User talk:John Reid

ArbCom Elections

Yes, I'm running for an open seat at ArbCom. If you want to grill me, you're welcome to do so here. For more information, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006. Thank you.

Admin candidates please read this | All stakeholders in discussions please read this

If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk there, please reply there.

• Archives:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

There is a time to archive; and then there is a time to archive.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service. As Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway gave up their sysop and other rights under controversial circumstances, they must get them back through normal channels. Giano II may, if developers cooperate, be restored to access to the account Giano. He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance. Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, Thatcher131 14:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oi

Você lembra de mim. Já tenho estado aqui, e tenho escrito a verdade da Wikipédia e o que vc fez comigo, mas me dieram um bloqueio por meus comentários. Somente quero dizer que vou voltar muito logo. Vc não sabe o que vai acontecer aqui – eu planejo escrever piores coisas. Vc tem que sofrer pelo que fez comigo – eu preciso obter a vingança que eu almejo. Os wikipedistas são fascistas – e têm que sofrer. A Wikipédia é uma merda, somente há penetelhos como você que não sabem fazer nada, excepto me foder. Hoje é um novo dia, sabe? Cada vez que vc ouve o idioma português já sabe o que é. Parabéns, vc me zangou – e vou te punir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oi amigo, como vai? (talk • contribs)

Estava brincado, moleque

Babelfish: Portuguese to English

You remember me. Already I have been here, and I have written the truth of the Wikipédia and what vc made with me, but me they dieram a blockade for my commentaries. I only want to say that I go to come back very soon. Vc he does not know what he goes to happen here - I plan to write worse things. Vc he has that to suffer for that he made with me - I need to get the revenge that I long for. The wikipedistas are fascists - and have that to suffer. The Wikipédia is an excrement, only has penetelhos as you that they do not know to make nothing, excepto to foder me. Today it is a new day, knows? Each time that vc hear the Portuguese language already knows what it is. Congratulations, vc irritated me - and go to punish you. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oi friend, as goes? (talk? contribs).

He was played, moleque

I simply cannot figure out what this is about; It's been on my talk page for several days and I keep re-reading it, looking for a clue. Can anyone help? John Reid ° 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found this gem when rummaging through departed User:Xiong's stuff. I used it a few times and even fixed a small mistake. I agree it needs work but it's useful. Why was it deleted? I see you left a notice on talk but the link doesn't point to any discussion of this. John Reid 15:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was at a loss for a while as to what you thought this had to do with me, but I managed to find this.

Basically, notifying Xiong and voting to "userfy" the template was the extent of my involvement.

You will note that it was eventually userfied. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link; I've had a look at it. Doesn't seem as if this template started a war; I'm not sure why anybody wanted it gone. It's a useful tool, although I didn't understand the {{helpbox}} at first. That latter gadget is nonstandard; {{tnavbar-mini}} &c. are the standard tools for that function.

Can we bring this tool back to templatespace? Yes, I suppose we can always use it from userspace but that could be said for any template. There was very little discussion on the deletion. I'm not going to argue for undeletion on grounds of improper process but it does look as though the main reason this got deleted was that Xiong pissed people off, got pissed off, or both. I'd like to rewrite it to replace the objectionable "helpbox" with "tnavbar-foo", maybe clean it up a bit; but it will be substantially the same tool. Can we salvage this? John Reid 14:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your statement

I like your statement quite a bit. I'm not familiar with you though. I agree with you about adminship not being requisite. On the other hand, RFA is a place where people can leave comments, and I can look them up later (like now). And, since I don't know you, I'd be inclined to see what other people I respect have to say. You might consider going up for RFA for that reason, or providing a spot for endorsements (we used to have those, and they were useful), or telling a bit more about yourself. For example, have you been in any serious conflicts? What's the deal with those couple blocks (no big deal probably)? What do you do in real life? Are you a serial killer? etc. At any rate, you nailed the statement for me. Derex 09:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to answer your questions but you should post them here, so all can benefit. If it's all right, I'll move your questions there and answer. John Reid ° 09:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they weren't really meant so much as literal questions, but as illustrations of a point. I'd like to support you based on your statement. And I'm encouraging you to find some way to reassure people that you're just a normal bloke, without them having to wade through your edit history. Perhaps that will come in due course though as people familiar with you add questions. However, if you _want_ a question to respond to as a jumping off point, you're welcome to list those four as from me (without the lead-in about RFA). I'm particularly interested in the serial killer one ;) Derex 10:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that, thank you. John Reid ° 11:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, Chacor's rude. Given that he got desysoped as NSLE (virtually impossible), he's really in no position to be fulminating about not trusting someone for a simple block. Derex 11:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and stuck them up. Derex 11:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered; feel free to ask for clarification if necessary.

I agree that Chacor has been confrontational but I support his questions as strongly as possible. ArbCom has been granted a great deal of latitude -- perhaps too much. Prospective arbitrators should be raked over the coals, stripped naked, examined with a microscope, and subjected to a certain amount of gratuitous indignity, just to see how we react. I would not have thrown my hat in the ring if I did not welcome questions, including the most hostile -- which Chacor's are not. John Reid ° 11:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm convinced. I, too, have wondered about the profile. But the worst I ever mustered was smearing some poison ivy on a total jerkwad's desk, and that was 25 years back, in middle school. Would sometimes like the power to punch someone over tcp/ip though. Btw, plenty of candidates have been blocked, so it really is no big deal, unless it was a big deal, which it seems not to have been. Cheers & good luck, Derex 11:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I once killed a frog.

30 years ago and I still feel bad about it.

As I've said, I think it's healthy for editors to be blocked and mandatory for prospective admins -- b'crats, arbitrators, and anyone else given any kind of mop or broom. Blocking is not always for putting penises on George W. Bush and it certainly doesn't disrupt anybody's personal life who has a personal life. But it is a strong statement that at least one person thinks you're a dick. Nobody should be handing out those shoes who has never tried them on for size. John Reid ° 12:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures stuff

I noticed your response on the Help Desk to someone asking about signatures, and I noticed you now have a (rather unobtrusive) link in your signature to the questions for your candidacy for ArbCom. I've read your user essay on sigs, and I was wondering what your opinion is on this (basically I think that signature links, which by their nature will be spread around a lot, should be to suitably specific subpages, as yours is, not to the main front page of the topic in question). Also on the topic of signatures, did you see the debate that took place at the Administrator's noticeboard here (plus a continuation of that debate at the Village Pump)? I can remember offhand 2 people whose signatures have momentarily disorientated me before I realised who they were: dab, crz (these are examples of people consistently maintaining a shortened version of their full username, which is OK, if mildly disorientating on first viewing). I could remember lots more if I could be bothered. I couldn't agree more with your comments about how those who are fickle and change their "signame" every week or month at the whims of their latest mood or interest, are merely revealing their (lack of) maturity. Carcharoth 10:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought about that inconsistency. I think the ° is minimally intrusive and I certainly want the widest possible participation without stumping on Pump. Notice I link to the questions page, not to my statement of candidacy. Hey, at least it doesn't blink!

Inlinks feature ("What links here") is kinda broken. Check inlinks for a new policy proposal advertised on {{cent}}; it may not be linked directly from anywhere but the creator's talk page but it will show an inlink from every place Cent appears. I rarely check inlinks for proposals, for this reason. In any case, I can certainly implement a redirect, and shall.

I can't sign myself "John"; there are other Johns. The reason we all got surnames is to disambiguate ourselves from others with the same given name. I don't insist on it by any means but I see no reason why most editors can't register with first and last name, just as they do when they enter an office building and ask for a nametag; I can't think of a good reason to write much on that nametag other than first and last name. This is not group therapy; we don't need to be "Bob" and "Ted". This is, in some ways, a game of Nomic but it's also a serious, public project; we don't need to be W00t W00t W00t. I will not be astonished if some admin with a misleading sig is blocked for disruption; admins should conform to a higher standard of accountability. Nor will I shed a tear when it happens. On the other hand, I doubt that most sigs cross that line.

I do promise that my sig will always read, more or less, John Reid ° 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbComminee

It's 4 am local and I'm off to bed after a bite. Feel free to grill me but please don't expect an answer until I've had my beauty rest. Thank you for your support. John Reid ° 12:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, your candidacy was the last thing I expected to see. This will be interesting. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom plays a key part in our community; I don't oppose it in any way. It must be respected. However, I worry that, as Lord Acton said, absolute power corrupts absolutely. My platform is simple: I will not extend ArbCom's scope beyond issues of user conduct. I don't look forward with joy to ruling over our community at ArbCom and I won't do it. I will simply decide issues of user conduct per community policy. When my term expires, I will gratefully step down. John Reid ° 23:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of our templates are missing...

If this TfD resulted in keep, who (speedy?) deleted them... Addhoc 15:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me cutting in here, John. See WP:AN#Removing_warnings_templates. The admin who deleted them can be ascertained by clicking on the "logs" link at the TfD discussion. User:Thebainer in fact. Carcharoth 15:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking me. You'll see my comment in the proper place. Sorry; I did try to salvage them from the fire. John Reid ° 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You should add an email address to your account. A definite plus in the world of politics. --Alecmconroy 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always had an authenticated email address on my account. It's enabled; I just checked. Try again. I do entreat editors not to email me as a matter of routine; I believe all official business should be conducted, as much as possible, in the light of day. Any email to me will, however, be kept strictly confidential. John Reid ° 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh-- wrong person. Sorry bout that. Too many of you Johns running around here. --Alecmconroy 01:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know; I'm the only "John" running for ArbCom. Anyway, I can't get into my email now. You jinxed it! John Reid ° 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. Don't touch that button again, whichever one it was, ha ha. John Reid °

Pi-unrolled alteration

Hey John. I made a small change to your Pi-unrolled graphic, increasing the time delay on frame 34 so that the wheel pauses at the spot where the marker has reached pi. I think this change better emphasises that the wheel has completed one whole revolution, and the distance it has covered is equal to pi. However, I've never modified or uploaded an image file before so I wanted to check it by you, see whether you thought it improved the image, and help me with making the appropriate actions to upload the new version.

The new version is visible here. I'll watch this page for your response. Thanks. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 06:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should know I'm the wrong one to talk to about that. I sweated blood over that graphic through more revisions than I care to count, two workshops, and two FP nominations. I'm afraid I'm way too close to my baby to spare a good word for any tinkering with it. Sorry. I'm only human.

If you think yours is an improvement, upload it. Let our community decide if it's superior. John Reid ° 11:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's a joke somewhere there about sticky pie... :-) Carcharoth 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, not on the keyboard. John Reid ° 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policycrufter

Do you have time to respond here? Thanks. Carcharoth 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar thanks

Thank you for an unexpected smile. More of the same on your questions page, or at least I tried. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections: Your questions and candidacy

Firstly, congratulations on your decision to run for ArbCom. I wish you the best of luck in your campaign, not that you'll need it of course.

Secondly, I've answered your candidate questions and hope the answers satisfy. While this suggestion may sound disingenuous, have you considered posting your questions and your own answers to them on your candidate questions page?

Best wishes, ~Kylu (u|t) 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. You are welcome to copy my standard questions back onto my own Questions page but I don't think it's appropriate for me to do so; that would simply be giving myself an additional opportunity to soapbox. I didn't ask anything I wouldn't be happy to answer. John Reid ° 07:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedster (comics)

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but it looks we might have an edit war at speedster (comics) between myself and Ace Class Shadow. If you could chime in with your opinion on that article’s talk page, so that we can achieve some sort of consensus, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating. I apologize if you feel I was uncivil. Can you tell me where I acted in this manner? Thanks. Nightscream 20:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not; sorry. No need to apologize to me; you weren't uncivil to me. I won't get into he-said-she-said unless it's absolutely necessary. That rarely does any good.

You might be interested in my personal opinions on civility in general. To me, this means not being a dick. There are so many ways to be a dick. The characteristic feature of dickness is to look to see where somebody has drawn a line defining a dick-move and then do something dickheaded that is just this side of the line. Therefore, drawing dickness lines is itself something of a dick-move.

You are uncivil when you piss somebody off. I want you to take a look at User:John Reid/Review. Here I preserve a couple of comments made on my talk a little while back. Certainly the poster is angry with me; I certainly feel he went overboard. But I keep that bit around to remind me that at some time, in some place, I did something wrong. I pissed him off.

You do not get to be civil all the time. I interpret policy to mean not Don't ever be uncivil but Don't be unnecessarily uncivil. Avoid incivility; try hard not to piss people off. But you cannot avoid it entirely. People are going to be upset with you your whole life.

Avoiding four-letter words is not enough by a long shot. I abhor cold, nasty machine discussions where parties slug it out in brutal, formal circumlocutions. I'm a very good writer; if I work at it, I can tell you to go fuck yourself so indirectly you will never be able to cry foul. But I've still been a dick. If somebody's angry with me, I'd much rather he simply called me a dick than forced me to slog through a page of wordsmog to find out what he thinks.

Hasty reverts are uncivil; reverts with snippy or misleading edit sums are uncivil; reverts without comments on talk are almost always uncivil. In general, if you do anything in the certain knowledge that you will piss somebody off, it's rude.

I will tell you a very powerful tool to employ when trying to avoid being rude. Put yourself in the other fellow's shoes. It takes real practice to be able to do this sincerely. Try to take his side of the argument, concede he has a point, and try to argue it for him. Do the very best you can. I've pissed people off when I've done this but, I'm sure, a lot less than if I'd not.

Never underestimate the power of the bread-and-butter words. "Please", "Thanks", and "Sorry" are not mere noises. If you mean them sincerely and back them up with your actions, they are virtual flower-waving armies.

Ask yourself: Am I trying to win the argument or am I trying to get along? Because I find that unless I can bring the other party to my side, I'm probably spinning my wheels. The only way I can get him to see my side is to show him that I see his. This still does not always work but nothing else ever does.

You can never win an intellectual battle against an unarmed opponent. Don't even try.

There is a whole other question about when incivility rises to the level of a sanctionable offense. Since I'm in no position to hand out sanctions, this is not for me to say. Since I'm running for a position from which I, along with my fellow arbitrators, will be handing out sanctions, you may want to inquire into my values. But if so, you need to put this in the form of a question and grill me on it here. Thank you. John Reid ° 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child protection stuff

I know you are involved in peanut gallery at the ArbCom case on child protection (opposing the ArbCom getting involved, I think), and I was wondering what the best way would be to raise the following case I came across. It involves issues of censorship and appropriateness when minors are involved. Of course, the self-identifying thing makes it all very complicated. I was wondering if you had any views on it. See here and here for details. I know it is not really to do with personally identifiable information, but would it help to raise it somewhere at the Arb case? I'm not sure where would be appropriate. Carcharoth 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a nice little IED for you. I think the very first thing to understand about it is that it most probably is an IED -- a trollish post designed to blow up in people's faces and make a POINT. The poster does appear to be a blatant sock, up and heading like a moth to the flames toward controversy.

To sum up -- at the risk of indelicacy -- an editor asked how he might persuade his girlfriend to "have anal sex" with him. He stated there that his girlfriend is 17. He did not specify pegging so it seems likely that his stated intention is to sodomize a minor. You claim that one of the editors answering in the thread states elsewhere that he is 12. Correct?

You aren't asking me this on /Q4ArbCominnee so I suppose I can't simply duck this. The easy, ArbComminee answer is It's not a user conduct issue since no community policy has been shown to be violated so it's not an ArbCom issue The End. And if you see me on ArbCom, that's exactly what you'll get. Here on my talk, I suspect you want something more.

What exactly is your concern? Good taste? Public image of WP? Legal issues? The Devil? AIDS? This kind of question touches on so many hot-button issues, it's hard to know where to point the fire hose.

If you want my personal opinion, no child should be allowed to use a screen connected to the net except under adult supervision -- direct and constant until responsibility is demonstrated, regular and irregular thereafter, with the occasional sneaky look. The nerdy kid doing something in his room on that computer is a cliché -- and not mere urban myth. The Net is the World. Giving a child a net connection and turning your back is like handing him a black mask, a Platinum Visa, and keys to your Porsche. As soon as he's out of your sight, he's on the town. First stop: the party store, grab some brews. Next: Pick up some of his buddies. Then drag racing down Main Street, blowing pot smoke in the beat cop's face, buy some hookers; then onto darker pleasures. Five days later you get a call from a Tijuana jail. You're thinking your boy is drunk and will quite likely need stitches from the Two Horses bottle that caught him across the bridge of his nose; possibly a shot of penicillin for Maria's parting gift. Instead, El Capitan tells you he's been arrested for smuggling heroin -- at a nice profit.

Anybody reading this, got confused along the way: Do not under any circumstances allow your child unrestricted access to a net-enabled computer. This is not official WP policy; this is my personal opinion and good common sense.

WP:NOT censored for minors. That is policy. This is an adult zone. I see a contradiction between opening an adult area, like a tavern, and leaving the door wide open. I see this in meatspace; there's a bar near my bank that props the door open all day long. They start drinking in there when the sun comes up and surely aren't done when it goes down. There's any number of businesses in the same strip mall and plenty of kids, big and little, wandering back and forth in front of that door. Sometimes I imagine the bartender lurking in the gloom, just waiting until one gets tall enough to reach a couple dollars over the bar. I'm sure it's all in my mind.

Trouble is, something has to give. Either we allow kids into a designated adult zone or we have to start asking for IDs at the door. Or we let anybody in and turn up the lights, turn off the loud music, lock up the booze, and stop talking about anal sex in front of the kids.

So far, this community has chosen the first route: Designate WP as an adult zone, leave the door wide open, and refuse to check IDs. We even welcome minor editors and minor readers. It's a moot point whether an editor self-identifies as a minor. I don't need to see a specific example to know that there are children running around loose in here; I don't need a child to say he's a child -- it's blatantly obvious in so many cases.

If I were King Jimbo, I would probably fork the project a long time ago. Put up a sanitized project, let anybody edit it, have some actual rules and hire some nannies to enforce them. Close the door on the other project, admit nobody under the age of 18 (28 to edit?), check IDs on registration. No need to check IDs to read, but make readers hit an I'm 18 button to proceed. This works for porno sites, it can work for us.

But I'm not Jimbo, there is no community sentiment to fork yet, and I can only go back to where we started: WP NOT censored and no policy on minors. We will probably muddle along like this until the cops bust in, find some old guy with his willy in a teenager's butt, and haul us all away. What can I do about it? John Reid ° 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stunned. That perfectly encapsulates what I've been feeling about this situation, but been unable to put into words (at least not without a great deal of thought). I'll try and respond in more detail, but just wanted to record this first impression. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I point people to this discussion, in particular from the discussion I have initiated here? Carcharoth 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course you can cite anything I write anywhere -- or copy it if you like. Don't claim me as a reliable source, though. :) It does go a little against my grain to present a substantive argument on this or any RfArb. I would like ArbCom to close its ears entirely to the merits of the underlying issue; it has nothing directly to do with user conduct. Community policy on minors is for our community to decide.

I agree that our community is not moving on this and that, as a community, we have been standing in the middle of the road chewing on our thumbs for far too long. It is extremely tempting to provoke ArbCom into doing for us what we seem unable to do for ourselves. I believe deeply that we need to develop our own legs and not make ArbCom into our nanny, to put us in the stroller and push.

Let me say I think all solutions that rely on children not telling they are children are foolish, a waste of time. First of all, I know they're kids, whether they say it or not. (I deal with kids in my professional life; I know what it is to try to debate a child and I'd really rather not have to do so here.) Next, if we try to defend any action on the basis of "we didn't know" then we will find ourselves in this position.

If you think our community is unable to act and the crisis has arrived, well, our proper organ for this kind of difficulty is Board Legal department. I have no idea why he's sitting this one out. I feel it shows an unlaudable timidity. After all, we can only resolve this crisis by taking one or more actions that we have absolutely sworn never to attempt:

Require registration, age verification; "close the door" somewhat, at least to the point of a fig leaf

Sanitize and censor the corpus, again at least to the point of a fig leaf

Fork community, corpus, and project and take both actions, one on each

Obviously, each of these requires a titanic effort beyond mustering the political determination to require it. Closing the door is the easiest -- but what do we do about the kids already inside? How do we shove them out again? To censor is to open the gates of the Bastille; the deletionist rampage. I think forking is the only way to keep either prior action under sane control -- and that, ha ha, means we have to invite both Inquisitions, one on content there and one on community membership here.

I'm a smart fellow but I don't see any way out of this. Status quo will lead inevitably to lawsuit and/or criminal charges -- they may be wholly unjustified but nobody wins in court. A successful defense will still bankrupt us. Or we may be crushed under an effective "kiddie porno/stalker ring" smear campaign.

Of course, if you can do anything to get our community really thinking about this issue, go ahead. John Reid ° 09:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agreee with all this. Wow. There is another grownup editing Wikipedia... :p and yes sooner or later we will get some bad publicity around this. WP:PAW is an slightly related attempt to help stave this off, albeit dealing with article space only. Herostratus 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice effort. The problem is much bigger than this but at least you're starting somewhere. John Reid ° 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billion cubes

File:Billion-cubes.png

You say Image:Billion-cubes.svg is "in no way inferior" to Image:Billion-cubes.png; I disagree. I say it is a shoddy imitation. Look closely at the two. I chose the extra-bold font with care, to label the large cubes. The lightweight font doesn't cut it over such busy backgrounds. Also, all the stroke widths are messed up. I don't doubt that a better SVG could be made; but it hasn't. I don't understand your comment about scaling; of course the PNG can be scaled down. The full-size original file is quite big; there is no occasion to scale up. John Reid ° 01:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to politely refer you to Commons:Images for cleanup, which should obviate the need for further discussion.

Should you have any further issues about the quality of the vector image, remember that, while raster images are essentially read only, vector images can be edited fairly easily. You can accomplish this either by hand, using a text editor, or with a vector editing tool, like for instance Inkscape.

In trust that I have provided you with all necessary resources,

Faithfully yours,

Shinobu 02:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; my concerns do not extend to Commons, only to en:Wikipedia. You need to point me to some page in our policy that demands SVG. I'm sure there's none.

Obviously, raster images can be edited with a wide variety of tools. So can vector graphics. I have tools that manage both with ease, in a variety of formats. SVG may be the local boy but it is not popular and most commercial tools don't support it. Yes, you can go into a text editor but you can also do that with PostScript.

I'm not here to argue the technical merits of one format vs another anyway. This particular SVG imitation is inferior in quality, period. John Reid ° 19:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billion-cubes new.svg

I fixed the Billion-cubes.svg and tried to explain how SVG is preferable for this particular image and many others (though of course not all), as well as is much better known and supported than you seem to assume. Trapolator 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new version is acceptable. Why don't you replace the shoddy one at Billion? Then I won't have anything to complain about. Thank you. John Reid ° 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a request at Commons to move the new version over the old - I could not do this myself since my account there was only created today. When they do this it will be updated on Wikipedia automatically. Meanwhile, I'd suggest that you edit away the "shoddy SVG imitation" bit on your "brag" page as no longer relevant :) Trapolator 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Conradi

Re: User_talk:MichaelJLowe/Archive_1#Tobias_Conradi, you might like to comment on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tobias_Conradi_again. (MichaelJLowe 13:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Was this what you meant to do?

I keep reading this edit along with the edit summary, and I'm not sure you did what you were trying to do. Ignore this if I'm mistaken. Nandesuka 01:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not what I intended. Let me look over history and see what happened. John Reid ° 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see. He failed to indent when replying, copied a part of my comment and indented that. I got confused, thought he'd truncated my comment and restored it intact. *Sigh.* We really do make it difficult when we don't follow community norms. John Reid ° 01:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circlestrafing

If you have some free time, the below circlestrafing image is crying out for movement. -- Jreferee 05:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the animation is obvious. You know, I'm sure, that this made FP. I'm not entirely sure if I should try to supplant it. Let me think about it, maybe some talk. John Reid ° 07:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this: Image:Circlestrafing animation.gif. John Reid ° 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats

I think I covered most things when tidying up that WP:DIE thing. The number of locations and threads to pick up and deal with is horrendous though. Would you be able to take a look at my contribs over the last hour from this timestamp and see if it was all OK? Thanks. Carcharoth 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why not? I don't guarantee an accurate check, though. John Reid ° 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. What do you mean by horrendous? Check back through my contribs for the work I did fixing Ruler and compass to Compass and straightedge. A hundred pages, links, pipelinks, unlinked text, a workpage, and a straw poll with a table of citations. We came this close to holding a straw poll on which citations would be acceptable on talk. Ha ha. But it all ended civilly so I'm content.

You've done well. John Reid ° 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got distracted by the pretty animations showing how to construct hexagons and pentagons... Your talk of redirects reminds me of the time I realised that half the links to Ptolemy should be pointing at Ptolemy I Soter. And then I made the mistake of checking 'what links here' for Ptolemaic (yes, lots of them were pointing the wrong way). That led, eventually, to Ptolemy (name), which evolved from Ptolemy (disambiguation). Actually, I should check in on all that! Carcharoth 02:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a new one! Looking at this reveled Ptolemaic Decrees. Carcharoth 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab's a beech. John Reid ° 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said you didn't make jokes? :-) Carcharoth 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste splits

While I'm still wandering down memory lane, how about the eye-catching and hectoring tags I put at Talk:History of Greek and Roman Egypt, Talk:Ptolemaic_Egypt, and Talk:Aegyptus (Roman province)? I still wonder how often that sort of thing goes on (cutting and pasting without attribution). Carcharoth 02:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't really like to tag work to be done; I prefer to do it. If you have an interest in this sort of work, you should run for admin.

It's not obvious how to split an article without cutting and pasting. The only way I can see to do it is to move the page -- possibly several times -- to new names, then go back and revert the resulting redirects to the previous content-filled state. Finally, delete all the stuff that doesn't belong in any given split. Now that the damage is done, though, see How to fix cut and paste moves.

As usual, doing anything tricky requires forethought and, perhaps, some knowhow and maturity. These are sadly lacking in our community and I don't know how to supply them. John Reid ° 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

navigation bar template

I saw your note at Template talk:Navigation bar about that page crashing your browser. Can you let me know which browser? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla 1.2.1 on Mac OS 9.2.2. For the time being, will you simply move whatever test thing you have on that page to /Test1 and let me read the discussion? Thank you for asking. John Reid ° 19:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try again? I removed an inline of template:LargeCategoryTOC. If this is the issue, you probably can't see Category:Living people either. Please let me know if this really is the problem. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a ping (looks like this thread might have gotten buried). -- Rick Block (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Living people loads okay. Template talk:Navigation bar simply never loads and displays. I don't actually crash out or lock up; I just cycle through the wristwatch and pointer with a gray screen. No good, sorry. John Reid ° 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've yanked all the inline examples to a subpage. Since you can see Category:Living people I strongly suspect it's not any of the horizontal scrolling examples, but one of the alternatives someone suggested. Please let me know if you're still having problems viewing the talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page now loads for me; thanks. The thing itself wasn't the problem; I loaded the demo on Pump. It was the mutant snakes on talk. John Reid ° 05:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Builder Award

I m oved your addition to the PUA page Wikipedia:Personal_user_awards/Actual_Users#The Builder Award. If you want to place it where you did, you're first supposed to vet it on the proposal page. --evrik ^(talk) 23:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to edit Other awards to reflect your Wikiproject policy, then. John Reid ° 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of related to the above

See [this]. I thought that WP:HATNOTE was quite helpful, and referred to it in several discussions. It may even have been a guideline at some point (having checked, it wasn't, at least not for more than a few hours). I went away for a few months (to different areas of Wikipedia), and come back to find it marked "historical". How would I revive it? I've looked through Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, and I can't find anything there about hatnotes. Carcharoth 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it {{proposed}}, comment on talk, perhaps notice it on Pump. That's how you "revive interest". The only reason to tag something "historical" that's not really, really dead is to try to kill it. Show you care, that's all you can do. John Reid ° 01:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New question

I added another question yesterday to your candidate's page. Maybe you're still thinking about it, but I didn't want it to just get lost given the layout and size of the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get on it. John Reid ° 17:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many questions to keep track any more. You should probably check the History occasionally to see if there's anything else buried in there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do -- constantly. The page is getting way too big. John Reid ° 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your answer. Lots of food for thought there. Two quick points: one, I believe that User:Taxman did recently write somewhere, as I recall, that the decision made it more clear that consensus should be determined on a more numerical basis (though I can't find the diff anywhere), if that sets your mind a little more at rest. Second, I was once a "lawyer in training" but now I'm an actual practicing litigation attorney - and I'll try not to focus on your comments about my profession at voting time. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the diff; it's a small step in the right direction. Sorry for the factual error; you don't make it real clear on your user page. Read my comments on lawyers carefully. All lawyers are not sleazy weevils; only your lawyers. I once needed a lawyer and I went out and hired the most ruthless bastard I knew -- he'd actually represented somebody against me in a minor, unrelated matter. I admired his underhanded, get-r-done, burn-nuke-and-pave approach and made sure to get his card when it was all over. We won, too.

Lawyers are partisans and in the US adversarial justice system, essential. I just think lawyers, trained to be partial, should not attempt impartial office. That's all. John Reid ° 04:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... so where would we recruit judges from? I'll try to track down that diff when I have a little more time. Newyorkbrad 04:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've answered your question in deed: I'm running for ArbCom. I have a lot of broad experience, plenty of common sense, some training in logic, good language skills, enough deep expertise in two or three fields to appreciate the depth of human thought, a track record of sane commentary, demonstrated interest in making the job smaller (not larger), a reasonably think skin but not so much I can't hear anybody else for it, general good humor, and IANAL.

The legal profession's usual argument for lawyers on the bench is that only an experienced lawyer can really understand legal arguments. I say that if a lawyer is making an argument that only another lawyer can understand, I really hope the judge ignores him. Sorry. Law must not be too complex to be obeyed. John Reid ° 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit on an important real-world issue, and I agree with you that many areas of law have hypertrophied in their level of detail. I find myself quite frustrated when it takes hours to explain what the law is in a given area and why, and I find that it is often quite useful to go back and figure out what the policy is in a given area and how the law evolved to a certain area and why, before trying to unravel some overcomplex set of rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions and so forth.

For the Wikipedia ArbCom, I don't think it matters much whether a lot of the members are lawyers or not. In the real world, most systems based on having non-lawyers as judges do not work very well (see e.g. recent series in the New York Times on upstate New York town and village justices). Newyorkbrad 13:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those failures are not due strictly to laymen on the bench; they are due to judges who don't understand their own laws. In some cases, you might blame overly complex laws; in others, under-educated judges. I still don't think law school is a good education in law. The entire process is bent toward creating lawyers, not judges. The effort is sprayed over with a law-school gloss of impartiality. I always say that the more air freshener I smell in the room, the more likely I am to find a dead body behind the sofa.

Try to remember that law school professors, by and large, are not the lawyers driving BMWs to the country club. I hate to say that most teachers are failures in business but they certainly are not in business; therefore they entertain all kinds of ideals. Thus, you do get some roughly balanced treatment of law in school. Maybe if graduates went directly to the bench, or better, by way of 10 or 20 years in engineering, it wouldn't be so bad. Or maybe we should have two distinct schools: lawyer schools and judge schools. Put them on opposite sides of town, let the students fight in the bars on weekends.

But in reality, kids go from law school to law office. Some fritter away a few years in idealism but pretty soon everyone ends up in the same place: A room full of books with the doors and windows tightly shut, plotting how to kill the other guy or at least keep my guy from getting killed. All considerations are secondary to keeping the client out of jail and solvent. Successful lawyers are rewarded most handsomely; idealists are shoved into cubicles made of particleboard underneath the L. The only thing that keeps the idealists alive is a burning dedication to their clients and pretty soon they're rooting around in the dirt for anything to support their cases, too.

Now you take somebody like this -- 10, 20, 30 years of professionally taking sides and using every possible tool to do it. You put him on the bench. He has an ingrained bias toward monkeybusiness. The good side is that he knows monkeybusiness when he sees it; the bad side is that he doesn't really see it as monkeybusiness.

No, no, sorry. Perhaps anybody who practices as a lawyer for any length of time should be barred from any other profession. All professions are bound by rules and lawyers are trained and experienced at finding or poking holes in rules. So a lawyer who goes into any other line of work -- cosmetology, accounting -- is pretty much out of society's control. For that matter, lawyers are pretty good at evading rules governing attorney conduct. Maybe that's why the public has such a deep distrust -- it's been earned. More than one bad apple has tainted the barrel.

I'd much rather go the other way and risk tainting the public; require the equivalent of about two terms of law school, preferably in high school. That's enough for the general public to get some idea of the difference between habeas corpus and hamburger but not enough to buy into the mindset. Law is too important to leave up to lawyers.

Law affects everyone; you cannot so much as break wind in the privacy of your own home without risk of tort or misdemeanor. The denser and more populated the society, the more issues of money, property, and prestige; thus the more need for rules of all kinds -- mostly formal rules. A man or woman in the 21st Century -- almost anywhere in the world -- stands amid a virtual law library, stacks of paper piled to the roof, stretching in every direction through hall after hall, out of sight. No clever law-school hypothetical or statement of basic common law can do away with the reality that if you want to walk your dog on the second Sunday in November in Ypsilanti, you need to apply for a permit at City Hall and display the appropriate receipt upon demand. Heaven forbid you might actually want to build a tire factory. In a way, it's easier for the tire magnate than the dog owner; he can afford to hire a battalion of lawyers, clerks, and lobbyists to bend, break, or amend the law to suit his purpose. She just gets a ticket and when she goes to court, the judge says, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse. $200. Next!"

So legal education -- like most education -- is important for any citizen. It's obviously important for the bench. Judges who surf in on popularism will make the most elementary mistakes. Worse, those who are elected on partisan platforms will advance their agendas with the gavel. But then, we have that problem anyway, don't we? Every member of the sitting US Supreme Court is a trained, experienced lawyer. And look at the mess it's made of things. It's done well at times -- very well, breaking all kinds of idiot deadlocks in Congress. Other times, it has really screwed up. My favorite example is school bussing. Noble effort, a real need addressed. Didn't work. We still have ghettos, the schools suck worse than ever, and the people in them still largely have similar skin tones. Really annoyed a lot of people meanwhile. If we now had cities of coffee-colored people living in harmony, with nice schools full of coffee-colored kids, all the pain would be worth it. But we don't. As Bulworth said, there's only one final solution to the "race" problem: everybody's got to fuck everybody else, so we'll all be the same color. The Supreme Court can't fix this.

Laymen have two advantages over lawyers on the bench. First, we don't really believe in all that monkeybusiness so we don't encourage it. Second, we don't think law is any bigger than it is; so we don't look for it to solve problems it can't. I agree that lay judges need to have more education than most do, in order to think their way through more than a paper bag. But then, almost everyone, in almost every walk of life, could stand to be better trained and educated. Better-trained bus drivers wouldn't run over so many dogs. Better-trained police wouldn't shoot so many toy-waving kids. Better-educated teachers wouldn't keep stuffing old canards into new bottles. Better-educated people -- no matter their jobs -- wouldn't buy so many gigantic, oil-burning land yachts and drive them to protests against wars to steal more oil.

You can certainly oppose me for ArbCom if you think we need more lawyers there. But before you make your final decision, I'd ask you to wait a week. I'll unseal the envelope then and you can decide if I'm able to reason closely enough to sit fairly. Okay? John Reid ° 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. We can discuss the philosophical issues regarding the future of law and society over a beverage one night someday. As for the shorter-term issue of the ArbCom election, I already said above that "for the Wikipedia ArbCom, I don't think it matters much whether a lot of the members are lawyers or not." At the moment, the two most productive arbitrators (not that I agree with everything they write) are one retired lawyer and one undergraduate history major. And in any event, whether you take this as a compliment or an insult, you're as sharp on some of the fine points as any lawyer I know. Newyorkbrad 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, I'll take it as both. Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy as the other candidates fumble with my little puzzle. John Reid ° 23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hypothetical"

Firstly, thanks for putting so much effort into making questions for the candidates. Secondly, with the situation, do you want us to simply summarise what we think should happen in a prose sense, or actually create the specific "Findings of Fact" and "Proposed Decisions" etc. following the format of a real ArbCom case? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see my first round of questions? You see how candidates answered them? No agreement at all on how to respond. It may be this way, this time around, too. Sorry. I know you want a leetle teeny peek but the envelope stays sealed for a week. John Reid ° 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you won't mind, either way? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very clever, Daniel, but no peeky. Sorry; truly I am. John Reid ° 15:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, you have to look for an answer that will satisfy the voting population as a whole - not just this guy - it doesn't matter so much what he wants. :) Good luck. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, you do know that it takes all of 5 seconds to find the encrypted page, right? I don't know what BinHex 4.0 is, but the Wikipedia article says it was released in 1985. Does this mean that anyone can read your encrypted answers?

This has also got me thinking about how people can, at the moment, copy from each other's answers. I know if I was running, I wouldn't be able to resist delaying some of my answers to people's questions, and then nicking the best ideas from other answers, and improving and rewriting them. Your method doesn't even do that, as the rest of the candidates can still read each other's answers. I'm tempted to maintain a page that lists the order in which people answered questions, so people can see where someone was the first to answer a question, and whether subsequent answer were strangely similar... Carcharoth 01:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are at least two ways to track it down. Can you guess what they are and which method I used first? Is this the real test? :-) Carcharoth 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho, well, you make some interesting points. Perhaps some members of our community may see it as a virtue to delay one's own opinion until everyone else has had a chance to speak. But I have arranged this puzzle so that I alone am first and last. No peeky. John Reid ° 05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username disambiguation and hatnotes

Hi John. Sorry I haven't had time to look at the WW page yet. Would you have time to look at the following discussions? Carcharoth 13:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall but you lead me to think in terms of a short interview with Mr. Coffee. John Reid ° 15:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmp. Here; {{thisuser}} is the result of your first comment and my dependent cogitation. I can't comment intelligently in that other thread on Pump.

To you, I say check out {{copy}} for the next time you copy a thread out of archives -- or for that matter, from anywhere to anywhere. I find it works best with its sidekick, {{copyend}}. If I don't know exactly where a copied portion of a thread begins and ends, I'd rather not know at all. Too confusing.

As for HAT "inactive", I think this tagging-to-kill is a general problem. It's not this one proposal or even this one editor, although he's a frequent offender. It reflects a basic misunderstanding of the way policy develops, in most cases, and a cynical manipulation of that method, in others. Either way, it's wrong and makes more work for all of us.

Next time you see a proposal tagged down for no good reason, just tag it up again. Don't tag war but take your shot -- and discuss on talk. There, now it's active. John Reid ° 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN and WP:WHEEL

You are currently engaging in the most textbook case of talk page WP:OWN violation I've ever seen on the WP:WHEEL talk page. Your use of the term "meddling"[15] to refer to the good faith improvements of others was particularly incivil. Please stop. --tjstrf talk 04:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your comment is basically BS -- unless, of course, you want to back it up. I made specific comments to the substantive issue; the little tractor just chugs away. You tell me what to do to get him to shut it off and start talking. John Reid ° 07:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source grading

Hi John. I've removed the tags you added to compass rose, Wolfenstein 3D and Miles Davies. Please get your proposed policy approved before adding confusing red categories to articles with no ensuing explanation. Proto::type 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's Miles Davis. There is no way at all to get consensus on such a thing without actually doing it and seeing how it goes. Why don't you put those back and see? There are a million articles on WP and all have sources that need to be reviewed in some way; disaster wil not result because we grade 3 or 30 of them.

If you disagree with the actual grades I've given those sources, please feel free to revise them.

Or would you rather I simply removed all the citations that do not meet our highest standards -- and all the text upon which they depend? John Reid ° 11:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, you once said to me, "I'm sorry, Steve, but I think it's very poor form to start using something without discussing it first." Steve block Talk 12:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the proportions, Steve. I'm pretty sure I said that in respect of a bar over which new Portals would have to pass. It was restrictive in nature and applied to a relatively small group; even one experimental application would have a large, immediate effect. Source grading applies to a vast group and restricts nothing at all. One thing would interfere with an ongoing process -- possibly to improve it but who knows? The other doesn't actually do anything directly. Any effect it can have is secondary. It will take years for there to be any significant number of source grades. The current procedure for "grading" sources is pass-fail. You see a citation you don't like, you rm it. Instant edit war, quite often. This is a gentler approach.

If you want to run an approval process for Portals, go ahead. Keep it voluntary. Just start it up and run it. Go tag various Portals approved by the Portal vetting project. If your process is good, then approved Portals will keep your tag up top and compete to earn it. At some point, perhaps, it will become a de facto requirement -- no need to force anybody. I only ever objected because you wanted to make it a hardline requirement right from go -- without any real consensus behind it.

Nobody is required to grade sources, sources are not required to bear grades, nobody is encouraged to take action based on source grades (except, implicitly, to improve quality when possible). In particular, it should be well understood that B and C grades are acceptable -- if the citation is below our minimum standard, it should be removed entirely. For that matter, no grade is binding; you don't need anybody's permission to alter it and you don't even need to discuss it first. Like any edit, if somebody reverts your change, then yes, you need to discuss it -- but the same can be said of anything.

I'm tired, Steve. I've been wrapping Xmas presents all night and I have more yet to do. I'm tired of coming to my talk page for more hostile comments -- not that yours is the worst tonight but it's not supportive, either. I'm sorry you and I don't always agree on everything but I wish you'd make a bit more of an effort to work with me. I think we work very well together -- when we make the effort. John Reid ° 13:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my message came across as hostile. It was more 'I think this is a really bad idea, which you haven't thought through'. Therefore, I think this is a really bad idea, which you haven't thought through. It will create a lot more problems than it solves, in my opinion. Note, of course, that it's my opinion, and not The Law. At the same time, would it kill you to get some feedback before embarking upon such a potentially disruptive scheme? I don't think I'm alone in guessing the feedback would be 'aargh, don't do it'. Proto::type 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I realised as soon as I posted that it was Davis, not DaviEs ... but it enabled me to make a good redirect :) Proto::type 14:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you see above where I said I'm tired? I am. I'm really tired of saying the same things over and over. You may feel you have good points but I've answered -- in detail -- every objection, some of them three and four times. Please read my answers and make new comments based upon them. Okay? It's not so much to ask. John Reid ° 14:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict> John, I apologise for being crabby. I have more points to make, but they can keep. If you celebrate Thanksgiving, have a good one, I never quite pegged where you were from. Finish your wrapping. Steve block Talk 14:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've made no secret of it; I live in Silicon Valley. You may have seen me around at various meetup/techie gatherings, though I don't go to many. Happy turkey to you, too.

I'm sure you have plenty of points to make but I wish you'd make them in the appropriate place. Unless you think I'm unaware of an issue, or you want to raise a new issue with me, or (not that you'd ever do such a thing), just call me a dick, I think my user talk is a poor place to discuss matters of broad interest. When I said I'm tired, a large part of that comes from answering objections in projectspace talk, only to have the very same points brought up again here. I don't see who benefits. Okay? John Reid ° 08:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You won't see me about mate, I'm on the other side of the pond and my life precludes me going anywhere but work. Look, if it is all the same to you I'll probably drop out of the debate. You know how I feel, and I feel it for the same reasons you made at that mfd all those moons ago. I think what you said then stands now, especially that "We do not wish to see new proposals shoehorned into the project under the guise of let's-try-this." But we can run round the mill on this day and night and never get to a satisfactory conclusion, and I'm getting to a point where I'm tired of all this too. I'd rather just agree to disagree and move on. Take it easy, and good luck with it. Steve block Talk 13:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas

Just a request to visitors -- today. Today, tonight, I'm not sure what day it is anymore.

I'm wrapping Xmas gifts today; that's right, I get it done early. In fact, I've been trying to complete this little project for the last several weeks. Finally, all the gifts are purchased and all that remains is to wrap them up. This brings back horrible memories of a miserable childhood spent sticking way too much tape on paper that seems to tear of its own accord, trying desperately for a package done neatly enough to solicit some shred of praise from my perfectionist family. It takes me roughly six times as long to wrap a gift as it takes you -- and I still feel uncomfortable with the result. For years, I practiced a kind of Xmas gift wrap seppuku origami in which I spent hours folding paper and tying ribbon so as to make a perfectly neat package without the use of the slightest bit of sticky tape -- and of course, perish the idea of store-bought bows. I wouldn't even use a knife or pair of scissors.

I've relaxed considerably in recent times; I use tape, I manage the irregular items without crying much, and I just toss the stuffed animals wherever with a bow around the neck. But I ask you to think what it is like for me, with a solid background in geometry, to stare at something for an hour, trying to figure out how to get a piece of paper around it perfectly, to make somebody smile.

Some of you may think I'm a fool or a jerk and you may be right; all the gods know I'm no Dick Bong. Like most of us, I muddle through best I can; like all of us, I'm human.

So I'll ask you, just for the next day, to try to think of something I've done worthwhile and if you must comment here, mention that. If I haven't done anything worth good mention, maybe I should get out while the getting's good. You tell me -- tomorrow. John Reid ° 15:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State

In case it's not on your watchlist, I responded to your post at WP:VPA#The_State_of_the_Dab. --Tkynerd 19:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. John Reid ° 14:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Wheather

Terrible problems loading and editing pages today. Don't know why but I'll try to wait it out. If you've asked recently for my comment, be assured I'll respond when possible. John Reid ° 12:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klouds seem to have passed. You may resume tomato-throwing at any time. John Reid ° 20:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sextant

Do you think we might work together to produce a successful animation? I think your work had real potential. John Reid ° 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer, I'll like that. But I'm afraid you won't learn anything with me, that was my very first animation... And this is the second: Image: Using_the_caliper_new_en.gif. Alvesgaspar 23:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it to you this way. I have excellent graphic design skills but the last time my foot left dry land was when Dad put us on a Styrofoam surfboard with a sail sticking up. We blew around the local lake, the boom hit me on the head, and I cried until return to terra firma. I know bow from stern and can doubtless work out the geometry behind sextant operation but have no actual knowledge about the device.

Please keep an eye on this page. I'll screw my thinking cap on and when I have an idea, I'll create a work page and ask you a lot of technical questions. Then we'll see what we can do together with this. Meanwhile, you might scrape together a required reading list for me. John Reid ° 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want to know? There are plenty of boooks on marine navigation but I suspect that is not the subject you are interested in. I'm now working on a animation of the Pythagoras theorem. Interested? - Alvesgaspar 15:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're going to be educating readers on how to use a sextant, right? So we need to know more than they do about that. I don't -- yet. Help me out. But not here; make a subpage somewhere.

Pythagoras is another topic.

Pythagoras

...I'm now working on a animation of the Pythagoras theorem. Interested? - Alvesgaspar 15:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure you have the best approach, go ahead. I'd better disclose that I have very strong feelings on the subject. I think the routine, traditional schoolbook diagram (Image:Pythagorean.svg, &c.) is horrible, unconvincing, uninformative at best, and generally pointless. I can imagine animating it and that animation making it stronger but I would not be convinced of the theorem's validity by such a trick.

Image:Pythagorean proof.svg is the approach I use to explain Pythagoras to my students. I have even cut the shapes out of craftwood -- 4 identical triangles and the 3 squares on each side. Even preschoolers understand the essential "axioms of jigsaw puzzles": All the pieces must fit into the given area with no gaps, you can't pound pieces in with your fist, and no two pieces may overlap or fail to lay flat. They may have trouble with the notion of conservation of area but that concept is well-established a few years later and the puzzle works very well. For high school students, I have them trace the pieces on paper and analyze the relationships using algebraic tools.

That leads to a very simple animation and I think I'll just do it right now. Thanks for the suggestion. John Reid ° 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of that pi animation and that cent redesign and many other instances that fail to spring to mind...

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For all the images and templates you've made. Steve block Talk 13:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very sincerely. {wipe tear, snuffle} John Reid ° 14:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Wheel war

Please do not move other people's comments around. Philwelch 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't screw up threads. John Reid ° 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned once. This is your second warning. I put it where I wanted it to be, and I was responding to all of the comments that were above it at the time. Your behavior has grown increasingly uncivil. Philwelch 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned several times. I made specific points and asked for a response. You keep trying to hijack threads. I left your stuff alone; I'll move my comments where I please. Check diffs before getting nasty -- or just call me a dick. You don't need a justification for that. John Reid ° 09:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use deceptive edit summaries. While I cannot block you for your uncivil behavior on the talk page itself, the usage of deceptive edit summaries is a severely disruptive behavior and warrants an immediate ban. You may edit in 48 hours, or 24 if you promise not to repeat that error. Philwelch 10:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my last action, did I move your comment? Did I touch your comment? You lie, Sir, if you assert such a thing. Or show me where I have erred and I will humbly apologize.

You are a deeply involved party here and you know it. Now I'm going to treat you like a gentleman and ask you to go away, unblock me, and ask another admin who is not your pal and who is not involved in this discussion to come back and block me again. If you can find a disinterested party -- and I assure you, I will research any prior connection between you two -- to reinstate the block then by definition, you are right. Otherwise, you are simply grinding your own axe here.

I promise to move my comments out from under any attempt made to smear "crap" on them. You need to learn the rules of civilized discourse. Your block is, indeed, a kind of wheel warring -- that of the first action. You don't get to silence substantive criticism by throwng "crap" at it or muzzling people with whom you disagree.

Note to visiting admins: If you are thinking about an unblock, don't. Comment instead, please. Despite recent destruction to relevant policy, I strongly uphold the principle of discussing disagreement instead of reverting it. Either Phil will see the error of his ways or he will lose other people's respect -- certainly, my own. Don't make it easy for him by turning this into a full-blown wheel war. John Reid ° 11:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're rules-lawyering. This block is not for trolling or disagreeing with me or trying to control discussion, it is for using deliberately misleading edit summaries. The fact is, you reordered threads with the effect of placing one specific thread before other threads that it was intended as a response to, and claimed in your edit summaries that you were doing no such thing. Your intent was to deceive—even if not by a direct lie, then by a quibble or an appeal to a meaningless distinction. You're a troll who doesn't want to be called on his own trolling, and a net negative contributor in recent days. I suggest you find a new hobby. Philwelch 16:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side trip

Radiant's counterpoints:

1. You tagged it down and you know it. - false, I intended it to become policy after the wording was agreed upon, as indicated in my comment near the top of this talk page.

2. You have no illusions on this point and neither do I - please don't put words in my mouth.

3. You see, clearly, that the editor who rm the guideline tag did so not to thrust the page off into a limbo from which you rescued it but, - that editor said the page is both guideline and policy, which is contradictory. This confusion seems to stem from the (older) wording of the page, which I have been attempting to clean up.

4. I assume better faith on your part in saying you knew you were tagging down preliminary to wholesale editing rather than you were simply ignorant and failed to check history. - Hanlon's razor comes to mind; also, I have clearly indicated on this talk page that I intended this page to be policy.

5. But I have asked, in civil fashion, that before you say anything else at all, you simply state the words in which you wish to discuss that dichotomy. - I have no objection to discussing the dichotomy in the words you give. But that is really a red herring since my objection is to the dichotomy itself, not the wording thereof.

6. There are no "veiled" accusations here. I straightforwardly say you are destroying this page - okay, then you are straightforwardly being incivil. Kindly cut that out.

7. in contravention of expressed community consensus - so far, several people have agreed with my version of the page and none have agreed with yours. This appears to imply that consensual preference lies closer to my wording.

8. -- not a perfect consensus but one stated clearly and loudly before you started in. - I started in on January 16th. That's probably not what you meant though. But where exactly was this consensus stated loudly and clearly?

9. I say you have ignored my every effort to talk about this, instead cutting more and more. - false, my posts on this talk page are obvious, and several are in response to you.

10. You have been rude -- discourteous to another editor - pot, meet kettle.

11. instead of merely assuming that you know better than everyone who worked on this page before you did. - false, I have asked feedback from the beginning, and have been discussing this, e.g. with Toptomcat above.

12. You abandoned any claim to good faith the first time you blithely blew me off and continued to raze in the name of "improvement". - as has been pointed out before, making policy clearer, more concise and less legalistic is generally considered an improvement on Wikipedia, as witnessed by the several projects at the moment to rewrite policy (most of which, incidentally, I am uninvolved in). I have not blown you off, I have explained several times to you that Wikipedia policies are not written like books of law.

13. Tug as you may, you cannot stretch your protection from John calling you a dick all the way over to protect your actions from John calling them destructive. - I have been called worse, but this sure reads like an appeal to emotion.

14. Would you feel I was being more polite if I threw honeyed words at you and reverted? - no, I would feel you were more polite if you didn't use such phrasings as "if you're here just to fling crap, why?", "the next time you offer a pastiche on other people's words, please do so with a shade more objectivity", "you are doing your best to make this a personal issue" and so forth.

15. If you think you have a better idea then accept either one of my rational proposals, draft your improvements, and put them up for comment. - I have drafted up improvements, as shown in the current revision of the page. They are up for comment, and several people have expressed approval so far.

16. Until that time, I ask you to assume good faith, act as though you are in the middle of a dispute between educated gentlemen, and respond directly to the points I make. - Hereby done. (Radiant) 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyend

Ok, so now that I've been three monkey blocked, I guess this discussion continues here until it's moved back to where it belongs.

John Reid's responses:

1. I didn't say you didn't intend it to become policy. I said you tagged it down to clear the way for your major edits. You put a lot of importance on tags so you put the wholly inappropriate proposed tag on a (pair of) guidelines/policies that have been upheld and cited by everyone from Bathroom Betty to ArbCom. Now, you think you don't have to discuss what you do -- I suppose.

2. I didn't put words in your mouth; I read your mind. More accurately, I inferred your state of mind from your actions.

3. That edit sum reads in full This is both guideline and policy in one. You say that's contradictory; I say it's not let's tag this down and burn it. You and nobody else bears the onus of throwing this established guideline back into the meat grinder.

4a. Sorry. I gave you credit for either more brains or more diligence than you now claim. Now I ask you to read history and talk archives before doing more and while you are reading up, return this page to the last known good state either before or after the merge.

4b. I don't much care what you intend later. I only care what you are doing now and what you have done already.

Bright-line rule

5b. Jargon is not a red herring until you make it one. You used the words "terminology", "wording", and "legalese". That points to jargon used to describe an underlying dichotomy, not to the dichotomy itself. (You also object to the distinction itself; we don't know why because you don't say.) You are not privileged to conflate both issues: the substantive issue and the issue of jargon used to discuss the substantive issue. It is a basic requirement of civilized discourse that you give such consideration of terms priority so that our discussion can proceed without constant confusion.

5c. You are not the only person to object to the legal jargon of bright-line rule and balancing test. I put forth a request for an alternate pair of terms that might be acceptable to all. I said, supply such a pair or move on. Okay, you moved on.

5d. Other editors are also conflating these issues; only one has indicated any preference at all and that is for terms already deprecated here, in this context. Therefore, I take silence as assent and state, flatly, that from here on out: In discussion about WW policy we will use the terms bright-line rule and balancing test to describe this dichotomy. This procedural issue is closed; to advance another pair of terms for use here will be disruptive of the discussion. Debate is open on the merits of preserving this distinction within policy.

6a. I am straightforwardly taking issue with your actions, which are destructive and disruptive in nature. I refuse to abate my criticism until you stop doing the things to which I object or make a good showing that my criticism is foolish. Even at that point, I retain the right to criticize what you have already done, again, until you show me I'm a fool (always a possibility), or undo them and perhaps apologize.

6b. You can jerk the rug out from under me at any time simply by saying I'm sorry I didn't discuss this first, reverting your edits in line with either of my proposals 1 or 2, discussing what you want to do, and gaining consensus for your sweeping changes. Persisting in action that you know is upsetting other editors is rude.

6c. You can also try to jerk the rug from under me by blocking me from editing. That will be a true intellectual response; if you can't answer your disputant, silence him. Do that -- or condone any other who does it for you -- and you abandon all claim to intellectual honesty. If you're not trying to set me up for such a thing, stop crying incivility.

7a. So far, a small number of editors have come in since you began to run the bulldozer and most have lent some weight to your position. Before you started in, though, a large number of editors spent massive amounts of time pounding out line after line in support of versions [16] and [17], among others.

7b. Equally important is the history of development of the two pages here merged. This editor may be saying something else now but he created a new page on this topic that went off in a very different direction from the first. That second page had heavy participation; for that matter, other editors created still other pages and proposals in an attempt to define wheel warring by means of a bright-line rule. These were collected into the "seven forks" version [18]. Straw poll was held with 73% support vs oppose (for the fork I wrote and later merged) as of 2006 Apr 22 -- 24 to 9, with the highest turnout of any proposal. Perhaps even more important is the overall level of support for any bright-line rule: 52 support comments for any of the seven forks. That's not 52 editors, since there are many duplicates; but one way or another, it is a very clear level of participation.

7c. You do not get to ignore all those editors and claim instant consensus. That kind of claim is a slap in the face not to me but to all the other editors who worked on this policy.

7d(1). Note particularly that I did not grab the outcome of that straw poll and scream I'm the boss! -- not even with strong support for the version I put forth. I proposed the bright-line merge and waited a day to see who might object; several editors supported the merge, then I did it.

7d(2). I didn't simply erase everything else from the page apart from the one-line bright-line rule itself; I put that up top because it had the widest support. I also merged into [19] everything I thought represented consensus previously achieved, including many viewpoints at odds with my own personal views.

7d(3). I said then, several times, that all seven forks appeared to tend in the same direction. That assertion is not manufactured for the benefit of current discussion. I say now that this direction was and is very clear: To define wheel warring in no uncertain terms, to supplant what we have here chosen to call balancing tests with a bright-line rule.

7d(4). I strongly urge all parties and readers of this discussion to read carefully both the "seven forks" and "first merge" versions. Radiant has so much as admitted he failed to do proper research; I know I have so failed in other cases -- nobody is perfect. Here I note that the route taken to come to this point has been long and involved. I don't see that anybody can form an opinion on it without a couple hours' worth of reading. I certainly could not -- it took me several days before I was ready to comment at all, even back then.

7e. "My version" and "yours": The last good version prior to your edits was touched many times by many editors -- I include myself. I had a hand in what you see but not the only by a very long stretch. Indeed, my chief contribution -- the one-line policy itself -- has been so reworded I can scarcely compare it to the original. I've found some edits to the page objectionable but I left much alone; I trust my community to know better than I do. When I did the last merge, I preserved a great deal of structure and content that did not in anyway come from my pen. You just went ahead and started to cut.

7f. This is not an OWN issue; this is a RULES issue:

"Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page — although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it."

I say you need to discuss your amendments on talk and not pretend to "improve" by cutting and cutting.

8a. You say you "started in on January 16th". Where? This history [20] shows your first edit to be a tag for merge on 2006 September 11. I have been pretty close to the bright-line page for many months; I don't recall seeing your name too often there. Oh! that's right; you quit the project this year[21]. You were out for seven months while editors sweated this policy. Welcome back.

8b. I've answered you on the subject of consensus; it is shown very loudly and clearly at the point of "seven forks" -- shown there better than anywhere else, perhaps. Comment after comment supports some kind of bright-line rule.

8c. I collected many of the most cogent comments from proposals, straw polls, talk, and Jimbo himself onto the first-merged page; I've also archived these to Wheel war/Commentary, to which I refer you. Lastly, I selected a few to grace the recent merge -- all of which I see you've deleted. Did you think I'd written them all from my own pen?

8d. Consensus on wheel warring has been so very strong and so forcefully expressed that it did not at first occur to me to claim it; it seems obvious to anybody who reads the discussions. Thus I objected loudly to your actions taken in disregard of that consensus. Now, you appear to claim ignorance of that consensus or to dispute it.

8d(1). If you were ignorant of consensus before, I trust I have helped to remedy that lack; if I've failed, I'm sure you will avail yourself of the resources I've provided to catch up.

8d(2). If you dispute consensus, then the burden is on you to show otherwise. I have given many references which all strongly support my claim.

8e. Either way, it is now appropriate for you to retract your hasty edits and work. It's easy to edit and edit and edit if you don't care what anybody else says but much harder to pay attention to others and respond. That's what we were doing while you were on vacation and that's what we need to do now. We can all join in this. Perhaps consensus has evaporated over the last six months; perhaps our community now wishes to entertain wheel warring without benefit of refinements. I can't prove that one way or another -- and neither can you.

9. Your responses on talk have been slight and rude; they have avoided addressing substantive issues. You are not the worst offender by a wide margin and I now accept your effort to engage in meaningful discussion and thank you for it. You've also stopped tearing down the house; I accept that as well. If you simply revert the page in line with either proposal 1 or 2 on the table, your conduct will cease to be an issue for me. For that matter, if you just leave it be and agree silently to allow another editor to revert, that will be fine. I don't really need to make you be wrong; I just want this page to stand for what our community wants. I said way up top there that I hoped for edits; I still do.

10. You edited over loud, pained objections; you failed to discuss what you're doing in detail and respond directly to specific, substantive comments. I let you entirely alone on the project page, didn't touch it for any reason, and argued my points on talk. The few times that anyone actually made a substantive claim, I've addressed it directly. You will notice I never duck a substantive point or counterpoint. Again, now that you've turned off the tractor and are responding to me point by point, I drop any criticism of your general behavior. If you stay engaged and stay on substantive issues, you may even regain much respect.

11. If you asked for feedback then why didn't you ask for mine? Did you never think I might have an interest? Or any of the other heavily-involved editors? If you care about any of the feedback you've received, then why ignore it? Or are you selectively listening to the comments that seem to support you? Have you, at any point, so much as suggested I might have a valid point of any kind, anywhere? Have you even allowed for the possibility of such a thing in your own mind? Tell me where you have unbent in the slightest degree to admit that I might just possibly have some valid point and I will take away half of my claim to having been blown off. I don't see how you can repair the slight to all past editors, though.

12a. Make policy clearer, make it better, make it less "legalistic" (ooOOoo!). Why would I object? Who could object? But of course, you are begging the question. That pretty much makes your whole comment pointless.

12b. What you seem utterly to miss is that my entire basic claim is that, indeed, our community has felt the need for a more precise, more technical definition of wheel warring. All you have done so far is say No you're wrong. I've backed up my claim heavily; you've just repeated how wrong I am. What follows is a gift; you haven't earned an elaboration because you haven't contested anything yet.

12c. Wikipedia policies, taken together, are as intimidating as any book of civil statutes. They go into occasionally absurd detail, spell out cases, classify types of conduct, and generally commit all of the failings of "real" law. IAR is the exception. Why is this so? Well, our community has grown to very large size -- and scope. Among a small enough group of editors, IAR and DICK are entirely sufficient -- and so well understood that there's no reason even to write them down.

Now we have grown -- and include people from all over the world, who come here with very different ideas on how to live, how to talk, how to talk about talking, how to think. We work together on a vast range of topics; new problems surface constantly. This means we need more rules. I agree that rules suck but the consequence of having too few rules for a given size of community is what we have right now: big fights, all the time. We need to write more rules, write them more specifically, and enforce them in better accordance with the way they are written. That is a disagreeable course of action but it's better than the alternative.

12d. The worst thing wrong with overanxious efforts to oversimplify policy is that they fail to cover the subject. It's a case of public policy nudity. I left wheel war policy robed properly, from shoulders to ankles -- not mummified but clothed decently. You have substituted a ripped teeshirt and a thong. No wheel warring was written in response to a need. You leave that need unmet.

13a. Called worse than what by who? I've respected your humanity at every turn. I gave you an award, for all the gods' sakes; you've done much good here. I didn't change my mind yesterday and decide you were an insufferable asshole; I've always thought you were tendentious but I've also thought you've been a hard worker and made good points. There are many dicks on this project and I may well be one of them; I've never said anything of the kind about you.

13b. My calling your actions "destructive" is indeed an emotional appeal. Good notice. I'm not entirely above rhetoric; I just make sure to back it up with logic.

13c. You've missed the thrust of my comment, which was to take away your personal attack security blanket. You wrote "...it would really help if you remained civil, refrained from making veiled personal attacks and snide accusations..." Since I have remained civil; since I have made no personal attacks; and since all my accusations have been quite aboveboard; your comment has no merit. If you intend to substitute "emotional appeal" for all of the above loaded phrases, I accept your retraction. Otherwise, I think it's obvious that you're simply trying to shoot the messenger.

14a. You have a bad habit of quoting out of context; I don't know if you hope people will not bother to go read the source or even if you may be right that they won't (or can't find it). You also like to paraphrase others -- perhaps we all do this from time to time. Let's see what reeeally happened:

14a. Crap: Phil was the first to use that nasty word, not I. I consider his use of the word to be the verbal equivalent of picking up a piece of dog excrement and throwing it not at my face but at the face of every editor who contributed his or her time, energy, and heartfelt sincerity toward writing this "crap". I don't see you objecting to Phil; can there be a little shortcoming of neutrality here? Phil's comment was hostile, offensive, confrontational, and divisive. Obviously, he'd rather fling "crap" than discuss issues rationally. Nothing I can do about that.

Discussion pending, this is still a designated adult zone and we are all free to say "crap" or even "fuck". We are not free to say "fuck you" or "that's crap".

14b(1). Pastiche: You wrote "I've stricken most of the paragraph that said that "slow" wheel wars must not be called wheel wars because stopping them will aggravate the issue." That is a pastiche or if you prefer, a distorted paraphrase; I personally like the term munge: "...to transform data in an undefined or unexplained manner." Maybe that's just my old engineering background speaking. The text you munged read, in part, before you deleted it:

"While the slow-motion wheel war is indeed a wheel war, it is hazardous to call it a wheel war while it is ongoing. When exactly has it become a wheel war? Depending on circumstances, even Admin A's first action may have been taken in bad faith and with hostile intent to provoke a wheel war. Or, perhaps A through F have all acted in good faith, with the best intentions, and in the belief that their actions are supported by policy and community consensus. Any attempt to abort the wheel war by calling it a wheel war and declaring the last actor a violator is likely to backfire by escalating the conflict. When did good faith become bad faith?"

It's obvious that your words are indeed a pastiche and a poor one at that. You run roughshod over fine distinctions: "it is hazardous to call" is not "must not be called"; "Any attempt to abort the wheel war by calling it a wheel war and declaring the last actor a violator is likely to backfire" is not "stopping them will aggravate the issue". The most offensive word you inserted was "because", attempting to reduce a complex issue into a silly syllogism -- if that, even.

First you delete it, then you show us how stupid it was with a stupid-looking paraphrase. I detest this kind of straw man reasoning.

14b(2). The words you deleted were finely tuned. Let's add a little context. The paragraph under immediate discussion appeared under the example, hypothetical, slow-motion wheel war with the interpretation:

"No admin has violated 0WW policy. From A to F, it is increasingly likely that an admin has violated 0WW guidelines."

Let's rewrite that in line with our new, temporary terms here on talk:

"No admin has violated 0WW bright-line rule. From A to F, it is increasingly likely that an admin has violated 0WW balancing test."

So, the text makes it very clear that a wheel war is likely; in the abstract, it calls slow-motion wheel warring what it is: wheel warring. The intent of this example, its interpretation, and supporting text is to explain why no bright-line rule can cover the slow-motion form. This is a critical point in wheel warring theory; if we could figure out a way to draw a bright line around all wheel wars, we wouldn't need balancing tests. We can't, so we do.

Stopping wheel wars is always good, no matter their form. Stopping wheel wars by declaring a bright-line violation and speedy blocking offenders is a form of escalation and must be avoided. So long as slow-motion WW remains within the realm of balancing tests, it's possible to entertain community-based solutions that rely on discussion among parties, involved and uninvolved. Policy inviting admins to come and block warring parties without discussion simply asks them to join the war.

The latter course of action is appropriate for the "duel" type of WW: Admin A blocks, B unblocks, A reblocks, B reunblocks, A reblocks again and so on. At this point -- indeed, at the point where A first reblocks in the face of B's expressed objections -- it is entirely feasible for uninvolved admin C to block A without notice and with a polite comment on A's talk, with copy to AN: You've been blocked for violating 0WW bright-line. It's not really possible for anybody to argue with C, not even A; the record demonstrates the bright-line violation unambiguously. So long as B gave proper, prior notice of his objection, A doesn't have a leg upon which to stand.

14b(3). Wrong version does not apply here; it applies to edit wars and protecting pages in order to halt them. Protecting a page in the "wrong" version is unimportant, as your citation explains in humorous detail. When a page is protected, the current version is not endorsed.

It can be argued that it's not possible to stop a wheel war in the wrong state, either. This proposition requires a lot of analysis; let's talk about it.

Unlike articles, editors themselves are the subject of wheel wars. No matter what else is said about a relaxed, wait-and-see attitude toward articles, editors are humans. We can well afford to leave most kinds of articles outright locked for months at a time; may not be good but does nobody real harm. If we leave the wrong editor blocked for a week it may be too late to get him back.

WW can cover blocking, protection, deletion, or a combination of these. While I might bend toward agreeing that protect/delete wars can be stopped at any point without harm, block wars cannot. I know that blocking is a minor and indeed, minimally effective action that does not inconvenience anybody greatly; but our community feels very differently; blocking is an onus and considered severe action. This is not the only problem with stopping a block war.

A major reason that there is no wrong page version is that there is no right one. In article revert wars, both versions are very likely wrong. There's nothing to choose from between them; they're both biased. The good version will emerge only after parties have settled their differences and formed a consensus draft.

There are basically only two states for an editor: blocked or unblocked. Attempts have been made to bridge the gap with words but it all boils down to this or that. So, no compromise position is available. Other things can be bartered back and forth but in the end, the editor will be either blocked or unblocked. If the eventual, consensus-determined "right" outcome is unblocked and that editor has been blocked for a week while we sort it out, he's got a grievance.

Block wars come in two flavors -- and since I've heard enough objections about using proper legal terms to discuss policy, I'm going to call these vanilla and rocky road. Vanilla block wars happen when Admins A and B (C, D...) repeatedly block and unblock User X. Rocky road block wars happen when Admin A blocks Admin B, who unblocks himself and blocks A (and perhaps C and D mix in). One might think of all kinds of geometries here, all involving admins: A blocks B, C unblocks B and blocks A, D unblocks A and blocks B and C -- all sorts of ugly chains of events.

Vanilla or rocky road, a blocked user is put at a disadvantage in explaining himself. He's not able to appeal to third parties on talk and must resort to other channels; he's not able to correct the record on any page. In a vanilla block war, one might at least hope that after the war has stopped, then if X is still blocked ("right" or "wrong"), then at least all involved parties know where to go to see what he thinks about it: User talk:X. In a rocky road block war, several different admins may remain under block after the war has stopped -- and discussion may fragment. Meanwhile, experience has shown that admins are not above continuing to use the tools discreetly to advance their positions. Blocked admins ("right" or "wrong") are put at a disadvantage in these sorts of (deplorable) machinations. This is in addition to onus and the difficulty of having their views heard.

So, blocking to stop a rocky road wheel war may be highly prejudicial to the final outcome of the case. If the WW cannot be stopped any other way, the block must be discussed among uninvolved admins and be applied equally to all involved admins. Hopefully, by the time the block has expired, enough hugs and toughlove will have been distributed that the case can at least be taken to ArbCom without flaring up again.

Therefore, the distinctions made in this section are critical. It is a sloppy pastiche you have rendered as justification for your edit -- and the edit itself dangerous. I will not call it "crap"; I just want the opportunity to discuss it before somebody decides it may not be standing policy but it's the only page on the project that talks about it so I guess that's what I'll do.

14c. Personal issue: I wrote "Phil, you are doing your best to make this a personal issue, ducking all substantive questions." And so he is. I was responding directly to "John, you're embarrassing yourself." That is an ad hominem attack and if I had a thin skin I'd be raging to have him blocked for it and other comments he's made about me, rather than the substantive issue, which is, was, and will be about one thing: Radiant's edits. It's utterly irrelevant whether I'm embarrassing myself; whether I'm a fool, dick, jerk, or madman; whether I am engaging in personal attack; or even if I'm Seigenthaler in disguise, come to torch the project. All that matters between adults in an academic discussion is whether my substantive points have merit. Failing to address those head-on is to abandon any further consideration.

As I predicted, Phil still prefers to slice at the ankles rather than grab the bull by the HORNS; now he's blocked me for a couple of days. Good going, Phil! Now we know you're right! Feh. If my points had merit before, they still do -- addressed or not. If they never had any merit to begin with, then someone might have taken a leisurely 20 minutes and let all the hot air out of them.

So long as we discuss things around here with more rhetoric and less logic; so long as we tilt the pinball machine by attacking the people we disagree with; so long as we derail discussion threads by ignoring other people's comments and going off on new tangents -- so long do we demonstrate to our critics that they are right, in the worst way. We are a bunch of spoiled technonerds who couldn't hold our own in a faculty break room for the time between bells.

I'm committed to our core principle: anyone can edit. But sometimes, man, I wonder what we are doing here! People arguing technical questions without any background at all in how such questions are discussed civilly among people who do this all day at work. I have such a background and I can't decide if I'm in a conference hall discussing an agenda, the classroom, the break room, the bathroom, or the grade-school playground.

15. This whole comment is an obvious blind. I proposed that you draft elsewhere, not on Main Page. I offered two serious proposals and, once again, you've blown me off.

16. I accept that you're starting to discuss substantive issues rationally. So long as you do so, I will never suggest otherwise. Please consider any future comment about spoiled brats putting fallacies into debate not to apply to you unless you are named.

I've now answered you fully, frankly, and to the point. Will you not bear me the same courtesy?

Radiant's omissions:

I asserted, previously:

A. These premerge versions, [22] and [23], each held guideline status by any measure.

B. It is not appropriate to make heavy, contested edits to a guideline without prior discussion.

C. The merged version [24] also enjoyed guideline status and did not introduce significant novelties.

I proposed, previously:

1. To restore page to [25], tag guideline, and discuss further changes.

2. As an alternative in case my assertion C fails, to restore both [26] and [27], unmerged, and discuss further changes.

Now, Radiant has stopped editing and started to talk -- good. But he has so far failed to scratch any of my three assertions or show why either proposal does not grow naturally from them.

I'm still waiting. Others may lose the thread but not I.

Nandesuka's confusion:

I say Wikipedia:Wheel war was guideline, perhaps even policy, before Radiant trashed it. I say it's wrong to do that. I want to talk about the wrongness of making confrontational edits more than I want to talk about whether those edits are good or bad in themselves. When the confrontational edits are reverted, I will be happy to discuss them in draft. If substantial consensus forms in support after discussion, I will wholeheartedly welcome these edits. Minor improvements are always welcome; I'm only upset about wholesale destruction of intent.

I say there is no such thing as instant consensus. This is not a new page. It holds, in its last good version, the accumulated wisdom of many Wikipedians who care strongly about it. That's consensus. It's nice that people come here to comment and those comments are worthy of consideration but it's wrong for 3 or 5 editors to pretend, in a couple weeks, to overturn what dozens of editors have already formed, over several months, into near-policy.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to restate this simply. John Reid ° 17:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]