User talk:Privatemusings

This user is sharp as a marble.

This user will make anyone a cup of tea, as long as he can have one too.

Welcome back

If you come back. Since your block didn't auto-expire, and Mercury is no longer an admin, I've requested it's lifting at WP:AN. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks Kendrick - and it's nice to see you! Hope you're good etc. and I can confirm that my ban is no more! - hope to see you around.... Privatemusings (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back pm - I hope the three months haven't been too stressful and you're eager to get back on with editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks ryan! - the break has been pretty good actually, with my only criticism being of its compulsory nature! - good to see you, and I'm sure we'll see each other around! - thanks for the note..! Privatemusings (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

great, now I have Kotter's theme song as an earworm. I can't bring myself to say "welcome back" without chuckling sardonically, but since I only have to type it - WELCOME BACK! Never has so little been so manifestly due. Do try and not step on any more toes with your pointy sock feet, but if you must, I understand "confounding issues" are all the rage now. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 21:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

hi Snick! - aside from the aspects of 'that' current case which read a bit to me like a 'how to', I am concerned that our devilish plan to appear to be different people may come under some scrutiny. With our editing habits not interleaving at all over the last 3 months, the jig may be up....... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

plus, we both edit from Earth, in a similar way... sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Cool - I can unwatch this page now. Welcome back, and... one of my bylines on another site is "Sharp as a needle that has lost the thread." LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Don't go too far away, less.... goodness knows what can happen to an unwatched page! - thanks for making sense, even in contexts that really didn't! Privatemusings (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. I trust that the Wikback was helping you keep sane? bibliomaniac15 22:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikback was keeping me something - though I'm less sure 'sane' was it! It's a bit ironic that my ban from wiki actually led to me digging a bit deeper into some issues than I would have bothered to previously - which translated to me banging on a bit over at the wikback.... nice to see you here biblio, and see you around! Privatemusings (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the lateness, but welcome back! I enjoyed talking with you on the Wikback, and hope to work with you here. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you back, PM. Let's hope I don't get this account blocked for saying hello. Best, Amerique^dialectics 09:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks chaps - and who is this Amerique? I recall chatting with the leader of an academy, but have no recollection of Amerique? Clearly a disruptive influence in these parts.... ;-) (good to see you too!). Privatemusings (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Hopefully you will be added to this list. Cheers. miranda 13:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, if you need any help or advice, please don't hesitate to get in touch. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well thankee very much! - I'm having trouble gybing at the moment, so any pointers would be welcomed, otherwise I'll surely head your way with wiki questions as and when... know anything about Sunscreen? Privatemusings (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but I can decode any of the science people throw about in that dispute and provide you with sources that require subscriptions. E-mail me and I can send you PMID 17693182, which should be a good review on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's bad enough...

...finding a depiction of me on the internet; but finding you posting it twice on your userpage is the pits! LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

...well I've tried to be quite clear that it's not me (and to be honest, there are 5 other 'not me's that I think I might add too) but I should also say that I've let the OTRS people know that there's a possible conflict of interest between me and not me, and I wonder if you might be interested in discussing this further in a hotel room in DC at the weekend, they've got lovely couches and mirrors I hear....

ps. apologies if such peurile attempts at humour aren't well received in your far higher brow.....! ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmmm... round these parts DC is the wet, wobbly stuff that is on the other side of the beach to DLAND, so I can't say the offer interests me much. Thanks, anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought DC published comic books. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was Edison's favourite way of lighting up a room but he lost the battle of the bands to Tesla? ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it stands for 'Don't Care'? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG RfC

A user conduct RfC involving the actions of JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in which you have been mentioned is about to go live and will be found at WP:RFC/U shortly. Viridae^Talk 11:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks, viridae.... I was aware of it's development, and will take a look, and probably pipe up as quietly and gently as I can. Privatemusings (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (ps. nice to see you now that I'm back 'on-wiki'

My advice would be to steer clear of controversy and just edit articles, at least for a while. Seriously. Unfair? Sure. But a prudent course. You KNOW that topic is going to be controversial. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

good advice Lar - as you know, I feel very strongly about certain aspects of Guy's past behaviour - I felt he abused my trust in forwarding information which I expressly asked to be kept private - but now is probably not the time for me to be overly involved, for no other reason than it likely won't help at all. I've commented in what I hope is a quiet and fair manner on the talk page of the RfC, and will probably leave it at that. If you think I should strike or remove my comments there, do let me know, but I really did want to put something on the record in some way..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say neither add nor subtract, just leave what you said and say no more for the nonce... ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's my plan.... I'm hopeful that Guy and I will get on better in the future - but thanks for your notes too.... Privatemusings (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) ps. I saw your blog, which I hope is the precursor to further writings - I think you're in a great position to promote positive change, and I made a note of your blog on mine

"My advice would be to steer clear of controversy and just edit articles, at least for a while. Seriously. Unfair? Sure. But a prudent course."... still true. Why are you involving yourself in several of the latest flashpoints? It seems massively imprudent. I strongly advise against it. Leave it to others. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's still good advice, Lar - and I thought I'd bow out by adding a couple of words of explanation in this small wiki bywater, for what they're worth. I well recall the anger and embarrassment I felt (and feel, to be honest) when first indef. blocked without so much as a 'by your leave' - and I also recall at that point how important the short notes that I did get on my talk page were to me (this may be cheesy, or foolish, but it's true!) - so I guess it was that pet peeve of mine, the lack of notes on Mantan's and Mackan's talk pages, which drew me into these broo ha has - my continued posts at Georgewilliam's page were probably best left to others, and I'm glad to see good people making similar points - I hope George didn't find my posting annoying, and I would have stepped back if I had the impression that he was doing so...

The Mantan case is one that I've tried to be assiduous in avoiding for now. Another intention of my leaving the note I did was to forestall any need to unblock before Mantan had responded - I see that Doc chose to do exactly that, and I'd question why, given that it certainly raised the temperature. In my heart I deeply wish to comment on a variety of issues this case raises, about which I feel quite strongly, but I understand that this just isn't really possible right now. If you examine my block log and arb case, you'll see that admin.s repeatedly blocked me, following which discussions emerged with a consensus to unblock, followed by yet another block, thus it frustrates me to see admin.s writing about 'clearly no consensus to ban' appearing to me to be hypocritical. The fact that I am an arbcom sanctioned 'puppet master' both galls somewhat and indicates to me that the approach I chose, to confide privately in an administrator, led me further into trouble - which is a shame.

You'll also be aware of my concerns over 'checkuser' in general, and the fact that a 'private checkuser' was run on Mackan I feel should be more surprising and concerning to many - I hope you'll agree that I'm taking a gentle approach there to try and get to the bottom of what I see as a damaging systemic trend. I suspect Mackan, like myself, doesn't really mind the individual impact of having had one, or a series of, 'checks' run, but I think the bigger picture is worrying. Offensive hyperbole such as mentioning 'lynchmobs' adds to my disquiet - in short, it looks to me like good people may be doing the wrong thing, because they believe it's exactly the right thing to do. This shouldn't be overly surprising in terms of community evolution, either... history shows it's an endemic trap to fall into, and I believe the sooner we can explore it, learn and grow etc. the better the community will be.

Hey ho, lateness and a relatively uncharacteristic seriousness have made this post longer than I think I intended, but I'm pleased to commit thoughts like these to my userspace, and now plan on returning to gnoming away on Socrates, and other articles, helping out at WP:TOV, and planning another chit chat which I'll shamelessly encourage you once more to consider joining! We'd love to have you! best, Privatemusings (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Audio broadcast

Sorry, but I don't have adequate audio equipment right now (and honestly, I don't have the time, part of the reason I never bought a microphone to talk on Wikipedia Weekly). Thanks for the invite, though. Ral315 (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We need a userbox. Bstone (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'm not sure I can assess my interest in participating yet - I'm more of a writer than a talker, and I haven't had a chance yet to listen to the stuff so far. I know where Ral315 is coming from, I never got around to Wikipedia Weekly while running on regular Signpost deadlines either. With serving on the board the demands on my time may be as great, but there's at least the potential for more flexibility in how I structure it, so an occasional chat might be possible. But at the moment I still need to set up the equipment and that's first waiting on another internet issue to be resolved on my end, so I'll need to get back to you. --Michael Snow (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Socrates Article

Hey Privatemusings,

We traded a few comments on the talk page for Socrates. I plan on help out with the Socrates article. I'm doing some research on JSTOR and other journal archives to find solid sources for the article, so any major edits from me won't come for a week or so. In the meantime, I say go ahead and be bold! I posted some more comments to the Socrates talk page. I just wanted to drop you a message here to let you know that I want to collaborate....not get involved in a edit war.

Though I've been on Wikipedia for awhile, I've never helped to do a “major” improvement to an article before. So, I've not sure of the etiquette here. What I'm thinking is that I may make an “alternate” version of “Socrtaes” in my Sandbox. We can then pick and choose pieces from our drafts to make a better article for Wikipedia.

PS: A copy of my latest comment for the Socrates talk page follows:

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the way your characterizing both Socratic Irony and the Socratic Method. Since Socrates didn't write anything, I think it is inaccurate to suggest that these concepts are his “ideas”, that he created them, or was a proponent of them. Both SI and SM are concepts inspired by the characterization of Socrates in Plato. As later philosophers, teachers, and writers thought and wrote about (Plato's) Socrates these concepts developed. Some of the articles I've been reading suggest the concept of Socratic Irony begins as early as Aristotle. SI and SM as we think of them today, however, are the result of 2000 years+ of scholarship. They are excellent examples of Socrates' legacy , but not of ideas we can attribute directly to him.

I am working on a paragraph or two that will talk about Socrates legacy, the significance of his being the first “Non-Socratic” philosopher, and how he has influenced Western Thought. (The SM will certainly play into discussion.) I'm doing some research on JSTOR and other journal archives to find solid sources for the article, so any major edits from me won't come for a week or so. Fixer1234 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks alot for the note, Fixer - and I don't think we're going to have any trouble at all collaborating on Socrates - I'll continue my reply at the talk page - nice to meet you! - Privatemusings (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the message about the "Thoughts" thread on The WikBack, PM. And, as far as I am concerned, everything is fine with us. I was afraid the thread might be misunderstood, but I felt that in time people would get the positive sense of it. I'm just trying to stir up some thoughts in people and, perhaps, post something that might have special meaning to someone. Hope to see you posting again, soon.

Be healthy,

Marc

Michael David (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Plano

My oh my. The original threat seems to have come from Amsterdam, but isn't this interesting. Bstone (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV

I nominated it for deletion. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Threats of violence. This by no means indicate that you are not valued. You contributions are valued. Please feel free to participate in that discussion. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

the Sydney Journal

Hi there, Just thought I'd drop you, and the other sydneysiders who came to the meetup, a line and mention that the first edition of the Dictionary of Sydney's online, peer-reviewed journal is now live.

The Sydney Journal is the first (and most academically rigorous) "product" of the Dictionary. It will be a quarterly publication with a variety of texts from upcoming Dictionary articles and is hosted by UTS E-press. This edition features 4 thematic articles, 6 ethnicities and 5 suburbs - all specifically related to Sydney.

I hope you find it useful and interesting - If nothing else it's essays are eminently referenceable for their corresponding articles here on WP.

Best, Witty Lama 12:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just replied to you and PM and noticed this. You mean all the loudmouths around the WMF traps are from Sydney?

I hadn't realized. One of my mates at UTS is the head librarian, so I'll mention the journal to her when she returns from her latest euro-junket. Cross referencing is something between global and local is one thing we rave about constantly. I take it this means you'll know Shirley (?) down there as well, so it would be nice to consider how that accessgrid rave on I gave you might attempt to do for the comms of a little group what a librarian does for their info. Congrats on the job. --Simonfj (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To make sure I understand correctly

Those two other accounts were yours? If so, that might be a great help.

What I hope to do is come up with a list of possible criteria before checking them against known accounts. That should ease some of the possible data dredging biases. So once I have the criteria I hope to test, I can apply them against a sample set of known socks and known non-socks. This shoudl help if these are yours.

And I totally forgot about Cruftbane. There was that whole tiff where he edited the evidence page under Cruftbane. Cool Hand Luke 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't previously know why you were blocked. After the MM mess we just went through, it seems like disparate treatment to me. Cool Hand Luke 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ah well I certainly view my block as an odd note in arbcom's behaviour - I would love my 'conviction' to be overturned, but that's a story for another day, probably..... Your understanding is exactly correct - that I operated the 'Petesmiles', 'Purples', and 'Privatemusings' accounts (and all the others mentioned, though several weren't used, and the other 5 have less than 40 edits over a long time period - so probably aren't much use). I hope some good might be able to come of crunching the numbers - my intention was to run two accounts concurrently, with one being used for what little 'wiki-gnoming' I got enjoyment from, and one for discussion which seemed likely to be rather heated. I retired 'Petesmiles' quite a while ago, because I used to have a bunch of 'real world' accounts at other sites under that name, so the pairings of interest may be 'Petesmiles' and 'Purples' - and 'Purples' and 'Privatemusings' - I'm very happy to be entirely open about all of this, so do feel free to ask any questions you might come up with too.... cheers! - Privatemusings (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WikipediaWeekly/NotWikipediaWeekly

Sounds like I'd be interested in helping out, but I don't really understand what exactly the Notwikipediaweekly is. What do you think of video podcasts? I'm pretty good at those. Mac Davis (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a click here - Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly and have a quick listen - which pretty much explains what we're trying to do - I think a video podcast is a very interesting idea... but have no real idea what it might look like! - any ideas? (ps. the more people involved the better, so thanks for taking a look!) - Privatemusings (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Sorry I missed it. I did get your reminder, and I am grateful for it, but I was and will be very busy. When I get a chance, I will attend. Thank you again. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 01:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm not going to be able to make tomorrow unfortunately, and have a lot if stuff going on in real life that might stop me from participating in the future. ffm 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

---

On this...

Hello, Privatemusings. You have new messages at AGK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Check out User talk:AGK#Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly. Regards, Anthøny 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

NTWW episode 4

How does my suggested time - Tuesday, March 25, 8:00 PM EDT - work for you? Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

G'day raul - just back online after a bit of time on the water.... will head over to the NTWW page now, and drop you a line too..... Privatemusings (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, i don't want to go to every talk page you just posted the message and fix it, but if you are reccording at 8:00 PM EDT on tuesday, then it is March 26 00:00 UCT. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I suggest you label it as 00:01 UTC. Raul654 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit more to the 'date and time' section of the wiki page, which hopefully will clarify - I'll leave folk's talk page messages alone for now in the hope that they'll swing by the central location in any case... ah the joys of many timezones! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a little late for me to attend—I'm in GMT, which effectively means I'd be expected to have a meaningful conversation at midnight—not really possible for me :) I'll probably give this one a miss, in favour of future episodes which (I hope) fall a few hours earlier? Anthøny 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the Wikipedia Weekly

It might be interesting to get some of the most serious of the FRINGE proponents on the show. One of the most hardcore is Martinphi, but he has said he is loathe to give voice interviews. Others appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Participants. We also have a large contingent of creationists and intelligent design supporters around. Some of the most serious of course are blocked, but might still be willing to appear, like User: profg, who hosts a radio show here in the US (we know his real name and I am sure we could get ahold of him; However, I would check with Raul654 first since profg is a sort of notorious troll and sock puppet master and meat puppet master and we might stir up trouble by inviting him.). The longterm creationists we retain are more reasonable, like User: Northfox, but still might be interesting to have. In alternative medicine we have many to choose from. I am mostly familiar with homeopathy, although chiropractic has a very large number as well I am told. In homeopathy, probably the most fervent and well spoken is a well known author User:DanaUllman, who is associated with Columbia University I believe. User: Orangemarlin knows of many on other assorted medicine pages I am sure. We probably have a few AIDS denialists as well.

ScienceApologist, who obviously is on the science side of this FRINGE discussion, has repeatedly expressed interest in being interviewed at any time about this issue, by voice or even on video (and has done it several times already). I tried to nudge ScienceApologist to consider your show a few days ago, and maybe he could be encouraged to appear.

One thing you might not know is that it is possible for people with regular phone service, but no Skype, to join in the conversation without much trouble. I am a Skype subscriber, and I can add anyone with a telephone in the US or Canada with no problem. Adding people in Australia, Europe or other parts of the world can also be done with a bit more trouble and expense, depending on who is involved in the show (easiest if you also include a Skype subscriber from the part of the world where the nonSkype user is located, so the nonSkype user can be added with no expense; otherwise per minute charges apply).--Filll (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The momentary interloper yesterday on the Skypecast was me; sorry about that (I just left a similar message explaining my weird appearance and disappearance yesterday on Filll's page -- thought I should do the same here). I misunderstood the nature of the call -- I thought it would be a fishbowl conference with several active participants and perhaps 40 or 50 listeners. Some glitch dropped me off after the effort to join a conference call with the Skypecast. I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia (one year) and tend to listen and lurk for awhile before speaking up, but I'm perfectly happy to listen to recordings after the fact if the live call is really intended only for active participants -- I really don't know how Skypecasts scale for larger audiences. Perhaps the NTWW weekly page could use a little more explanatory text in this regard? I will watch for the next call. You and your regular participants are doing a fabulous job, so thanks for that, I'm learning a lot! I'll keep watch for the next one, perhaps over time I'll get a little less shy about participating. --Sfmammamia (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be sorry at all! - and it's certainly not so much your misunderstanding, as the fact that you came across the project in its very early stages, when no aspect of what we do is really written in stone (or actually written at all!) - you're most welcome to pop in and listen live - my ideas for how this project could develop include large listening audiences - possibly with 'IM' chat running alongside etc. - I'm hopeful that if we're open to such ideas then they'll evolve organically - that (and the fact that I've got limited time, and am probably a bit lazy!) is also my rationale for not nailing too much down by way of explanation at the wiki page... It'd be great to have you in the room - in the 'audience' or as an active participant if you so wish - nice to meet you, and I look forward to seeing you around! best, Privatemusings (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note

I'm afraid your query got lost in the shuffle, but I don't have much of an answer for you in any case. I'm not aware of an official position, one way or the other, on whether a checkuser may disclose checks run by a different user. My own feeling would be no--it's up to the checkuser in question to make whatever disclosures he or she deems necessary or proper, and the operation of checkuser is by design and necessity as private as possible. I'm speaking as an ombudsman, but not for the committee nor for the Foundation. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for your response, Mackensen - and I'm very pleased that my question has been addressed (I've received other responses privately too - which is great - I'll try and bring something together before too long....). More than one checkuser indicated to me that this was a policy question about which they were unsure - and I think the key bit here really is "it's up to the checkuser in question to make whatever disclosures he or she deems necessary or proper" - which tallies with what I perceive as practice.

To be very clear - it is my understanding therefore that if an individual checkuser wishes to inform an editor about any checks run on an account, including details of rationales given, the identity of the checkuser, and the date / time of the check, then that would not be prohibited by the privacy policy - but a strong reason would be required to overcome the expectation that all checkuser information be kept as private as possible.

Thanks once again for engaging - and would it be ok with you to copy your comments to a centralised location for discussion at some point? - I think that would be useful! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi and Thanks (for all the Fish)

Just made a note over on Liams user page. It'll give you some idea what I'm cooking. Not the nine O'clock news approach eh? That's real nice.

Yep, am in oz. Don't know Liam but he's a short trip to town so we'll meet up one of these days; as I will on Skype with you, when a few more things are in place. Like John Snow I'm more comfortable writing than talking but give us both a bit of time to get our heads around the new habits. Am a bit surprised you and Liam wouldn't just collabrate on the same platform, rather than splitting the effort. But the idea I've mention to him is more about looking at a bigger picture and working towards a common platform which can support it. No doubt you're talking anyway.

All I can ask is that you two might chose a forum type place where a common listener can have a talk. Wikback yo know but I'm across lots of other project's silos; inside and outside of institutions. Just tell me where so we can get the wiki enamoured focussing on the same page ocassionally. My best. --Simonfj (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC) PS. Jay Walsh is the man whose head needs to turn, and Kul would get the most benefit when it does.

I would hope that the Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly page is a good central location for anyone to edit / contribute any ideas at all - or even just to post their own conversations / collaborations - and I'll drop Jay a line to see if he might be available to come and join a chat... I'm in Sydney too - so if heads get together at some point I'll be happy to pop along, and of course you're most welcome to join a 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' chat at any time (as is everyone!) - thoughts for developing the structure of that page are most welcome - and I'd also be happy to explain the benefits as I've found them so far of using 'skypecasts' - which technically should allow for up to 100 people to participate in a conversation, hosted by a single user (typically with 3 or 4 people discussing something at any one time, and all others able to indicate whether they're happy to listen, or would like to speak... it's actually pretty cool stuff......)

Good to hear from you Simon - and unfortunately I won't be able to chat on wikback for a while, having copped a month's ban there recently.... :-( - my skype ID is my username here, so do feel free to drop me a message any time if you'd like a quick chat. best, Privatemusings (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Future show ideas

There are so many ideas for things to discuss I thought I would put longer term and larger topics here so I do not lose track of them. Some of these are big enough, if the right guests can be invited, an entire show might be devoted to each of these.--Filll (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the ideas, Filll - and have mentioned the idea at GTB's talk page previously, and will do so again.... I think the talk page is a good location for discussion about ideas etc. - the more people willing to get involved at this stage, the better, I reckon... - Privatemusings (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NTWW template

See Template:NTTW-subscription. I've put it on the community portal. Raul654 (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

good stuff! - now we need a fancy logo and an RSS feed....! Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not funny

[1] This is not funny. Masquerading as Jimbo, on Giano's page, is wrong. It is more than wrong. I am extremely, terribly disappointed in you for having done this. I believe you owe Giano an apology, at a minimum, and probably Jimbo too - and quite possibly the community as a whole, as that page is watchlisted by an awful lot of people. Cut it out. Risker (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think you're right. I am sorry - I'll go delete those things with my tail between my legs. Sorry folks... move along..... Privatemusings (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, and you pretended to be Giano on Jimbo's page??? Oh PM... Risker (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

messages crossed in cyberspace.... one at your talk.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Check your email where I have explained some of my concerns in a more detailed, and possibly more diplomatic way. Risker (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

<-- to any lurkers / onlookers - I hope there's really not a big huge deal here - just a silly april fool's post or two, a pretty prompt clean up, and we all went home without anyone losing an eye... phew! Privatemusings (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well *I* thought it was funny. Except for the part about how Jimbo ought to actually give serious consideration to doing something like that. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Inviting guests for interviews

I am frantically inviting friends to come and talk to us. Some might be suitable for a general discussion on lots of topics. Some might even want to come back! Some might have enough to say that we could spend a lot of time on just them. I have a few that have shown interest so far. And as you can see, GTBacchus has even bought himself a headset! Maybe I should make a list someplace of those who have expressed interest.--Filll (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussions by banned editors

I just listened to your conversation with the banned users. There were a number of things I felt should have been addressed. At one point (in file #1) Somey claims that Wikipedia Review is a open forum, so that people can freely converse with little or no censorship. (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it). It is, of course, a bald-faced lie. Just ask user:Grace Note (aka, user:Dr Zen). He was banned from the site when he exposed the fact that WikipediaReview's founder, Igor Alexander, was in fact Alex Linder, a neo-nazi, and his postings and evidence were deleted. You probably didn't know that, because they don't like to talk about that much. WR feels that no-holds-barred with OK when dealing with Wikipedia or its editors, but they are very touchy when confronted with the truth about their own actions.

I don't know all the circumstances behind it, but the article Moulton mentioned (the 'founder' of the affective computing field) was Rosalind Picard. Long story short - in the US, there's this thing called the discovery institute, a creationist front that exists to market the idea that evolution is a "theory in crisis" and that creationism is right. They put together a petition called A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. That petition is a professional embarrasment to every academic (I use the term loosely) who signed it - and rightfully so. So anyway, Ms. Rosalind Picard signed it, and now (presumably) doesn't want this fact known. Moulton, who works with her, was trying to censor this fact from her article, and the members of the ID wikiproject (including Filll) - who have to deal with these attempts to whitewash the truth on a daily basis - weren't particularly thrilled. That's what led to the troubles he described. In other words, it's all his fault and he brought it all on himself.

MyWikiBiz noted that he drew inspiration for his pay-me-to-edit-your-article buisness from Wikipedia:Bounty board and Wikipedia:Reward board. I'd like to point out that both of these articles state, very explicitly, that all donations are made to the Wikipedia Foundation, not the person doing the editing. Being paid to edit an article absolutely clear-cut conflict of interest, and if he says he didn't think it was, he's a fool or he's lying.

You said in the podcast that you are a "technical ignoramus". I am not - I'm rather knowledgabout about computers and how they work. Wordbomb claimed in the podcast that the spyware he sent Slimvirgin was no different than any commercially available cookie. This is a complete untruth. If he was sending someone a link to a file on a server on which he had access to webserver logs (the http access log at /var/log/httpd) there would be no need for any client-side script -- he could simply check the log. Now, let's say he attached it the files to the email instead (so that he was sending the files themselves instead of a link to them) -- most (all?) email clients provide a utility for the sender of an email to request a return reciept (see this for example). It's equivalent to sending certified mail. What he sent - a surreptitious program that dials home to a mother server when the email it is attached to is accessed - is spyware by any definition.

The discussion with all of these people tended to focus heavily on the reasons surrounding their initial bans (and highly biased descriptions thereof) while glancing over their numerous misdeeds since. Also (and these would have been good points to put towards Somey) [1] there was one cases on WR where MyWikiBiz ranted at length about one or two socks that were absolutely not his, and that these were clearly good users who had been swept up by overzealous admins. When I checkusered them later, it turned out they were sockpuppets belonging to Jon Awbrey (another banned user/wikipedia review participant) impersonating MyWikiBiz. And while it's concievable he didn't know and thus wasn't lying, I thikn he was lying and I take anything they say with with a large grain of salt. [2] It would have been nice of you to ask Somey about the real-world harassment that Wikipedia Review has spawned. In one case, a member there (almost certainly Lir) reported user:Snowspinner (an admin and english major in Florida) to police because of fictional stories (admittedly violent ones) he had put on his personal website. The police harassed Snowspinner, demanded he voluntarily be fingerprinted, threatened to search his garbage, etc, until Cory Doctorow made a lot of noise about it; in another case, user:Katefan0 (a very good editor and generally a very nice person) was outed as a worker for Congressional Quarterly, and had to quit because of possible bad-effects on her job. Of course, I expect Somey would give some idiotic answer along the lines of 'these are the acts of individual wikipedia review participants and can't be used to judge the whole site', but frankly, WR encouragese these acts and I consider all participants there to be either actively or tacitly guilty of fostering harrassment. Raul654 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)