelix (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Perspective

Although I said I would not participate, I do have solid evidence in the form of diffs that the RFC was created and acted upon in bad faith, and an attempt was made to bait Badagnani into edit warring and incivility. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, Badagnani's behavior that I've observed is pretty problematic, whether or not the editors pursuing him are involved. He's been extremely uncooperative with me, and absolutely refuses to even consider the idea that he should respect consensus. If he's adding spammy commercial links to articles, then those reverting him are doing good work. Your case for "harassment" will be pretty laughable unless you can show that they've reverted anything worthwhile. You refused to take up that question with me, which tells me that you don't actually know of any good work of his that's been reverted. Either that, or you're just choosing to be uncooperative. I don't really care which it is, I'm ignoring you on this topic until I see you say anything useful. Thanks for understanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

I really appreciate your all effort to "educate" the troll. However, as long as he's playing the absurd victim card and continue making the false accusation spree, some weird people like this one jut keep mollycoddling him to continue his disruption further. See this dreadful curses, and threats[13][14][15][16][17] I think you really consider to stop protecting the troll further and care about the others in good standing who face that kind of constant personal attacks. I'm fed up with his hypocrisy.--Caspian blue 01:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas' attitude is indeed very strange. I don't know where he's coming from. Let me look into those other links you posted. Thank you for bringing them to my attention, along with your vote of no confidence. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

S/he has been helped by the user in question a lot for Hawaiian/Health related articles[18]. I sometimes get confused him/her with an admin who has a similar name and work for the DYK area.--Caspian blue 02:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sea888, Vietnamese editor has been upset about him because the user in your attention has been accusing Sea88 without any evidence, of being somebody's sock whom he could not constructively work with. He has caused troubles in East Asian subjects too as he accused them as nationalistic trolls when his edits are contested. --Caspian blue 01:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide links when you say this kind of stuff? I'm working on it, but I also have, like, a job and a life. Christ... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It takes time....--Caspian blue 02:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I might not fully understand your good intention and hard works on that because I'm angry at him so are others. However, I know you're on the hard position to mitigate all troubles, so everyone obviously are not happy about the current situation. This sounds a bit selfish, but if he does not follow my edit to cuisine/culture articles, I have no problem about him making troubles to others. I have no intention to work with the troll any more.--Caspian blue 02:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll form my own opinions about who is or isn't a troll, thanks. If you can read minds, then I have to say you're very bad at it. I consider Badagnani to be an extremely good faith editor with very badly misguided ideas about how to interact with others in a collaborative editing environment. If you say "troll" then you're claiming you can read his mind. I'll bet $100 that you can't.

Replying to your point, it's certainly not your duty to police any articles that do not hold interest for you. If you could let me know about any situations that may arise with the cuisine articles, I'd appreciate that. Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

But in some way, his conflicts with other editors working on East Asian subjects or cuisine articles caused similar problems too to articles on which I'm working. For example, he clearly knows how Vietnamese sensitively receive usages of Chinese characters on Vietnamese articles, but insists his way regardless of consensus (Sea888's angry at him for the reason too). Vice versa, Chinese editors do not like Vietnamese language shown on Chinese related articles which include some Vietnamese contents but he insists on using it without consensus. He knows how sensitive dog meat issues to Koreans is, but he hits the string to make things worse. Or he knows origin of cultural items that have been shared by East Asia can be in a controversy, but he touches the bomb very often in the name of solving "his curiosity" (eg. 1, 2 in that case, he "followed my editing the article as well"). He knows how sensitive the relationship between ROC/PRC, but well, I'm bemused at his constant self-claim like "I'm a constructive long term prolific editor", and then makes others in disputes bad guys.--Caspian blue 02:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the behavior is seriously problematic. It will change, or he will be banned. Now he's got lots of eyes on him. I'm not going to wander off, and others are watching, too. I tend to be a last-chance admin sometimes. It may take a week or two, but I do what I do. I don't do it like a cowboy, and I think that's good.

Meanwhile, I'll point out that any amount of reasoning about another editor's motivations is worth precisely nothing. It will never advance your position in an argument, it will never make him go away faster, and it will never improve the encyclopedia. It will, however, make it take longer to do the effective work that needs to be done. Fact of life. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my conversation skills should be refined. In spite of what outcome would come after RfC, I'm glad to know you are one of good admins with great patience to help editors here.--Caspian blue 03:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk w/ Ferrylodge

I'm moving this here because it's very awkward for me to find that other section in the middle of my page, and it's especially awkward when you post to the middle of it. Please try to communicate with me in a reasonably recent section here, when you can. I'd appreciate that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Not an urgent question, but aren't there some images that are too gruesome/offensive to be plastered on a Wikipedia article? For example, a photo of a beheading or rape or necrophilia, et cetera? If such extreme photos exist, then it makes some sense that there should also be a borderline area for which hide and show might be appropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. The word "plastered" is a bit prejudicial. I'd rather talk about shocking images in a more detached manner. I think the idea is that we want to be where people can come to find out. If an image of a beheading is necessary to illuminate the subject, then we should have a picture of it. If a picture of necrophilia would somehow helpfully illuminate the subject, then we should have a picture of that. I would be very surprised to see a picture that would meet the standard, on either of those topics. At autofellatio, the argument was that it's a bit of a contortion, and it is therefore a question whether it's actually possible. The photo proves that it is. I don't think there's any doubt that beheadings or necrophilia are physically possible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sorry about the comment placement.

It would seem somewhat empowering to give a reader a choice whether or not to see a graphic photo that everyone knows will be offensive or disconcerting to many people (and rightly so).

It's a bit of a contortion for the human mind to behead someone or to engage in necrophilia. Some may doubt that anyone could be so twisted (or "unusual" to use a more neutral term). A photo would demonstrate that, and I think it would be just as well to use hide-and-show to provide that kind of info.

Some kids may have heard the word "autofellatio" and want to find out what it means. They could learn that just as well from an article without the photo immediately visible, and many other readers will also have no desire to click on "show".

Anyway, this is kind of tangential to the article we've been working on. It still boggles my mind that so many people could be in favor of censoring a mere drawing.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you want to do, convince me that it's okay to hide some pictures? Why? I'm not the person you need to convince. If I were... I wouldn't buy that "a contortion of the human mind" line.

Regarding the abortion drawing, that doesn't boggle my mind at all. They're obeying their consciences just as you or I would. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just having a conversation. And if you were trying to convince me, I wouldn't buy that "obeying their consciences" line.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Really?

I'm sorry, I was in a mood earlier. My own world-view tends to the idea that everyone is pursuing the Good, as they see it. How could anyone do otherwise? (Plato asked this question, and I still think he was right.) If someone has a very different notion of Good than I do, it might be hard for me to believe that a conscience is prompting their actions, but I've been wrong enough times to stop guessing. I've certainly never gotten to know someone who wasn't clearly pursuing the Good, as they understand it. Some people are pretty broken, but everyone's got a Good in mind. If not, then... nothing I believe makes any sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

They're obeying their consciences, but I wouldn't say "as you or I would", because the mechanics of it are so different. You're right about almost everyone trying to do "good", and that includes the folks who are the subject of Godwin's law (i.e. most everyone's road is paved with good intentions). I left a note for Graham87.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider myself any better than Hitler, if that's what you mean. I don't judge people morally - at least I root it out whenever I can find it. Don't think I'm remotely fit to do it. My conscience is no different from that of the crackhead on the street, the despot in his palace, the Pope in Rome... It's how I see things. There's sure as hell no "Hell" to pave a road to, if anything I believe makes sense.

I've got an unusual set of beliefs. I also didn't say "almost" everyone. ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)That last edit summary should have been, of course, "I'll see your Godwin's Law and raise you a Nietzsche's Eternal return! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not so unusual. "Judge not lest ye be judged." "We are all sinners." Maybe you have more in common with the Pope than you think.  :-) I personally don't subscribe to organized religion, preferring the disorganized kind, and I guess the same applies to philosophy in general. I saw "The Producers" yesterday, and it's funny how prophetic that show was (in view of The Hidden Hitler). But enough of that guy! Would you like to insert the image now, or shall we await more feedback?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- (Outdenting) I'm not ignoring you; I've just been a bit busy. Grad school and all. I will attempt to insert the image tomorrow, when I have a very clear head, and some hours free to respond to the fallout. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My Internet was down for a day. Now it's back; no idea why. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Move of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)

Would you consider reversing your move of this article? There is no clear consensus on the talk page, nor even any real discussion. The person suggesting the move never made appropriate notifications to the anime/manga project, and I believe this move goes against the actual naming conventions. I think this should have much more discussion before being carried out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wish I'd known there was an objection. The page entered the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves because five days had passed, and the only discussion at the talk page favored the move. I'm happy enough to move it back, but I'd like to be certain I won't have to reverse it again. Is there any way we can establish that, and then any further page moves can be the last we make for a long time? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've posted a notice to the anime/manga project, and thus far in addition to my own objection, two others have been logged. I can see waiting, though, a day or two to allow more views, though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

articles related to 2009 CONCACAF U-17 Championship article move

I had never requested an article move before, and only now do I realize that there were more related articles that also needed to be moved. Would you be able to move them since you moved the originally proposed article? The related articles are:

1. 2009 CONCACAF U17 Tournament qualification → 2009 CONCACAF U-17 Championship qualification
2. 2009 CONCACAF U17 Tournament squads → 2009 CONCACAF U-17 Championship squads
3. 2007 CONCACAF U17 Tournament → 2007 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament
4. 2005 CONCACAF U17 Tournament → 2005 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament
5. CONCACAF U17 Tournament → CONCACAF U-17 Championship

Please let me know if I need to gain approval in another fashion. Thanks for any help. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:71.127.142.120

He's back, and back to the same edit-warring and harassment. I'm writing up a new 3rr report, continuing from yesterday. I've also started a sockpuppetry case on his talk page as well. It looks like all the Pizzle disruption is from one person. --Ronz (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, what I said to the anon below, is equally directed to you. Those are my conditions for helping. I should post this somewhere permanent, I reckon. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is it okay that the User Ronz has edited the "Pizzle" article 15 times in the last 2 days? How do I report this, I am trying to contribute, but he seems to just follow me around and keeps threatening me! I appreciate any pointers you could give me. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.142.120 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You've edited it just as much as he has. If you're both edit-warring, why should I help you and not him? If you want me to do something, give me links showing that Ronz is repeatedly reverting to the same version. Also, if you want help from me, show that you've taken the initiative of bringing up the dispute on the talk page. On the talk page, describe the content dispute calmly and independently of the behavior issues. When you've done that stuff, let me know.

If you want an admin to play cop, and write the other guy a ticket, then you don't want me, cause I don't roll that way. All I do is dispute resolution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Badagnani Doctrine

Doesn't this heading violate talk page guidelines? See Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user. Don't worry, I've made this mistake in the past as well. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't read guidelines. What I was trying to do with that section was put my finger on the exact point where Badagnani seems to be disagreeing with others. I only used his name because he's been the only person arguing for his edit. After many rounds of discussion, I think I know what he's claiming and what I'm claiming, and I think they're both reasonable positions that a sane and sober person my hold.

I would like to find out what a larger cross-section of the community thinks of the principle that Badagnani is applying, but before doing that, I thought it would be advisable to be sure that I'm stating his position correctly. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, so do I need to turn a guideline into a policy to get you to read it? :) Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Policies are doubly avoided. I also refuse to recognize the distinction between the two. It's okay, I'm trained in paradox-swallowing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I was hoping to sucker punch you with WP:NPA, from which that particular material on WP:TALK is inherited. Your IAR-fu is simply too powerful for me, and I must bow down at the feet of a greater warrior. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you tell me I've violated WP:ACRONYM, I'm likely to say I don't read guidelines. If you tell me I'm being a jerk to another editor, I'm likely to listen to you, take a critical look at my behavior, and respond thoughtfully. I'm a little surprised that you, knowing who I am, would approach me with guidelines and policies instead of ordinary talk.

I have, as you've no doubt noticed, changed the section title, which was never intended to offend anyone. I continue to welcome your input on the larger issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the time, offense is perceived, not intended. I recommended the change due to Badagnani's protest on the talk page. Some people do try to offend others, and others offend them without really knowing it or caring if they offend. The best response to those people is a huge smile and a compassionate tone, but as you are well aware, it is difficult to do that here, where we are reduced to ASCII and smilies. One thing I have noticed is how some people take offense just for the sake of taking offense. It seems to be an attention-getting tactic that allows them to vent their anger at the world, and gives them an excuse to fight with anyone who doesn't agree with them. But at the end of the day, look at how many people are here to fight, bicker, and throw their weight around. It takes an extra effort to make a concession, to compromise with an opponent, and to truly work together. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI...The reason I haven't participated in the external links discussion is because I am totally, unabashedly biased on the subject. Whenever possible, I remove external links and if necessary, I merge them as references into the body of the article. Other editors seem split on whether to link in an ext. links section if the infobox already has the main link listed. In that case, I could go either way. But if I'm the main contributor to an article, you will very rarely see any external links, and if you do, it's likely they are there because another editor requested them, not me. Now, there are times when I take the external links and use them in a "further reading" section; This only works if it is a good source and has potential to add more material to the body of the article. So, because of my strong feelings on this issue, I generally stay away from articles and discussions where my POV could interfere with the outcome, and I generally participate in articles and discussions where I consider myself neutral. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Links in lists

FYI: Similar disputes have occurred many times. Mostly, we just quickly agree to remove any links that aren't from reliable sources. Sometimes it doesn't go so smoothly. I spent a great deal of time summarizing the arguments against keeping such links in Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms#Website_urls:_Trying_to_summarize. The summary there for inclusion is missing a summary of the WP:IAR viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI re. ANI

Just FYI, the comment of mine from the NPOV Noticeboard has now been used by Tznkai at ANI to go after my credibility. See here. Just thought you shoulod know. No need for you to get involved at ANI. Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth

I appreciate that you are trying hard to resolve this dispute - but let me suggest to you, that you're getting more frustrated than we're worth. I hope you can avoid the trap, and maintain your presence at the article long term, you're a credit to the wiki. I hope in time you can respect me as I do you - I assure you, whatever disagreements we have, they are not personal to me in anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, and thanks also for the vote of confidence. I think I made a mistake the other evening. What I was looking for was a calm place to edit and get away from the stres of events elsewhere in the 'Pedia. Choosing Talk:Abortion as a nice cozy place to relax may have been folly, or at least not very well thought-out.

It's hard for me to predict where my interest will lead me to edit or discuss, but I am a bit drawn in by the image question. I will generally be in a better mood than I was the other day.

Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your squirrels

Although you didn't ask for it on the reference desk, another good squirrel deterrent is the squirrel baffle. These are intended to prevent the squirrel from climbing up to or falling from above onto the feeder. The effectiveness depends on the location and setup of the feeder. It won't help if there are branches or ledges nearby where the squirrel can jump directly to the feeder. Also, if you have a hanging feeder, the squirrels will happily jump onto the baffle to knock seeds off which tends to frighten off the birds in the process. My grandmom uses a very effective setup (I have yet to see a successful squirrel) where the feeder is hanging from a sturdy metal pole stuck in the ground. The pole has a cylindrical baffle. The whole thing is set back from nearby trees so she doesn't have to worry about squirrels jumping on from above the baffle. Also, because the pole is steady, the squirrels can't jump into the pole to shake seeds off. While is stymies the squirrels, it doesn't stop the bears... Anyway, I really think a pole mounted setup is a good option.
If you have to use a hanging feeder minus a pole, then you might try to get a heavy weight and hang that from the bottom of the feeder so Newton's third law is on your side; squirrels seeking to transfer momentum to the feeder to knock off seeds will find the high mass results in unfavorably low velocity. If you do try the weight, do note that heavy wind may cause the feeder to swing which would be bad for nearby windows or other breakables. Sifaka ^talk 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Civility Award

		Civility Award
		for sensible suggestions regarding methods to add to or change WP policies. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is in regard to the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Deprecate .

Thank you very much! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's simple.

Don't feed the Trolls. ThuranX (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. What I did wasn't feeding; what you did, was. The proof is in the pudding. Let me do it my way, and see if he keeps coming back. That was the effect of your approach - he kept coming back. You encouraged him.

I think you should stop encouraging them. They seek to get a rise out of you. When you call them "troll", they win. Please stop making them win. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember, ThuranX, the last time you tried to teach me about trolls? You were dead wrong then, too. Learn from experience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion in WP:Linking

I didn't want to mess up the give-and-take in the talk page there, as you've sorta asked a question of the floor, so I'm responding to you here. I just wanted to clarify that you don't have to add that sentence to the policy page - it's already there. But I haven't been able to get the people who were repeatedly deleting it to explain why they were doing so beyond extremely brief, vague statements such as "it's inappropriate." --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe we'll get a clear reply from one of them, and figure out what's really going on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Squirrels 'n peppers

I always miss the good ones on SciRef! I didn't see it mentioned - your problem is that the actual seeds have almost no capsaicin content. The good stuff is in the fleshy/fibrous stuff just around the seeds. The common chef's imprecation is that to make the peppers less hot, remove the seeds - but think about how knives work, removing the seeds will generally involve scraping out the bits the seeds are attached to as well.

I can't conjure up a RS for that, but I'm a bit of an aficionado and have done some reading on the subject (regardless of Scoville units, I recommend Thai bird's-eye chilis for subtle and deep heat and least impact the next day; and beware of vinegar-based sauces, oil-based is much better). I think your best solution is to get pure capsaicin extract, a clear solution to which my local chicken-wing purveyor had to make eventual resort to defeat me. It's Sc1,000,000 or so and could be used to directly coat the birdseed. This will obviate any problems with noxious solvents (vinegar) used to extract the capsaicin from the peppers, or rot/mould problems using the organic material.

Of course, use extreme precautions - don't touch eyes, nose, mouth or other "sensitive" body parts during the coating procedure and use liberal soap and hot water to clean up afterwards. Avoid capsaicin aerosols, but don't worry too much if you make contact, it's just a little intense pain and maybe a little bleeding, nothing too serious. ;)

As far as cost, I'd bet that 4 ounces of capsaicin will do you for a lifetime. If squirrels have the TRPV1 receptor, I'll pretty much guarantee you they won't be back. Only really stupid humans such as myself go back to the same place and cry out for more and worse pain! :) Franamax (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I might do this. Thank you. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On Allowing all wikilinks

A great way to reintroduce contact. Inspiring me to reach such a level myself. Thx. (no irony here) -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Working the ropes for consensus

I've contacted you directly, because as you might know, very little is decided in "public forums" while the real changes happen in the "backroom" with separate private conversations with each person involved. All I could do on the MOS:DAB talk-page ("Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)") is to re-iterate the use of the real policy WP:Consensus. Actually convincing so many people, who do not understand the concept of "kept by consensus else removed", is a very difficult task. I'm sure you realize the quick AfD process is used just because it is expedient, but not the best way to treat people. Thank God, someone can emphasize, "Your article can be restored when notability sources are added". Wikipedia is an amazing collection of pages, but also an amazing collection of people: including former vandals, now rehabilitated, recommending ways to reduce vandalism. For MOS:DAB, I quickly tested the waters, and you can clearly see how the Wikipedia procedures are in sad shape, with people confused about the split-personality of consensus by sort-of non-voting-votes versus AfD-huh. Do you realize how totally baffling Wikipedia must be to them? Only a few people thrive on architecting a social-system to handle 9.5 million registered users. (Kids, don't do this.) Perhaps there is some way to refer the MOS:DAB guideline to a negotiation committee. It is only one of hundreds of issues I am working. I am actively trying to streamline translations into other languages, improve the use of center-page floating images, and numerous other issues expanding the concept of Wikipedia, including predicting the eventual article count (exceeding 3 million in August):

WP:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth.

Meanwhile, I realize many people can just "WP:Ignore all rules" for the MOS:DAB when applied to those 109,000+ disambig pages, so perhaps fixing MOS:DAB can wait (another year?). How do you feel? (reply below or my talk). Thx. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh. That's a lot to respond to. What do you think of what I've been saying, about the practical expediency of using rhetoric that is likely to convince people? I don't think I've seen you address that issue. Did I miss it?

I tend to think that extra links on disambiguation pages are deprecated for a good reason, and I refrain from using them. The argument that convinced me is that disambiguation pages are not articles, and they serve precisely one purpose: to get someone to the article that they were actually looking for in the first place. What do you find unconvincing about that argument? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Another reply: "as you might know, very little is decided in "public forums" while the real changes happen in the "backroom" with separate private conversations with each person involved". I do not know this to be true. Decisions in which I am involved seem to be discussed publicly, on talk pages. If there is a whole layer of behind-the-scenes decision making, I have no part in it, nor wish to. I think it's best to discuss policy issues in the relevant forums. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have tried to awaken people to the deadlock situation, with "Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Does linking Grateful Dead confuse readers. At this point, I don't see any hope of change. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah... I don't see a problem that needs solving here. I've replied at the guideline talk page. You can say all you like about backrooms, but I personally stay out of them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of rhetoric, examples and declarations

16-April-2009: (subtopic) In the world at large, many people have learned that others often become defensive in public forums, and decisions cannot be effectively reached. It is not just a matter of using the proper rhetoric. In America, there are a lot of attitude conflicts, in public arenas (including courtrooms), so instead, discussions in the "backroom" are typically used as the main method to reach decisions. When a city council meets, they "rubber stamp" the decisions already pre-determined among the various private conversations. In a court case, the lawyers return before the judge to announce a "change of plea" or some other form of arbitration that was decided outside the courtroom. In the case of the MOS:DAB, the concept that "wikilinks confuse the reader" has persisted (due to inertia) for 5 years. Do you really think a few mild words would break the deadlock, after 5 years? Typically, the issues must be carefully considered, with each person involved, but smoothtalk within a public forum is unlikely to work. I came to the MOS:DAB to correct the "wikilinks-are-confusing" notion, but such a radical change requires clear declarations, and forceful examples, plus the realization that most people don't understand that a negotiated rewording is the basis for WP:Consensus, rather than "everyone agrees it is fine though you disagree". Rhetoric will not work. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My experience disagrees with your assessment. I've seen way too many people use "emphatic" language, as you call it, and come to grief on Wikipedia. I've also seen a lot of people learn that more conciliatory rhetoric is their friend, and they end up being very successful here. You can ignore that, or you can take it on-board. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One other reply: "In the world at large, many people have learned that others often become defensive in public forums, and decisions cannot be effectively reached." I have found that people in public forums become defensive precisely in proportion to the extremeness of the rhetoric used. I have been very successful, in public Wikipedia spaces, avoiding the defensiveness reaction by speaking in ways that people don't interpret as needing defense against. The rhetoric with which you introduced your topic at the MOS talk page was very likely to provoke a defensive reaction. You might consider presenting your ideas differently. My experience indicates that you'll see a lot less defensiveness if you moderate your own tone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually...

Thanks for dealing with that. I tried to move the page, and I got an error message that I'd never seen before about the target page name being on a blacklist and requiring an admin to move it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow. That's weird. I didn't get any special message moving it. Anyway, cheers! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

On redirects and warring

I see he has reverted my edits again,, back your version,, which has the header "Supressing redirects" [sic], which I had specifically expanded for him...honestly, this really appears to be WP:TE to me. I'm going offline, you deal with it. –xeno (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi GT, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to consider refactoring your comment that, "Insisting on one's refactoring, if others involved complain about it, becomes rude." It leaves the impression that I insisted on refactoring someone's comments which is clealry not the case. Thanks for your kind consideration, have a nice day, and feel free to correct my spelling or grammar any time! Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to imply that, and I'm not certain the sentence does so, but I'll reword it, since it bothers you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate your clarification.

On another matter, sometimes an editor can be harangued and harassed by persons with ill intent or a lack of good sense. I felt that you didn't seem to appreciate this fact in dealing with a situation involving another editor recently. Certainly that editor can be hard headed in their approach, but as a long term editor with an enormous record of collaboration and contribution, I thought your approach could have been more appreciative and respectful. There are enough articles on Wikipedia that those seeking to remove spam links have plenty to work with and there is no need to stalk someone with whom they are in dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't know how much of that interaction you got to witness, but I was extremely insulted by that editor's treatment of myself, and I admit that I posted at least once or twice in frustration, which is never a good idea. I started out with a much more conciliatory tone, but after being insulted a few times, I was a bit combative. If you want someone to help you, then imperiously telling them how to do their job is a terrible idea.

My one previous interaction with that user didn't help. He was making blatantly racist insults on a talk page, and I asked him to stop. He responded by laughing in my face, and telling me that we make racist comments all the time, and that I must be a newbie or a fool. Then I told him I was an admin of three years, and he got very quiet. That's a bad way to give a first impression, don't you agree?

As for the "ill intent" or "lack of good sense" in the other editors, I can't speak to that too directly, because I can't read their minds. The faults I saw in them were entirely parallel and comparable to similar faults in the one editor, and in a situation such as that, my conscience does not allow me to say that one side is "right" and the other "wrong". I took his side as best I could, but he continued to spit in my face, over and over again. How many times would you take it?

I have made comments (including today) to the editors you mention, and I hope you don't imagine that I'm turning a blind eye to provocative behavior from anyone. I simply cannot see the situation as a "good guys" and "bad guys" issue. If you have any position of trust with that editor, perhaps you can let him know that dictatorially demanding that an admin do what he says is a very, very, very foolish and bad idea. It leads directly to sadness, 100% of the time. We're humans, it turns out, and we're not being paid for this.

Also — and this is my experience in life, perhaps yours is different — The more someone repeats a statement about themselves, the less likely that it's true. Insisting repeatedly that one is an important and valuable contributor is very likely (100%) to convince people that one is not. Again, if the editor listens to you, and if you agree, then maybe you can pass that on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> I think we basically agree on most of the points involved. It takes all types to build a great encyclopedia and I try to be tolerant of those whose styles and approach are different than mine. That editor has been extraordinarily gracious and helpful to me when I've had questions, even as they are stubborn and obstinate on editing points. They've been here a while and have contributed a massive amount that makes me feel puny and insignificiant in comparison. I noticed you wrote someone's as a conjunction of someone has on an editor's talk page, but I didn't dare fix it under the circumstances. Isn't that just silliest and saddest state of affairs on a wiki? Anyway, thanks for your collegial replies and discussion. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you may consider yourself welcome to copyedit my text; I'm not bothered by it. Of course, under the present circumstances, I can see why you'd refrain. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

He just doesn't seem to get the point. Fixing someone else's grammar or spelling is nannyism. It is not his place to do that, unless invited, which you just did. Otherwise, it is potentially very impolite. Now, if you say to someone, as a followup, "Did you mean...?" then that's fair. They can then change it if they want. Or they can say, "Yes, that's what I meant." And I'll be the first to agree that spelling and grammar here, and on the internet in general, is atrocious. It often offends my own eyes to have to look at it. But it is not my place to mess with it. At best, I can call someone's attention to it, if the meaning is unclear. But it is not my place to tinker with their actual words. It's a line not to cross. I will also add that if you see spelling and grammar mistakes in my writing, you are welcome to call my attention to it. And then I can change it, as I see fit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not your place to correct another editor's grammar and spelling (I agree), but it is your place to leave drive-by insults on ANI? I notice you didn't actually respond to the content of my note. You changed the subject. ChildofMidnight is not the one being uncivil in this situation, at least not the part I can see. You get your own house in order, then criticize others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and you just said you would steer clear of this editor. Bald-faced lie, much? Don't post here again, please, unless you grow up first. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, now that the ograbme has been lifted, a couple of points of fact: first, keep in mind that the 13 1/2 is in rabbit years. Second, I have facial hair, so I can't let you get away with calling me a bald-faced liar. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bet I've got more. :{)}}} (<--- attempt at mustachioed and bearded smiley) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Does "longer" qualify as "more"? It's still the same number of roots. :) So are you saying you look like this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bunnies have facial hair of course as well as on their ears. --Caspian blue 12:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That was going to be my next comment. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Really?

You seem like a smart person, so you've got me wondering about this. Is this really true? Who are these people? Everyone I can think of with that kind of ineptitude has ended up causing way more harm than good, as I remember it. Friday (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the ones who aren't disruptive, you don't know about, right? That's what it's like under the radar. Wikipedia is full of people who have terrible collaboration skills, but who manage not to offend enough people severely enough to cause real trouble. I mean, this guy's been around for years. Has he caused "way more harm than good," before someone complained about that picture? If so, I haven't seen the evidence.

Did you read that article, like, yesterday, about a study that showed that people who contribute to Wikipedia tend to have poor social skills, and don't contribute out of altruism? Now I wish I could remember where I found that link.

I can think of three or four users off the top of my head (ok, 5 or 6) who are complete assholes, but who generally stick to WikiGnoming, so it isn't a problem. (Having put it that way, I'd rather not name names publicly.)

As for "ineptitude," I'm not sure what you see as "inept" about the user in question. I think he's a jerk, but I don't see that he's an idiot. What do you mean by "inept"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's just a selection bias on my part. I remember the inept users who have blown up spectacularly, because they blew up spectacularly. I basically meant "socially inept", but apparently this description fits me today, too. In my brain I made the connections thus: 1) I see someone with "because I can" syndrome. 2) Some of our more famous disruptive editors have suffered from the same syndrome, 3) therefore this person is, or will turn into, an overly disruptive editor, 4) He needs to go away because such editors cause trouble. #3 looks like the error - it does not follow from #2. I do think the community in general is far too tolerant of childish nonsense, but that doesn't mean that making an example of someone for mildly disruptive behavior is a good solution. I just wish it wasn't like pulling teeth to at least get people to mostly agree that such behavior is undesirable. We completely feed the jerks when half the community shows up in their defense. Once you've convinced someone that they're "fighting the good fight" against those evil fascists, that person becomes extremely difficult to deal with in any rational way. I didn't see the article you mention, but it sounds interesting and right on. I also wonder if, along with poor social skills, we get way more than our share of people who feel disempowered in real life, and thus see Wikipedia as a way to "exercise freedom" or something. People having the misguided belief that Wikipedia is about self-expression would certainly explain a whole lot. Friday (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, good call. That actually is the direction the article went, saying that many Wikipedia contributors do not feel empowered in normal social settings, and try to attain that here instead. I've been told by more than one editor in the last couple of weeks that they're here for themselves, no more. I hear it, and I'd like to block them and throw away the key, but I don't think that's a tenable solution. They are, after all, making good edits, a lot of the time. I just try to give them a wide berth, and when I have to interact with them, I put on my best professional face and try to take the inevitable abuse gracefully.

There's a skill that we never really talk about here, but it would be a good one to see more of. I'm thinking of diplomacy, basically. There's a way to ask someone to do something so that they want to do it, and think they're being really cool by doing it, rather than thinking someone has just forced them into something they don't want. People who can do this well are very powerful in the world. I don't know how we can encourage more diplomacy in the interactions here. It's a cultural change, and those are hard to bring about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM

I've had it with that character, and will try to steer clear of him in the future. At the rate he's going, I expect him to eventually be banned. But that will be for someone else to take care of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. I think your advice to yourself is excellent. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

He's a large part of the reason I don't work on the Obama articles anymore. I found his "dark night" essay [19] highly insulting to the rest of us, and I just posted it on ANI a few minutes ago, because he called my "coddling vandals" statement a "personal attack", so I thought it necessary to post the specific reason I said that, and that should be the end of that discussion from my standpoint. I called that one as I saw it, and maybe others would see it differently, and they can comment on it or not, as they please. The point being, that instead of helping out, he chided the defenders for being too mean to the sleeper accounts and other redlinks that came out of the woodwork to commit mayhem, thanks to an offensive WND pack-of-lies article about wikipedia. His priorities here are 180 degrees wrong. And that's the problem. I've stopped watching his talk page as of right now, but his so-called RfA nomination page is definitely still on my watch list, though he's very unlikely to follow through on it, but just in case... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That user will not become an admin (sorry, CoM, but that's my prediction); you needn't worry about it, silly boy. I'm absolutely uninterested in whatever you're talking about. I can judge editors around here by my own standards; thank you very much. Run along now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution help needed

From village pump. The article is Illegal immigration in the United States. You'll see my attempts to resolve this issue in both Camaron's talk page (he archived it) and Tnxman's talk page. Please leave your comments in your talk page so I can find them. Thanks.-166.199.243.171 (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States, eh? Let's have a look. I've got a good hour left in me tonight. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to bounce around IP addresses a lot. Is there a reason you don't set up an account? I'm not suggesting you should; just asking. It actually gives you greater anonymity, in the sense that people can't figure out that you're posting from... Massachusetts? Am I right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading through some article history and talk page discussion. If you could summarize for me your primary issue with the content of the article, that would be very helpful; thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally, there's this: I can only help you if you accept my condition. That condition is that you'll talk about the article content only, and allow me to determine for myself whatever I need to know about other editors' behavior. If you're willing to do that, then I can probably help you. My initial impression on that talk page is that it's worth looking further into. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that you might not see all the relevant posts in all the related pages if I stick only to content. However, at. this point, I'm desperate. I'll accept your condition. The fact that my IP keeps changing is due to my using an IPhone. The reason I don't have an account is rather complex. It started because I was being stalked by another editor. I felt safer being anonymous. Truth be told, I still do. However, since I started having true anonymity, I've come to believe that anonymity makes one a better editor (I've seen editors work too often judged by that editor's identity (or lack of it) rather than the edit's content).-166.199.165.88 (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. So it appears your issue with the article relates to the possible involvement of the government of Mexico in helping Mexicans cross the border illegally into the US, right? I'll post a question at the talk page, and see what people say. I suspect we can get it unprotected, because I'm working with you, and you've agreed to drop the personal side, at least for now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My issue with the article has to do with a pattern of behaviour by certain people and how that pattern of behaviour has impacted, is impacting, and will likely continue to impact the article. On that point there's nothing more I feel at liberty to say given the agreement above except that this particular incident (alternative points I view being suppressed in the talk page) is only one example and I'll be asking you for help in a lot more examples of the underlying problem in the future.-32.167.210.217 (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason for my condition I set is that I'm actually pretty good at determining disruptive behavior. It'll be clear to me who's abusive and who isn't. However, if come in on someone's side, I lose my powers. I've got the article on my watchlist, and I've already begun a conversation on the talk page. Let's see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've promised not to make any personal comments, but I haven't received any promises that the personal attacks against me will stop or that a certain editor will stop screwing around with my comments in the talk page. Without those promises, the talk page doesn't feel like a place I can work.-166.198.218.30 (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'm getting back handed attacks like "turn over a new leaf". I will not conceed culpability in maintaining this problem. I will cop only to the fact that way back when this thread started (that is, before Tnxman urged us to use the article's talk page to discuss content disputes), several editors said things that probably shouldn't have been said and I was one of the editors saying them.-166.198.100.190 (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance to participate if you're going to be attacked. What you ask for is fair, and I do promise to defend your right to participate without being attacked. If you're talking about article content, and someone wants to mess with your comments, I've got your back. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll wait for you to respond to the comment about turning over a new leaf.-166.199.38.64 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Where was this back-handed attack? Will I find it when I click over to the talk page in a second here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've posted about it there, and the talk page is no longer semi-protected. Tread carefully though, until we've set up a good collaborative rapport with the page, okay? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like, if anything, the personal attacks against me have increased. Your right, I'm feeling frustrated. I tried to get a third party involved to resolve a conflict issue and the other editor declined and made a personal attack, I tried to use the talk page to resolve disputes and had my comments screwed with and then was made unable to post. I tried to get you involved to help and it's been treated as an admission of guilt. I read those posts Will Beback posted and what I saw is a long history of abuse against IP anons. I could go on and on and on about the activity in that talk page and article.-32.165.26.47 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on posting to the article talk page and see if there's anything more you can do to stop the personal attacks.-32.165.163.142 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Peanut gallery

There are several addresses on that range that the anon hasn't hit yet. He needs to get busy. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm hitting them as fast as I legally can. Yes, a home made bot net is an option. No, I'd rather not use one.-166.196.5.16 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffs

I much prefer spending my time editing articles. I don't see any admins who would be willing to take on that gang, so I don't think it's worth the bother. I spent several hours putting up evidence at the O-Arb tribunal :), so we'll see how that goes. I'm guilty of trying to include notable criticisms and controversies in the appropriate sections of the article, and for calling for an end to the personal attacks and hostile editing atmosphere on those articles. I don't care whether the notable controversies and criticisms are in a section of the article, or in some form that's linked so editors can find them, but our guidelines and article standards are clear about appropriate inclusion. This is the core of the dispute. These editors don't want any of the criticisms or controveries included in Wikipedia in any way that is readily apparent. And by the way, I happen to think some of the controversies are ridiculous, but when they're notable they should be included and made accessible in a way that's appropriate. I don't think this is a radical position, and our failure to fix the situation so far is inconsistent with our guidelines. This isn't about these frivolous claims against me, it's about an "I don't like it" approach to content and an ends justifies the means approach to obstructing and disrupting my efforts to improve the encyclopedia. And I haven't even gotten to the core of the fixes needed. One of their recent ANI reports was against my trying to include that Barney Frank has been an advocate for gay rights in that article's introduction. These aren't POV statements or even criticisms we're talking about, these are basic edits. They're clearly in the wrong so they've taken extraordinary measures to oppose, disrupt, attack, and frustrate my good faith efforts. That is what this is really about. Cheers. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You see, here's the trouble. Consider an admin who doesn't really know the details of the case. When they look into it, it's not remotely clear who is the good editor, and who is harassing whom. It might seem very clear to you, in the thick of it, but from someone else's perspective, you're the troll. Once both sides have called each other "troll", we might as well give up on writing, and just go roll around in the mud together. Splish splash.

No admin will "take on that gang" as long as you and they seem equally tendentious and equally disruptive. How can I tell that you're right and they're wrong? If you step back and take a long view of the situation, you'll realize that it looks quite symmetric from the outside. I certainly can't tell that they're a "gang" and you're an innocent. I see mud flying in all directions, and I associate good editors with a lack of mud.

I do hope that you'll consider my offer to mediate disputes with these people at the content level. If you trust me enough to do that, then your complaints at the behavior level will take care of themselves.

If you really can't find an admin to "take on that gang", there might be a good reason for that. Admins who play "policeman" tend to be terrible admins, and we tend to get rid of them. Wikipedia has no cops, and the best way to handle personal disputes is at the content level. Then you've got both feet planted firmly in the encyclopedia, and that's where your power flows from. This is just what I've noticed. Some people don't believe this... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

But I think you're missing the point that the whole purpose of the mudslinging is to muddy the water so nobody can see clearly. There's nothing I can do to stop these absurd ANI reports one after the other. That's the beauty of their strategy. It's making it difficult (and if I'm topic banned at Arbcom impossible) to deal with the content. And your turn the other cheek approach is nice and all, but if you let enough people go around saying enough bad things about you without responding, your reputation isn't going to be very good for long. I'd love to focus on the content. How do I do that? That's all I do when I'm not engaged in these ridiculous attacks on my character. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pick an article to start with, and point me to it. We'll work on it together. I'm not much longer for this evening, but I'll be around over the weekend, and I seldom get very far away. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus, although I do respect that you are trying to work with ChildofMidnight and that empathy is sometimes helpful, the notion that there is anything symmetric about this or that there is a "gang" that is "equally" anything to ChildofMidnight is seriously unfair. At a content level every editor is free to propose what they wish, but at some point consensus is consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I do respect that you are trying to work with ChildofMidnight, that empathy is sometimes helpful, and that some administrators see their role as being mediators. However, please keep in mind that by saying there is something "symmetric" about this or that there is a "gang" that is "equally" anything is implicitly endorsing an accusation, one that I consider grossly undeserved an unfair. At a content level every editor is free to propose what they wish, but at some point consensus is consensus. A single editor with a different viewpoint does not a real dispute make. Wikidemon (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as the "gang" language, I'll adress people in the language that I think will get the point to them most easily and quickly. I do not consider you to be part of a gang, but sometimes, I have to speak different languages to different people. I hope that's understandable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the single editor with the single viewpoint... please take me to your content dispute! Since you're right (see, I'm speaking your language now), show me. Show me the money! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you haven't made it clear that you're any less of a mudslinger, from what I've seen. Since you're confident that you're right, you should welcome my offering to take a look at the articles and get to the bottom of this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, don't assume that anyone in particular has my support or empathy, I view every single one of you as infinitely valuable expressions of the divine, and I also view every single one of you with extreme caution. If you try and guess what I'm up to, you've got a very high probability of being wrong. I surprise people. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's really sweet. Well, the issue is that as far as I can tell ChildofMidnight's main concern is the Obama articles, a matter squarely in Arbcom. Perhaps the Barney Frank one. That has me perplexed, and I may even agree with COM on the content there. Wasn't there some issue at Drudge Report too? Both of those are very bite-sized content issues.Wikidemon (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So you mean, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, and Drudge Report? If ArbCom's already looking at the president, why don't we have a look at one of those others? Barney Frank it is then. One advantage is that I've never heard of the guy, and I find it easy to be pretty neutral about topics that I don't give a shit about. Meet me at the talk page there? You too, Midnight! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

News about Barney Frank is not allowed in the state of Texas. Children might see it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I may have been born in Texas, and I may live here now, but I moved from Seattle, the gayest city in America. I think it might have passed San Francisco the year they couldn't decide whether to hold the pride parade in the traditional gay district or downtown.... so they did both. Before that, I lived in Portland, where you're not considered very cool if you aren't a lesbian. Good ol' west coast... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Truth to tell, if I hadn't caught him on The O'Reilly Factor, I would likely never have heard of the guy either. They both help each other in the publicity department, so my guess is they have the same agent. Here in the midwest we have our own colorful characters, like Rod Blagojevich, Richie Daley, Jesse Ventura, and Al Franken. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually... is this an active dispute, Wikidemon? I don't see CoM editing the article or talk page for over a week. If there's not an active dispute, except for the one in ArbCom... then what is all this about? I'm looking at the history of Drudge Report, and I see him editing constructively and collaboratively... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You lived in the gayest city in America and haven't heard of Barney Frank? I find that suspicious, GTBacchus, and am determined to get to the bottom of that once I have an infinite amount of time and am incredibly bored. You've been warned!

In all seriousness though, as far as I know the locus of the dispute really is Barack Obama articles (I'm not sure Wikidemon was even involved in whatever happened at Barney Frank, but I don't know the specifics of that). If you want to mediate GT, you might want to simply extend the offer indefinitely and ask folks to come to you the next time an intractable problem comes up on a Barack Obama-related article. I imagine that could be useful regardless of when ArbCom concludes their case or what exactly they decide. I've made some feeble efforts at it in the past, but in general there is a shortage of mediator-type help on Barack Obama and its various spinoffs. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were proposing to do a post mortem on the content issues raised during one of these disputes. I have no active content dispute with ChildofMidnight, and so far as I know COM is not currently edit warring anything. The issue is entirely behavioral. I have a big problem with the premise, though. When you say that I haven't made it clear that I am any less of a mudslinger, I don't have to. Why should I? As far as I know my body of work here has never been under any legitimate challenge. One cannot disprove a negative. There is nothing particular I want content-wise, nor do I have any desire for ChildofMidnight or anyone else to get sanctioned or go away. As long as the personal attacks, edit warring, etc., cease I am more than content. I thought about that, and under the circumstances if you (GTBacchus) want to broker anything, a behavioral truce would be most welcome. I would go further. If we could get all the parties to the Obama arbitration to stipulate by agreement: (1) that they do not ask the Arbitration Committee for sanctions against any editor, but rather guidance on how editing, talk, and article patrol will work on the Obama pages; (2) that they personally pledge to honor whatever ArbCom finally decides in that regard, (3) while awaiting ArbCom's ruling they will stick to 1RR, no complaints about other editors on talk pages and edit summaries, etc., and (4) we have an expedited simple system for making sure people honor their promises, then the Arbcom case would likely sail through much more efficiently and we might be able to get from here to there without any further blow-ups. Wikidemon (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I watched the Barney Frank thing going on but took no part in it, and had no particular content position, In some ways I was more convinced by ChildofMidnight's. Further, even where I do have a content position I have largely confined myself to 1RR for any given point, whether on the Obama articles or most anywhere, except in clear cases of vandalism and the like. So you will not find me edit warring or doing anything else, just laying out my position on the talk page like a good editor. What shocked me at Barney Frank were the sudden accusations of homophobia and bad faith editing. Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-- unindent) Yeah... I don't do anything I'd call a "Post mortem". I only deal with active disputes, and I only deal with behavioral issues in the context of content disputes. Otherwise, both my feet have left the ground, and I'm playing Cloak-and-Dagger instead of writing an encyclopedia.

The "truce" that you outline above seems reasonable — which group of editors in particular would you like to see this from? Everyone named in the ArbCom case, or... who?

The only point I hoped to make about the mud is this: it's not clear to me in this context that any particular party is "in the wrong". I don't accept the "the problem is editor X, and his or her attitude". As far as I'm concerned, one-editor-problems solve themselves. Any problem that reaches my attention involves at least two editors conducting a dispute inappropriately, at which point, I'm in no position to take a side. All I can do is wade into the underlying content dispute (there had better be an underlying content dispute...), and judge for myself who behaves in what manner.

All of that said... I don't specifically remember seeing you say anything out-of-line, so I apologize for painting in overly broad strokes, and including you in a description that doesn't apply. It is usually my experience that personal attacks and other unhelpful actions tend to go in both directions, but let me take an extra shot of AGF (actually your faith was never it doubt, I'm just not too knowledgeable about your behavior), and say, I'm sorry for unfairly characterizing you as a mudslinger.

I am interested in mediation - indeed, it's all I can really offer in the current situation, since I don't play "cop", and I'm happy enough to say that my offer is extended indefinitely. If there's an editor whom you think is a problem, and there's an article where they're causing trouble, please feel free to tug on my sleeve. It's possible I can help. Also, tell me more about this truce idea; it sounds cool. Talk to me about specifics. You know: who?, what?, when?, where? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Peanut gallery 2

As I recall, User:Soxwon, who also leans conservative, came to me a week or two ago and asked if the "gay activist" business should be in Barney Frank article. I asked him to find me citations, since I didn't enough about it to know the right answer. He's from that part of the country, so he new. And he found citations. So I said, yes, it belongs. That's called "collaboration". Certain users, such as ones who ask for a nomination for adminship and then can't decide whether to run, and who talk collaboration but don't walk it, could take a lesson from that approach. Although, admittedly, it's bland and boring, as all it does is improve article content. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bugs... you have a strange notion of what's helpful. If you're going to make oblique references to "certain users," I'd actually appreciate your fucking off again. I don't talk about people that way, and I don't appreciate seeing that kind of talk. Shoot straight here: 100% honest, 100% above board, 100% helpful. No little digs at people. If you can't do that, then I don't welcome your input. This talk page is a respect zone. I failed to respect you on this talk page yesterday, and I apologize for that. I was upset, and that's never a good time to post.

Now, can you handle a "no insult of any kind" policy here? I'll keep up my end, ok? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Userfy

GT, when you get a chance could you please userfy List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems in my userspace if it isn't too much trouble? Thanks mucho. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I agree that it's a awesomely hilarious article. What a long way to spell "durian," right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like Bigtimepeace beat me to it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, sorry to steal your thunder. I deal with all things durian-related here in case you didn't know, though ironically I still have not taken the time to figure out what in the hell a durian is. I like the mystery of it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I get similar kicks out of stub sorting. Sometimes, I've got no idea what an article's about, but I can tell it's happening in India. Thus: {{India-stub}}! -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nitey nite GT. In the a.m. can someone clue me in on where the article is? I'm not seeing it. Is it like a hidden userpage? Will I get a barnstar if I find it? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I answered on C of M's talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight/List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems Pretty good. Remind me not to buy that product on my next trip to Piggly Wiggly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Bugs, this was helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I should have looked there first. Mea culpa. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Off to bed

After I play Text Twist. This has been a busy day on Wikipedia, anything that happens at the end of it, I'll see tomorrow. Goodnight. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)