User talk:Deselms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the Wikipedia "Talk" page of Gregg L. DesElms (username: Deselms)

To make it easier for the reader to follow, all parts of all conversations, here, are also posted (by me, as just my standard operating procedure) to the "Talk" pages of s/he with whom I'm here "talking."

Further, because I want everything here to be self-explanatory, I add comments, where necessary.

To write something to me, here, please click on the "New section" tab, above.
Please edit only your own words, and no one else's.

Or, perhaps better yet, send me an email message: gregg at greggdeselms dot com

See, also, my "User" page (click either here, or on the "User page" tab," above-left) where you will find my full contact information.



Hello, Deselms, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Mhking 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's comment[edit]

Though I read, even from the beginning, bits and pieces of the bulleted articles, above, it was like 2008 before I finally read them all: Seriously... all of all of them! Yes, some it it is pretty dry: Yikes! But it turns-out that I really missed something, 'cause there's some really good stuff in those articles! Every Wikipedia user should definitely read every single bit of them. Of course, that's the whole reason Wikipedia recommends them as part of its "Welcome" message, in the first place. Duh! But I'm just sayin'.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Lake Chicago[edit]

Great work on the Lake Chicago article! It has vastly improved from when I tried to edit it into somthing more readable. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's response[edit]

Glad I could help. I grew-up on the southernmost tip of Lake Michigan, in the "Miller" (now wrongly called the "Miller Beach") section of Gary, Indiana. The uniqueness of my surroundings fascinated me even from a young age, starting when we read and discussed a short book entitled "City on Sand in 4th grade." Later, when I took a geology course in college, it really started to interest me, and so I bothered to kinda' half-seriously research it all at both the Indiana University Northwest and Purdue Calumet libraries... long before the worldwide web part of the Internet, obviously. Now that I think about it, I even remember researching it a bit in my high school library. I can't remember if I found anything there, though.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Contact me[edit]

Please contact the Foundation office or me directly.--Brad Patrick 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's comments[edit]

You know... I actually remember this (my being asked to call the Wikimedia Foundation office) back in 2006. As I recall, I did so... multiple times, and no one returned my call. Nor could anyone tell me what it was about; and, in fact, one time I was treated kinda' badly on the phone about it... which really irritated me. I even faxed a message to the foundation office saying that I'm trying to do what I was asked to do here, but can't seem to get hold of anyone who can tell me what it's about.

After that, it just ended... never brought up again.

So here I am, looking at my "Talk" page (something I've literally not done since 2006, I think), and I just decided to put this comment here, for the record. For whatever it's worth.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC) (grammatical correction on Mon 13 June 2011 at 19:53 PDT)

Userfy request[edit]

As per your email request, User:Deselms/Sandbox. Please read the email reply first. If you think you have received this message in error, let me know on my talkpage. - Mailer Diablo 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's comment[edit]

The above is regarding the article I originally wrote about South African Theological Seminary which, while accurate and not biased in any, was, nevertheless a little too enthusiastic on account of what a deal I believed (and still believe) it to be because of the South African Rand's weakness against the US Dollar: A typical Master of Theology (MTh or ThM) degree from a US regionally-accredited seminary costs upwards of $20,000 while the very same thing from such as South African Theological Seminary, or UNISA, costs typically one-fifth that amount. And because South Africa's method of educational quality assurance rivals the US's accreditation schema, one may easily get a reputable US Educational Credential Evaluation service (such as AACRAO or any NACES.ORG member agency) to declare it equivalent to a US regionally-accredited one. The article was removed, and I asked that, instead, it be put into my sandbox... where it has stayed ever since, with me too busy to circle back and fix it. In the meantime, I notice that someone has created a very short -- a stub, really... at least as of this writing -- article about it. If I ever find the time, I'll update it with the more dispassionate and less enthusiastic parts of my old article.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

St Augustine's House[edit]

I've recently been chided for using deletion rationales that were insufficiently informative to newcomers; you'll note that the deletion in question is from last year.

It's not a question of SAH's reality or of notability or of anything like that; rather, I deleted it because the information was presented in a fashion so unlike our recommended style for an article (that is... it was "not an article"), I judged it would be easier to simply delete the information entirely and start from scratch.

Furthermore, I've since realized that the information was a copyright violation: it was copied-and-pasted verbatim from "Viewpoint of a Friend: A Brief History of Saint Augustine's House" by George Weckman. That's not allowed.

Maybe we should have an article on St Augustine's House; your description certainly speaks well of it. But we shouldn't have had that as our article on St Augustine's House.

Feel free to start a new article about SAH. DS (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's reponse[edit]

Thanks! It's been over two years, as you can see, and I've still not done it. But I will... eventually. [grin]
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Also broadcast on...[edit]

Please note that in most cases only the network that first broadcasts a TV show is considered notable. If you really want to add another network as you did in the article for Joan of Arcadia sources should be provided to both WP:VERIFY it and more importantly to show that it is WP:NOTABLE. The move of a show from one network to another might be notable, if a special deal was made, or the show went into syndication, or something like that but in most cases it is just another network showing reruns and not considered notable. -- Horkana (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's response[edit]

Understood. Thank you. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Gregg DesElms's response[edit]

Oops! Sorry... I didn't even notice this (above) survey request until six months after it appeared here. I'm guessing it's too late, of course. My bad.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's response[edit]

Of course, the above SineBot notice was posted by a robot, and so neither this reply, nor my also having posted it over on the SineBot's "Talk" page, will ever be read by humans; but it's the principle of the thing to respond... especially because I'm falsely accused/notified.

For the record, I have NEVER failed to sign, with four tildes, absolutely ANYTHING I've ever posted on Wikipedia. Ever!

The error is with the Wikipedia robotic system. About 20% (or so) of the time, after I've signed something with the four tildes, the SineBot will append this note to it...

Preceding unsigned comment added by Deselms (talk • contribs) TIME DATE (UTC)

...where the correct time and date are substituted for my words "TIME" and "DATE" in the immediately-above.

This happened three times today, which is, no doubt, why the system did the notification... apparently because the system erroneously thinks I'm not signing. I am. Always!

Someone please fix this bug.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 04:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)See?! (Note: I've left my signature, immediately above, and in the rest of this thread, except for the very last, finally fixed one, exactly as it was when first made, here. All the others on this page I've fixed, pursuant to how this thread turned out.)

Curious. You have a very unusual sig, with no links to your user page or talk page. I suspect this makes it hard for SineBot to recognise the sig. Your note on SineBot's talk page, will, however, be read. Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC).
Robots aren't the only users who will be confused by a signature that contains no hyperlinks. Human users are in the habit of using the links in signatures to reach a commentor's talk page, user contributions list, etc., and will be thwarted by your link-less signature. Apparently your Preferences include custom formatting for your signature that creates a boldface signature without any links; for the benefit of others, it would be nice if you could either use the default signature or add links to your custom signature. --Orlady (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not type-out my signature. We are prompted, throughout Wikipedia -- including, in bold, at the very bottom of the text box in which I'm now typing -- to sign with the four tildes, and that's what I do. Said four tildes produce exactly the same, hyperlinkless signature, regardless whether said tildes are bolded. My signature, immediately below, for example, was produced by my simply typing the four tildes, just as was every one of my tildes throughout Wikipedia. Bolding changes, not, the contents; and the robots usually have no confusion about it. I've been in IT for almost 40 years. I recognize a system error when I see one, hence the reason I called it that.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 06:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The behavior of your signature is not the default behavior. You have changed the preferences for your signature, whether you know it or now. Go to the "Preferences" link the displays at the top (or possibly a sidebar) of a Wikipedia page when you are logged in. On that page, select "Signature". To generate the default signature (like mine), the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup" should be unchecked. If you want to do something fancy with your signature, you need to code the signature correctly. See Wikipedia:Signatures for advice. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll check that out. Thank you. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 07:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: My signature hasn't changed in years, and so it looks like all that's happened is that the the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box somehow got checked. If you only knew how little I've even been in that "Preferences" area, you'd realize that it's more likely that a Google systemwide update of the Wiki software somehow resulted in it becoming checked than that I did it intentionally. I could be wrong, of course, but, seriously, I cannot think of any reason that I would ever check that box; and, in fact, as testament to how long it's been since I've been on that page and changed anything, when I went there just now, I didn't recognize a bit of it. I'll bet the last time I was in that area was godonlyknows how many Wiki system version updates ago. So, again, I don't know how it got checked, but since I didn't really know very much about any of it, I doubt that I did it. But, who knows, I could have. All I've done, in any case, is uncheck it and save. I didn't change anything else, though, so now it's as you see as I've signed this update. From my reading of the signature guidelines, it's fine. No?
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting that matter resolved. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
YET ANOTHER UPDATE (the last one on all this, I promise): I found a signature that was from even before the hyperlinkless (there's that not-really-a-word again) one that I was using which generated this whole conversation, here; and it's different, even, from that (more recent, but still hyperlinkless) signature. And guess what: That even older one's missing hyperlinks, too. So, then, whenever that box in my preferences got checked -- whether I did it, or fairies did it, or what -- it happened quite a while back... even longer ago than I thought I remembered that my signature used to have hyperlinks in it. So, on second thought, maybe I did check that box for some reason, long enough ago that I just don't remember. Considering that I'm having trouble remembering what I had for breakfast yesterday morning -- er... wait... even this morning -- I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Still, reading what it says in the preferences section about what the box does, I'm having trouble believing I checked it. But, hey... anything's possible. At least it's fixed.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)See?


I would appreciate your sage advice on Talk:Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, in response to some areas of general ignorance of mine. Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC).

Gregg DesElms's response[edit]

Okeedokie. I'll head over and see what you're talking about. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I've now written a quite long section over there. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your excellent rhetorical skill and essay writing in the face of great adversity in fighting injustice in the article Kitchen Nightmares against a certain individual Barneyross45 (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's response[edit]

[Sniffle] I'd like to thank the academy... (okay, enough of that)

Oh, alright, one more: "You like me, you really like me!" - Sally Field

But seriously... thank you! It really is an honor... at least by this nutty place's standards. I haven't even visited that Kitchen Nightmares "talk" page since I wrote that epistle. I actually forgot about it... so busy, you know. But now that I have gone back and read the responses, I'm irritated with them; and I've now made a note to circle back and resume the discussion. Be sure to "watch" that page so you'll be notified.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Ebert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holy Name Cathedral (check to confirm|fix with Dab solver (links disabled here because it's now fixed)). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's response[edit]

Hmmm. Well, I certainly didn't mean to link to the disambiguation page. I do remember landing on it, though, when looking for the Holy Name Cathedral article; and then opening Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral article on its own tab to the immediate right. I wonder if I somehow got confused about which tab was which when I was jumping around to grab links during my edit of the Ebert article. Hmmm. Well, no matter, I just fixed it; and gave as my reason that I accidentally linked to the disambiguation page instead of Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral page... my bad. Thanks!
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The "funeral" section of the Roger Ebert Article[edit]

Gregg DesElms wrote on the "Talk" page of user "Nightscream":

While I could have done without the offensive "are you kidding me?" in your reasons for your edits of my work, there, I nevertheless agree with them. You did a fine job tightening it up. Please remember, though, that everyone -- especially someone who has skin in the game about which s/he's writing, as I do with Ebert since I kinda' knew him -- needs an editor; and professional editors don't ridicule those whom they're editing. Nevertheless, thank you for your good work. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream's response[edit]

Thanks. However, it was more an expression of personal incredulity than ridicule, since I didn't single out any other editor by name. Nightscream (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Kermit Gosnell mugshot[edit]

In the File:Kermit_Gosnell_mug.jpg discussion you state: "all local mugshots are also in the public domain." I hope we can get a picture of Gosnell for his page but Wikipedia needs proof of this (link to law X or similar) to rule in your favor. If not, once he is found guilty, mugshots can be used as non-public domain images since there is no way to take a picture of him anymore (similar to how Wikipedia has corporate logos on their respective pages). >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 14:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just entirely resolved the matter. Please see my "[t]he matter is now settled" posting in the Gosnell mugshot discussion.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It may be good if you could somehow find out some documentation for universal policy on Wikipedia. Basically so all mugshots are considered public domain. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 17:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking that, too. If I can find the time, I will. Sadly, simply navigating this behemoth of an officious place, and figuring out where to even begin such a process, can be daunting, and can take more time than finally getting done whatever is the actual desired deed! I'll see what I can do (and when I can do it). [grin]
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI: See, now, my "UPDATE:" posting in the Gosnell mugshot discussion thread; as well as my "NOTE: (18 April 2013)" immediately beneath the PUF notice on the mugshot's actual web page here.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
First, you forgot to sign your "Delete" posting in the discussion on the Gosnell mugshot's 12 April 2013 PUF page.
Second, beneath your unsigned (at this writing) posting there, you will find a very upset response to it from me... but not because you posted it there; such is, after all, your right. Rather, I'm upset because, based on what you wrote there, you went ahead and unilaterally removed the mugshot from the Wikipedia article, despite that you could see (assuming you read any of the rest of the discussion) that I am right in the middle of timely formalizing Wikipedia's unlimited use of the image, as my words both before and after your posting made so painfully clear that I find it difficult to believe you meant anything short of malice by doing it. Maybe you didn't; and if it turns out that I'm wrong in assuming it, then I'll humbly apologize everywhere where it's appropriate.
In the meantime, please read -- long though it unfortunately now necessarily is -- my response there; and then let's please not fight about this. You seem like a reasonable person... er... you know... when you're not sweeping through Wikipedia like a tornado, unilaterally prematurely removing things, that is.
I am, too. Let's not, then, turn this into a big mess, shall we? I'm working on formally resolving the issue, once and for all, as fast as I can. Your removing the mugshot from the Gosnell aticle so distracted me from working on it, and then caused me to fully document my reversal of it (so that if you reverse me again, and I have to file a formal complaint with Wikipedia, it will all be there) that -- because it's now late on Friday and I cannot now have any further discussions with the Philadelphia District Attorney's office about it, as I was right in the middle of doing -- it has basically cost me a day; and so it has now delayed my finally getting it resolved by at least two days more than that.
Please, then, just sit back and let me deal with this. In the end, everyone will get what they want.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Coffee for waiting on the phone...[edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thanks for your work securing that the Gosnel mugshot is public domain. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 15:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to a conversation[edit]

On the Talk page of user with the (apparently fixed) IP address, I wrote:

Invitation to a conversation | I have read your concerns about the North American Old Catholic Church (NAOCC), and Bishop Seneco. I am in no way affiliated with it, or with Seneco; but I know Seneco, and even vigorously defended him and NAOCC once in comments beneath an article in a newspaper a year or so ago. Now I am stunned to learn of some of the things you write, and I am curious to know what the heck's going on. Is there any chance that you would be interested in a confidential conversation with me about it all? My contact information is on my user page here at Wikipedia. Please email or give me a call or something. Seriously: CONFIDENTIAL! Thanks, in advance, for your thoughtful consideration. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User at IP's response[edit]

Thank you...I have no interest in this subject or Mr Seneco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Gregg's response[edit]

No interest in this subject? If by "this subject," you mean chatting with me, then fine; that's one thing. However, if by "this subject" you mean NAOCC and/or Seneco (and that's what you, me and God all know that you actually meant), then you sure have a funny way of showing it, what with your incessant editing of the NOACC article (to the point, even, that you got briefly blocked from doing it; and your most recent edits keep getting reversed); and, even more tellingly, your palpable outrage about things on the NAOCC article page's "Talk" page. You clearly have an ax to grind, and I have no issue with that, per se; however, I do, as an editor around here who works very hard to follow the rules and make my posts valuable and properly sourced/cited, take issue with how you just won't stop almost pathologically breaking the rules around here; and how you won't just find and cite the articles out in the world which properly document what you keep trying to post which keeps getting undone. If you can't figure out how to post it properly so that it won't be reversed, then perhaps I can help. But I need to see the articles out in the world which document what you're saying: for example, the article about ordaining pedophiles alleged to be in the Utah newspaper... which I could find nowhere. Even if you don't want to privately chat, provide documentation of what you claim, and I will happily post it in the article... and when at least I do it, it won't be reversed because it will follow Wikipedia's rules. If you really want to get the information in the article, then stop doing what cannot be done and start doing what can. The surest sign of insanity, they say, is continuing to do the same thing over and over and over again, and expecting a different outcome. That's what you seem to be doing with this article, and it is, frankly, making you look nuts. If you want to actually accomplish something, then, even if you don't like me very much after what I've herein written, nevertheless let me help you. Begin by providing PROOF, through providing links to documenting articles, of the things you're claiming. I can then take that (assuming it's credible and relevant) and get it into the article properly. Otherwise, I think you need to stop what you're doing because, seriously, it really is making you look nuts. You're not nuts, right? I mean.. 'cause... well... seriously. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

User at IP's response[edit]

WOW - you claim to be 'disinterested' and then call me 'NUTS?'.....clearly you have an axe to grind here and how you ever became an 'editor' is beyond me. I wish you all the best in your continuing attempt to cover up this whole situation. Peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Gregg's response[edit]

[rolls eyes at ceiling] Sigh. [shakes head in disbelief] Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User at IP's response[edit]

HERE IS A 3RD PARTY ANALYSES....GO AHEAD AND CLAIM ITS NOT AND CONTINUE YOUR COVERUP — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Gregg's response[edit]

All I did was sigh, roll my eyes at the ceiling, and shake my head in disbelief about you and your response. I did that because of all the things for more relevant and consequential that I wrote to you, you focused on that I wondered if you're nuts. I didn't say you were nuts, mind you; I only wondered if you were... mostly because... well... frankly... you've kinda' been acting a little nutty with regard to this whole North American Old Catholic Church thing. You're violating every rule around here; you've been admonished, yet you continue to try to vandalize the article; you refuse to understand how things work around here, and you're refusing my help so that what you want in the article can somehow get there, but according to the rules around here.

Your response to which I sighed, rolled my eyes and shook my head in disbelief ignored all of that, and focused on whether or not you're nuts. That, plus the fact that throughout all that you've done here, you've not paused to even wonder for a moment if you're being over-the-top... to self-examine... most psychologists would say, suggests you might actually be nuts. I'm most certainly starting to wonder if you are, but it's not like you're not giving all the evidence I need. What does it take to get you to slow down, and calm down, and stop arguing, and be reasonable? Hmmm? That's all you need to do to turn all of this from the madness that you've made it into something from which something good could actually happen! But you refuse. You persist on not reading what people actually write, ignoring their offers of help, focusing on the wrong things, and completely missing their points...

...which is exactly what you've done here, again, with your accusation of that I'm covering-up. You've apparently not read my long comment on the North American Old Catholic Church Wikipedia article's "Talk" page; if you had, you'd realize that I have no interest in covering-up anything; and that I am, in fact, trying to get information that I can put into the article about what actually happened, and why Seneco was out, and why the whole thing fell apart. How is that covering up? I am, in fact, trying to uncover. But we can't do it the way you've been doing it. We have to find articles out there which describe what happened, and which we can cite in the Wikipedia article. If we don't do that, then we can't put it into said article. The reason I wonder if you're nuts is becuase that has been explained to you in every possible way, yet you continue to vandalize the article and ignore attempts by people like me to help you do it properly.

I am very well aware of the "Arch Fraud" blog. I have even communicated with both its author, and with with some of the people mentioned in the various blog posts. Don't worry... all the things that you're wanting others to read, I, at least, am reading; and questioning, and trying to follow-up on. I originally asked you for help precisely so that I could collect more information; to find out everything you know; to have you point me to people to whom I can talk; or articles that I can read. But you're refusing; and, instead, accusing me of things I have not done. That, of course, makes me worry that you're doing the same thing to Michael Seneco. I'm not saying you are; but you can understand, I hope, my concern about that if you're being this unreasonable with me for no reason, then maybe you're doing the same thing regarding him. You've clearly got a very serious ax to grind. I don't know if you were in the organization, or were refused entry into it, or if Seneco hurt you, or... well... or I dunno. If you'll just calm down and contact me, we can have a confidential conversation, and I can learn what you know and I can really research and work on this. I need your help, not your ridicule and anger. Please stop it!

Please just contact me. It will be confidential; treated by me like a fiduciary responsibility... which is the way I handle all confidentiality. I'm 57 years old, and have been writing and researching and helping people for literally decades; and so when I say "confidential," I bygod mean it! And if you want in the Wikipedia article the kinds of things you've been trying to put into it, but which keeps getting removed, then, trust me, I'm the only one who can help you achieve it. But I need to know what you know... names, details, times, places, etc.

Please contact me (my contact info is on my user page). If you're not going to do that, then please just leave me alone, because you and I are not accomplishing anything, here, like this. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User at IP's response[edit]

More endless coverups. Well......I tried to help you and you still just want to cover up Mr Seneco' wrongdoing. Good luck with your stilted view of reality.-- (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Gregg's response[edit]

First, please stop accusing at least me of covering-up anything. I have no "stilted view." Did you, again, even read my long comment in the "BLP Violation Remval" section of the NAOCC article's "talk" page? What part of what I wrote both there and here about how I want to uncover and write about what happened with NAOCC and Seneco do you not understand? Accuse others, if you want, but STOP ACCUSING ME. This is part of why people think you're nuts, because you ignore facts; and give bull-headedness a whole new name. You may have your own opinions, in life, of course; but you don't get to have your own facts!

Second, help me how? You mean by giving me the Arch Fraud lead? As I wrote, I already knew about that and had followed it up. Additionally, again, you seem to refuse to understand how Wikipedia works... and Lord knows it's been explained to you, so, again with the bull-headedness. That Arch Fraud blog is not a reliable, authoritative source for Wikipedia citation purposes; why can't you get that through your obviously thick skull? If you'll look at the "Welcome" message from back when I first posted around here, up at the top of this very page, you'll find links to all the resources you'll need to learn how to properly (and that's the operative word) cite things around here. The Arch Fraud blog doesn't qualify; and so that's why people keep removing, from the NAOCC article, the link to it that you keep stubbornly inserting. While the Arch Fraud blog may or may not contain accurate information, it's, at best, an emotional, one-sided, rant with an obvious ax to grind, just exactly like everything you've been trying to post, and which editors and administrators have removed and then warned you about. Plus, remember that I've communicated with the woman who mounted the Arch Fraud blog, and even she said she should probably take it down and that she probably will; and so if she did, then just look: the citation source would go away and there'd be a dead link in the article. Citation sources need to be enduring, and credible... not built on anger and whim like that Arch Fraud blog.

Additionally, in the case of that Arch Fraud blog, there's another problem: The bishop (Martin) who authorized the inclusion of his private letters and emails to and from Seneco not only had no right to so authorize, but said authorization and disclosure might even be illegal, since it amounts, in effect, to a personnel matter. Moreover -- and this is really the most salient part -- such communications, especially regarding clergy, are just so, so, inherently confidential; and someone who calls himself a bishop should know, intuitively, that such disclosure is so fundamentaly wrong that I, for one, would question whether even the seal of the confessional actually even means anything to him, and/or could ever be relied upon. If a priest's seal of the confessional has no meaning, then he's done. I don't know about you, but Archbishop Dominic Martin has permanently lost credibility with at least me. Also, when I contacted Salvato, one of the other people whose communications where disclosed in the Arch Fraud blog, he didn't even know about it, and was appalled and angered by its disclosures... for the exact same reasons I just cited.

Wikipedia cannot get itself mired down in such shenanigans... shenanigans which, by the way, even further contribute to the Arch Fraud blog's being unqualified to be a Wikipedia citation source! If you're clergy (which I'm guessing you are, else why would any of this matter so much to you), then how can you not already understand all that without having to have it explained to you like this? What? Are you new or something?

Here's the way to think of it: Ask yourself, "would the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or World Book Encyclopedia, or Collier's, or any of the other well-known, respected, authoritative, found-in-every-school-library encyclopedia ever include such a source?" The answer, in the case of the Arch Fraud blog, even you (if you were honest) would have to admit, is, of course, "no." C'mon... you know that.

Wikipedia is routinely chastised by many in academia because anyone -- including even you, it's beginning to seem sadly -- can add to it; but it is precisely the kind of resistance, here, that your non-authoritative additions have received which keeps this place both honest and accurate. Yes, of course, in any given moment immediately after someone like you adds something that shouldn't be in any given article, said article could be momentarily inaccurate or in some other way not credible. But people around here catch stuff like that, and change it, as they've done with you! And then they warn people like you to stop it; and block you or even ban you if you won't listen. If things goes too far, then the article gets either semi-locked so that only people like me, who identify themselves around here (and whose identities have been validated), may edit them; or fully-locked, so that no one but an administrator can. Because of such safeguards, Wikipedia articles end-up being, by hook or by crook, accurate. The oozing-with-credibility Nature magazine even did a study of it in 2005 and found Wikipedia to be as generally accurate as the venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica. Read about it here if you don't believe it.

And speaking of people identifying themselves: you realize, don't you, that part of the reason you're presumed not-credible around here is because you insist on anonymity, and being known only by your IP address. That doesn't inure to your benefit around here. Heck, you won't even follow the rules and sign your posts with four tiles, and so the sinebot keeps signing them for you, and then putting warnings on your "talk" page... which you, of course, ignore. Editors and admins around here notice that kinda' stuff, and realize, from it, that you have nothing but disdain for this place; and can't even be bothered to follow its rules. Then you wonder why no one takes you seriously. You chastise Seneco for not being credible, yet you behave as the very epitome of not-credible by taking potshots from the dark and anonymous corners of the peanut gallery like a street punk bully. If you want respect around here, then begin by identifying yourself, and following the rules. This isn't your venue. Either play by its rules, or get the hell out! It's really as simple as that. If you had a church (and, sadly, I fear you do), wouldn't you be allowed to eject someone who was disruptive and wouldn't follow its rules? Hmmm? Be fair.

Part of the reason that at least I think you might be just plain nuts is because you mistake this place's insistence on your playing by its rules for "cover-up"; and keep accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you of being part of it. That's the behavior, frankly, of someone who's paranoid -- maybe even schizophrenic -- and perhaps not taking his/her meds. There is no cover-up! Get that, once again, through your obviously thick (or, I'm guessing, perhaps more acccurately, schizophrenic, and off his/her meds) skull. All that's happening around here is that your unsubstantiated additions to the NAOCC article are not being allowed because they cite no reliable sources! That's it! That's all that's happening. And, of course, your additions, even if sourced, cannot be either inflammatory or defamatory. It has to be encyclopedic in nature. What part of that can't you friggin' understand? That this place won't allow what you're posting is not "cover-up!" It's simply insisting that you follow the rules; just as you would require of anyone deigning to enter your church.

Now, all that said, I know your frustration: there are about eight articles on Wikipedia about which I have personal, first-hand information which I'd love to add to said articles; but because no reliable source out there has ever written what I know, I can't include it in them. It began with the Lake Chicago article when I wanted to include something (more than I did) about the sand spits and dunes it left behind in what is now Northwest Indiana, but I couldn't find a source; yet I knew and and had seen the things about which I wanted to write... and have even stood upon them, because that's where I grew up, and I played on them as a child! Talk about first-hand knowledge! Yet I couldn't include it in the Wikipedia article because no reliable source, acceptable to Wikipedia, existed out there. It's very frustrating, I realize, to know something -- and to either know, or at least believe, that it's true and relevant to a Wikipedia article -- yet you can't find an authoritative source out there in the universe, and so you simply can't include it. It breaks your heart; I get that. And I'm sorry that it's so frustrating you. But this place has rules for a reason, and we must all follow them. Period.

So, though I realize it's falling on deaf ears, I now offer, again, to help you get it right in the NAOCC article. Please identify yourself to at least me (privately, obviously, via email; my contact information is on my user page here). It will have the confidentiality of the confessional, I promise. I used to work for newspapers; I understand how to protect a source. No one but you and I will know about it... ever... no matter what. I even went to jail once for Contempt of Court (albeit only overnight) at my very first newspaper job at a student paper (I wasn't even 21 yet... over 35 years ago) because I wouldn't reveal the source of something I wrote in an article about a local motion picture theater projectionists union strike. The state press association even provided me a lawyer. I later got similarly threatened when I wrote about someone in a picket line shooting at cars full of strikebreakers ("scabs," the union members called them) at a local school bus body works plant (that one never went to court). I have, then, a provable track record, going back over three decades, of protecting sources! If you'll tell me what you know (and not just what anyone can read in such as the Arch Fraud blog), then I could maybe go find some reliable sources and get it into the NAOCC article, just as you'd like. You, obviously, don't know how to do it. I, on the other hand, do. How in the world could you possibly call my wanting to do all that a "cover-up?" You need to figure out who is and isn't your enemy, and start trusting someone (difficult for a Schizophrenic to do, I realize, but you must at least try). Either do that, or just, at long last, finally give-up on trying to get things into the NAOCC article which this place will simply, by its rules, not allow.

BE WARNED: You will never get past the system of checks and balances, here. I, for one, am now "watching" the NAOCC page; and am now notified of every change. I will reverse your changes just minutes to hours after you make them (if they're not per Wikipedia rules); and I have the patience of Job, and will just do it, and do it, and do it, and outlast you, no matter how long you keep it up. So you might as well just stop trying.

Now, I've spent a lot of time, here, if you'l notice, trying to work with you on this, to get the truth out. If all that effort, plus the writing resulting therefrom, doesn't convince you that I, at least, am trying to do the exact opposite of a "cover up," then maybe you really are nuts. Sorry, but if you don't want me to think that that's maybe what you are, then forgodsake stop acting like it! Contact me privately, let's establish a confidential relationship, and then help me get what you want into the NAOCC article in a way that's acceptable to this place! Please.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Gregg's long-overdue response[edit]

TO: User at IP address

Please see my long-overdue response to your words on the North American Old Catholic Church article "talk" page (that I had missed, back when you wrote them in October).

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello Gregg, I saw your comment on the Napa Valley Register website and want to apologize. The reporter talked with me twice. The first time, she asked if I knew of other editors in Napa County. I told her that I would look around. In our second conversation, she interviewed me for an hour and ten minutes. I told her I did find a few accounts that had made a few edits but were no longer active, and also that I knew of an active editor who grew up in Napa but now lives in Southern California. I am sorry that I did not find your account. I told her that I was the only highly active editor living in the Napa Valley that I was aware of. I mentioned that there might be others I was unaware of. She simplified my response, and so I regret that you were offended. I think in general she did a good job, but not every single detail was right. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's Response[edit]

Hi, Jim. I was just thinking that I should probably reach-out to you, here, but you've beaten me to it. That's because, I think, I got distracted by commenter-beneath-the-story Michael Haley's remarks about his problems with the Napa Wikipedia article. As I got the little notice of your message at the top of my screen, I had both the Napa city and county articles open in separate tabs in my browser, trying to figure what he was talking about. He needs to put his concerns and/or complaints into the "Talk" page of whatever article to which he's referring so that folks like you and me can address them. But now I digress; sorry.
Anyway, no apology necessary; though it's a mark of an educated, sophsticated and sensitive person that s/he would both think one appropriate under such circumstances, and then would reach-out to do it; so please don't think it's not appreciated. I was of a sort of kneejerk mindset when I first read the piece and commented, and quite another after having fired-off the comment which, once done, I sorta' wish I hadn't. I might, now, post a link to our chat, here, so people reading the article can see how it's done at Wikipedia! [grin]
Actually, I think the article's very cool; and I agree that the reporter did a generally good job. I'm also, don't get me wrong, very impressed by your both work and rank around here. I'd love to be able to contribute as you have. My hat's off to ya', and I mean that.
I'm a fairly rabid anti-degree/diploma-mill activist (have actually helped put some millists in jail and everything; hence the mounted-on-a-server-in-Malaysia-so-it's-beyond-the-reach-of-my-lawyer website, out there, where I and my colleagues are called everything but pedophiles by said millists -- er... wait... I think they've now finally done that, too -- and their curiously-loyal fake "degree" holders); and among my consulting firm's areas of expertise is educational accreditation and, most specifically in that world, the application of technology to the educational -- particularly the distance educational -- function. Needless to say, then, I've got more than a few friends and colleagues in academia...
...and to nearly the last of them, they're anti-Wikipedia. Many won't even accept citations from it in undergrad papers and, especially, in masters' thesis and doctoral dissertations. You and I both understand why, of course: a single idiot can make any Wikipedia article wrong for however many hours or even days it takes for someone like you or me (or, preferably, those who "watch" the vandalized page) to discover and correct it; and apparently that's enough for them to just dismiss Wikipedia, out of hand. But the triple-net bottom line on Wikipedia is that despite such anomaly, it's about as generally accurate as the Encyclopædia Britannica (which I used to sell, by the way, some 40 or so years ago; bought a brand new metallic blue two-door 1976 Ford Gran Torino, for cash, right off the showroom floor; and also helped pay for college from its proceeds, so I was kinda' almost good at it)... or so said Nature in its 2005 study. See also this CNN story about it. Part of the reason for that accuracy is, from what I can see, your (and I hope my, as well) painstaking work to get things provably right, with proper citation, around here.
I worked for a newspaper, myself, eons ago -- was even an editor for a while; strung for the Associated Press for even less time after that -- and though my degree is in business, I took several journalism courses, and read tons of books, and have owned a current AP Stylebook every year for pushing 40 years; and so I feel at least a tiny bit qualified to critique the Napa Valley Register reporter's otherwise good work in the following way: When you suggested that you were alone in the county as an editor, she should not have gone to press without having researched how to verify (or not) that suggestion; and then to either report what she found, or why she couldn't verify it. It turns-out, as you know, to be difficult (see this). There are sections, here, which list editors by state, and even city or county; but said editors need to have placed a certain kind of tag onto their user pages which identify them as living in said states, counties or cities; and most of us haven't done that (though I may, now that all this has happened). She could also have gotten a quote about it from someone at the Wikimedia Foundation.
My overarching point is that she shouldn't have just run with it, as you presented it, without maybe an either qualifying or countering quote; or perhaps a verification or an explanation about whether it's accurate, and/or why it can or can't be verified. It wouldn't have added that much to the length of her piece; and, of course, that's the problem: every piece has to fit into what's called a "news hole," determined each day by the editors in what's called a "budget" meeting where they figure out how many column inches to give each story, based on the overall amount of space available in the paper for news (aka, the "news hole"), which is determined by how much advertising the "business side" of the paper has told them (the "editorial side") it has sold. Each column inch has a cost, and must be paid for by advertising. Whenever a newspaper is small in any given day, it's not because there wasn't enough news; rather, it was because the business side of the paper didn't sell enough advertising to support all that the editorial side wished it could have printed; and so that day's paper had a small news hole.
One upside (and there darned few, in my opinion, by the way) of the printed newspaper going the way of the Dodo Bird is that the web-based alternative allows articles of virtually any length without incurring the traditional and article-length-limiting, per-column-inch costs of newsprint, ink, press time, etc. That said, I am already regretting my late '80s and early '90s very small (mostly just as a browser beta tester; though I'm also proud to have heavily influenced some UseNet discussions about a few elements of the then-still-fledgling HTML standard which later came to be per my way of thinking; and then, starting with its release in '94, I was quite an evangelist for it in my writings) contribution to the very development of the Worldwide Web (WWW) part of the Internet, and what it's now doing to ink-on-paper newspapers, magazines and books. I will never stop loving the feel (and even smell) of a real ink-on-paper publication in my hand; and I'm sorry, but I'm actually glad I won't live long enough (at least I don't think I will) to see the day when they're all finally gone and every last thing we read will be on a tablet (or, as in my case, a phablet) or Kindle-type device (which kinds of devices I own -- along with my desktop replacement notebook -- by the way, 'cause ya' sorta' kinda' gotta', these days; but it doesn't mean I have to actually like it!).
I also lament what it's doing to our young people. Multi-tasking is a myth: all it breeds is attention-deficit-diordered youth who are all about breadth and no depth; who think the world can be covered in 140 characters or less and who, therefore, eschew anything longer with a dismissive "TLDR" (Internet slang for "too long, didn't read); who want everything in as-brief-as-possible sound bites; who think the unnecessarily-brief, really-just-television-on-newsprint USA Today is actually a newspaper, or that The Daily Show is actually news; and so, then, who would just about be killed by having to read a New Yorker magazine or Chicago Reader length feature article. Such youth, they keep telling us, are our tomorrow's leaders; I'm glad I won't be around to see much of that, either.
I lament, most of all, though, what the WWW is doing to the way we, as humans, now interact. I cite, for explanation of that, the excellent work of psychologist Sherry Turkle, who was also a WWW evangelist in the mid-90s. Her magnificent, must-see 2012 TED TALK video explains it best; and I could not more strongly recommend her book about the subject (which, of course, I have on Kindle, 'cause it's cheaper; can't win for losin', eh?). I often joke that if it weren't for the WWW, the world wouldn't need a "National Night Out" just so we can all meet our brick-and-mortar world neighbors; and, instead, we'd be meeting them across the back fence, like both we, once upon a time, and our parents and grandparents did; and we'd be arguing with them about where, precisely, is the property line in that little strip of grass between our driveways so we'd both know where to stop mowing.
I mean, just look at us, here: meeting on Wikipedia instead of having coffee together, in person, somewhere. As I type this, I am only, according to Google Maps, precisely 4.12112 miles (as the crow files; only 5.6 miles by surface streets) from where you are sitting in the photo that's accompanying the Napa Valley Register article. Heaven forbid we should sit down over a cup, in person. I'll buy, if you like... it's the least I can do for having kneejerked an irritated comment beneath your otherwise wonderful article. Didn't mean to rain on your parade.
So, then, apology right back atcha', there, Jim. I should have thought twice before writing once. Then again, the reporter should have better handled it, too (despite that, yes, she did, indeed, do an otherwise good job on the story). I just wanna' know who I need to have sex with to get a story like that written about me! (just kidding... er... you know... sorta') [grin]
Keep-up the good work!
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328's response[edit]

Thank you, Gregg. In the reporter's defense, I speak rapidly and she mentioned a couple of times that she was having trouble keeping up with me. I probably should have emphasized the point more, but I had lots of things on my mind during the interview. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DesElms's response[edit]

I understand what you're saying, but I fear you're being too charitable. Actually, my use of the phrase "I fear," there, was too charitable. And you're also taking too much responsibility for it all on yourself.
When she quoted your assertion, she knew (or at least should have known), from her training, what to do. She didn't need you to either soften what you said, or, by so softening, to suggest her follow-up. Her training (assuming she went to a real journalism school) should have imposed upon her the journalistic duty of attempting to verify your assertion; and then to either not go to press with it if she couldn't, or to explain why it's not possible. In this case, because leaving-out your assertion would weaken the story; and also because why should couldn't verify could be explained, the latter would be better.
I determined both the difficulty, and reasons for it, of determining Wikipedia editors by location in only about eight minutes in my very first Google search, on the phrase "wikipedia editors by location"; and by then reading the first best-and-most-logical article among the search results that weren't on the Wikipedia website, itself, and that to which it linked: in other words, the Quora article that I linked-to in my earlier-herein response. If she knew how to use Google as well as I apparently do (and in her line of work, she had certainly better), then she could have determined the same thing in the same amount of time... double it, at the outside. Even someone on deadline can manage that.
And so, then, after your assertion in her article, she should have written that precisely determining Wikipedia editors by location is difficult because those who don't include a location tag on their Wikipedia user pages cannot be parsed into the Wikipedia editor location database (except, of course, she'd have to reword it so the 8th grade-level, non-technical reader could grasp it).
Had I been her desk editor, I would have told her to either do that, or remove your quoted assertion. And, again, because removing your assertion would have weakened the article; and explaining why it could not be verified was fairly easy, I would have insisted that she include the assertion, followed by said brief explanation. At that point the reader would have appropriate reason (actually "due cause," is what I really mean) to call your assertion into question in his/her mind, which would be exactly the right journalistic thing to do, under the circumstances.
That's why I wrote that the newspaper should not have run your assertion; though you, obviously, were perfectly okay to make it. And that's why I earlier herein wrote "apology back atcha'," because the problem, here, really, is not with you. She was just quoting you; and it wasn't your responsibility to be an expert on whether or not there were other Wikipedia editors in Napa county. The problem is that the writer of the story didn't properly follow-up on that assertion. She's writing the story, not you. None of that means, though, that she didn't do a good job with the rest of the story. She did, indeed, as I earlier wrote.
The bottom line is that if I had been her editor, there would have been no way that your assertion -- with or without your having either softened it with mention of that there were probably others, or your having so done effectively reminding her of her duty -- would have gone to press without her either verifying it or explaining it; and I've just written that I would insist it be the latter, and why.
As a former both experienced writer and editor, I know that there's a well-determined procedure for this sort of thing that's taught by every journalism school in the country, and she didn't follow it. Her editor's job was to ensure that she did. That neither of them did is, in part, why they're working for a small-town newspaper, and not a big-city one. Sadly, Napa's readers of its local paper are the worse for it.
Furthermore, the fact that she needed you to slow down as you spoke to her, instead of her having her own form of notehand that can keep-up, no matter what (mine certainly still works; and I had it both fully developed and well-practiced by only my second month as a reporter), augmented by a tape recorder (which, under law, she must notify s/he whom she's interviewing that she's using), speaks volumes about what I can only surmise is her lack of experience. I'm not trying to be hard on her, but there's a certain skill set which all professional (and that's the operative word: she works for a real newspaper, not a student or mere "Penny Saver" type one, and so she's at least supposed to be a professional) journalists must have; and it sounds like she's not quite yet developed her skill set.
It's all really as simple as that. Don't allow that you like her, and that she wrote a good story about you, either cause you to relieve her of her professional responsibilities; or, especially, cause you to try to convince me to do the same. The newspaper business is a tough one. She either toughens-up and does her job like a pro, or she'll always work for small-town papers, and will never really be that pro. While it's up to her which she chooses, it's sad that if she chooses the latter, readers of her work won't be getting her best.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • was announced on the website that it will be archived and [|shutdown]] on 10 April 2014.<ref name=17_Mar_letter />

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Gregg's response[edit]

Oops! My bad. It's fixed now. (Oy... look at me: I'm talking to a bot.)
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328's counter-response[edit]

An intelligent response from the bot is highly unlikely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Gregg's counter, coun... oy...[edit]
Actually, it's an intelligent response from me that's unlikely. [grin] To be clear, though, I wasn't actually responding to the bot, hence my joke about it. I just wanted to document -- for me, if no one else -- that I fixed the problem. That said, I actually have been known to talk to bots. I figure I've got nothing to worry about, though, as long as they don't talk back. [grin]
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Fylbecatulous's chime-in[edit]
(talk page stalker) I am talking to a bot as well. I was actually happy to get a notice. No one else has stopped by for quite some time. ツ All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 11:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed... the "talk" page can be a lonely place! One as fancy, dancy as yours, though, feels very inviting. It's the least that a "talk page stalker" like you could do, of course. [grin] Seriously, though... nice talk page.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you muchly. Face-smile.svg Fylbecatulous talk 22:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)