User talk:GTBacchus/Archive 10

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


Hi GT, I've suggested some wording at WP:V to deal with the issue of sources being rejected because not peer-reviewed. I wondered if you could take a look at it, because it borrows some words of yours from a recent AN post: "Where there is disagreement between scholarly and non-scholarly sources, the views should be clearly attributed: the scholarly view is presented as the scholarly view, and a strong and reliable dissenting view as a strong and reliable dissenting view." The suggestion is here if you have time to look at it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi GT, I won't be commenting on that section, because I feel Tim Vickers is engaged in a WP:POINT. He has posted over 300 times about this in about three days to a large number of project and user talk pages, the village pump, and AN, claiming he only wanted to make a copy edit and was prevented. It simply isn't true. He wanted to make very substantive changes to RS and V; if some copy edits fell by the wayside, they were collatoral damage, and he's aware of that. Take a look at the copy edits he's complaining about losing: they were minor and trivial. Then look at the substantive changes he tried to make: that unsourced material "will" be removed, rather than "may" be (citing Jimbo, who has said no such thing) [1]; and that non-scholarly sources may be used only if scholarly ones aren't available, which is a violation of V and NPOV. [2] [3] These are not innocent copy edits, no matter how loudly and often he claims they were.
I've been maintaining and writing the sourcing policies for two-and-a-half years. In that time, I've made 456 edits to NOR talk; 466 to V talk; 498 to ATT talk; and 323 to Reliable sources talk, so no one can accuse me of not discussing my edits; I'm also active in explaining the policies to people who turn up with questions. I've possibly discussed sourcing issues more than anyone else on Wikipedia.
What I don't appreciate is people who aren't familiar with the policies rushing in to add new material without discussion, and revert-warring when it's removed. If they had been honest mistakes from an editor who didn't realize how policy development works, I'd have been very happy to help him. I explained the problems with the edits, and I replied to his initial queries, but it wasn't good enough. Instead, I must devote entire days to responding to dozens of posts he has scattered all over the encyclopedia, and to friends of his drafted in to argue for him, and if I don't, I'm refusing to discuss.
His edits speak for themselves and they are all that matter: he and Marskell were trying to make fundamental changes to core policies, one of which would have been a serious violation of the NPOV policy, and they were prevented from doing so. Hence the wrath. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. I hope the controversy dies down quickly. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You might also be interested in the Straw poll that ran before I tried to add the unanimously-supported wording to WP:RS. However, I think the controversy has died down now, hopefully for good. I've added a section to the "discussion" on ANI where I have called for all involved to add their honest analysis of what they might have done wrong, so people can focus on how to avoid such a acrimonious mess in the future. Tim Vickers 03:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


You've probably already seen this, but User:Regulations admitted (bragged, actually) about running numerous socks and sleeper accounts even before he was blocked as a sockpuppet of Billy Ego. That's one reason (of many) that I'm skeptical of his promises to behave, and of the argument that the only impetus for his sockpuppetry was an unjust ban. MastCell Talk 19:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In my conversations with Anarcho-capitalism, I've already suggested some more appropriate strategies for handling content disputes. I agree that sock farms and sleeper accounts are a bad way to go about editing Wikipedia, and I'm not trying to unblock anybody who's going to use them. My suggestion of unblocking Anarcho-capitalism is based on his agreeing to take a different approach.

Assuming we decide that Regulations is a separate person, I think it would be fair to leave that account blocked until we get some kind of agreement to edit according to good Wikipedia practices. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I respect and admire your willingness to assume good faith. However, I can only assume good faith until provided strong evidence to the contrary. If running an acknowledged sock farm, scheming to evade checkuser, abusing a dynamic IP and also open proxies, and refusing to pursue legitimate avenues for addressing the ban are not sufficient evidence of bad faith and disrespect for Wikipedia, I don't know what would be. It makes me question why I bother sending abusive socks to checkuser and enforcing an ArbCom ruling if the user can, after scoffing at the ban for 60+ socks and ignoring the procedures in place for appealing it, decide to go to Plan Z and appeal to an admin and get a reception as if he were a good-faith contributor who was "forced into a life of sockpuppetry" by false accusations. It rings false, partly because of the thoroughly tendentious and non-constructive nature of his edits both before and after the ban, and partly because of the evidence, some of which I emailed you, that these are in fact the same account conducting a social experiment.
As a side note, anarcho-capitalism related pages are once again coming up before ArbCom; I'd ask that you touch base with User:Libertatia, User:Full Shunyata, or some of the other longtime contributors to those pages who have been dealing with AC socks, as they might be able to provide some context for how constructive his input, if unblocked, is likely to be. MastCell Talk 21:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of a checkuser error or collateral damage, I don't want to put words into User:Mackensen's mouth, but this reply to Billy/AC's protestations of innocence suggests that even the technical evidence is quite a bit stronger than AC would have you believe. MastCell Talk 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
MastCell, I don't want you to think I'm assuming good faith to the point of foolishness. I'm looking carefully at the evidence (there's a bit, and I haven't seen it all yet), and I'm not going to unblock the account if things don't add up right. I actually had some dealings with RJII in the past, and I'm certainly not trying to unblock that user. The communication I've had with Anarcho-capitalism indicates that he has some willingness to change his approach, but that has to be weighed against the evidence you're bringing up. Stay tuned; we'll figure something out.

I thank you for the effort you've put into gathering and presenting evidence; it's very helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I do trust your judgement, and I'll stop bugging you now. I'm sure I'm starting to sound like a broken record. If you have any questions for me or concerns about what I've sent you, feel free to leave a message or email me. MastCell Talk 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I know I promised not to bug you anymore, but two things I wanted to mention (granted you've probably already seen them): A comment from Dmcdevit regarding the accuracy of initial checkuser, which pegged Anarcho-capitalism, Regulations, etc as Billy Ego socks, and a comment from Libertatia, an anarchy/libertarianism regular who's interacted extensively with Anarcho-capitalism and friends (note: I asked him if he'd comment). MastCell Talk 23:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize; I feel like I've been a little quick to snip at you during the AN debate on this topic. I do feel pretty strongly about it, as you've no doubt noticed, but that's no excuse for giving you a hard time when you're trying to do the right thing. Apologies. MastCell Talk 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping by to say that. There's no hard feelings from my end. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor review[edit]

Hi there, I was wondering if you might have any comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/TimVickers. Thanks, if you have time. Tim Vickers 22:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Need informal third opinion[edit]

Hi GTBacchus, I wonder if you could provide a (hopefully) quick third opinion on a matter I'm involved in. I found you through Category:Third opinion Wikipedians.

In short, I left a note for an anon user at User talk: on June 25th because they removed text about LDS undergarments from the Undergarment article. Duke53 (talk · contribs) patrols that article and frequently leaves brusque "Wikipedia is not censored" warnings for users who remove that text. He just now added his own warning to the one I left, although the user has not made any edits since my note. I am tempted to remove Duke53's warning per WP:BITE and because of its redundancy, but due to a history of less-than-ideal interactions with Duke53 over various matters, I think it's best to get a neutral third party's opinion before I take such a potentially provocative action. I've discussed WP:BITE with Duke53 before but we do not see eye-to-eye on the matter. Do you mind having a look and sharing your thoughts? Much appreciated, alanyst /talk/ 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Duke's comments on that talk page will probably never be seen by the anonymous editor in question. That IP has only made two edits to Wikipedia, both 10 days ago, and Duke left a note today. That anon is long gone, and probably connected to a different IP address by now. I'd let it lie. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion. I'll take no action, as you suggest. alanyst /talk/ 03:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning free software[edit]

Just because it's different doesn't mean it's difficult! The jump between XP and Linux is generally smaller than the jump between XP and Mac, but plenty of people make that just fine. While it would help if you explained exactly what you need these computers for (For example, programming .NET would definitely make buying XP the only option, but just for writing documents or doing research on the internet could be easier in linux), I highly recommend you check out the edubuntu website, and try a LiveCD for yourself. Once you've downloaded the .iso file from the edubuntu site, follow these easy instructions to burn it to a CD, then try it out. Trying linux no longer requires a physical install, you can simply put it in your CD drive, reboot, and your computer will boot to the CD- which though it is slower than the hard drive, allows you to try linux with no risk at all of erasing your existing data, and no worries at all about having to remove it (when you're done, just press shut down, it will shut itself down and eject the CD for you, allowing you to restart the computer back to windows) I really hate to see people forcing themselves to use Windows out of fear of the unknown, without even getting a taste of what else is out there, especially when it could save them quite a bit of money. Keep in mind there are plenty of schools out there that run nothing but linux! --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort, but I think you don't understand my objection. I use quite a bit of free software. I'm aware that Windows is a terrible OS, and that there are better free ones out there. I've used some of them. We're not talking about my thinking that something is "difficult", or "fear of the unknown" here. We're talking about a separate sociological problem, which is traditionally invisible to free software supporters, and which is why so many people think that you guys sound like you've been drinking the kool-aid. It's good to know about, so read on.

The problem is that we're dealing with technophobic people, and with their comfort zones. You don't get those people to listen to you by telling them that it's silly for them to be technophobic and suspicious of changes that they don't understand. Now, we've got computers that were changed, from a familiar but suboptimal status quo, to something that is better in some ways (faster), but worse in others (some hacker's backgrounds, general stability questions, no possibility of customer support). That change dragged some people out of their comfort zones.

If you want to sell an idea to someone who's been dragged out of their comfort zone, you don't lecture to them in a language they don't understand. You don't move the goalposts still further, to something more removed from their comfort zone, and explain to them that it's better there. You let them go back to their comfort zone, and you talk to them when they're calm.

I'm perfectly happy to try out various free OS's on one of the work computers, and when I find one that will be easy to transition to, I start introducing it to people, and eventually they'll ask for it to be installed on the other machines. Meanwhile, we've got three out of three machines screwed up, and we'd like to be able to revert to status quo before introducing more fundamental changes.

In the most crassly pragmatic sense, I'm unlikely to get approval to switch to a new OS right now, but if I can "fix" the computers, and then introduce something new when we can see it in a better light, it's likely to be easy. Salesman, know thy customer. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you're talking about, except that you obviously haven't tried it. I don't know what you mean by "hacker's backgrounds", but linux is generally far more stable than Windows, as long as you make it work in the first place (which is usually not a problem nowadays), and there is customer support, both from companies that do it, and forums which will help. Like I said, your problem isn't that you can't use it, it's that you won't even give it a shot. You're perfectly welcome to disprove that by actually trying it and telling me what is so difficult about it --Laugh! 23:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I said (a) that it isn't difficult, and (b) that I'm going to try out some free OS's. Both of your questions are based on either not reading, not understanding, or not believing what I said. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you're talking to. I don't have any questions. --Laugh! 02:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right; those weren't questions. I was referring to your statements, "you won't even give it a shot," and, "disprove that by trying it and telling me what is so difficult about it". The first claim is simply false. The second statement presupposes that I said installing a free OS was difficult; I did not. Additionally, I never claimed that linux had no customer support, which you seem to think I said. I was talking about the weird version of Windows that somebody installed on the computers at work. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You meant to say that the loss of a comfort zone was installing a modified version of Windows, not trying linux. Simple miscommunication.--Laugh! 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this thread continues from a thread at the reference desk, which provides context. Sorry if I jumped on you unfairly for not knowing what was going on. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Who do you think User:L is? WP:CHU/U :p I know what's going on, your statement just lead me down a different road than I was thinking about.--Laugh! 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, by "hacker's backgrounds", I was referring to the background images put there by whoever put the Windows installation together. Those are a liability of the new "improved" Windows installation. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought you mean 'background' as in a history, as in either Linux came from a bunch of hackers, or it lead to people becoming hackers :p How about in the future, we use Lojban to avoid these types of misunderstandings? --Laugh! 04:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks you for blocking HappiestCamper 21:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm semi-new and i don't have that much time to read how to add pictures to wikipedia, plus i don't really understand what it syas (too much to consume at once).Ultimaterasengan 17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Uchiha Fan[edit]

Okay lets say i want to upload a picture of the Uchiha symbol onto my UserPage, hoe do i do that?Ultimaterasengan 18:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your user page. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

DARPA page move[edit]

You once commented on a proposal regarding the moving the page to DARPA, and the discussion is now re-opened, if you feel like chiming in again. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello GT, I would like to talk with you sometime. Please contact me with the best way to do that. Best, MarkDilley


Hi, thanks for your message. See this Wikipedia article, and this dictionary definition. It seems that both "lede" and "lead" are okay, right?Ferrylodge 05:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem.Ferrylodge 05:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Told off[edit]

Hi, GTBacchus. In this diff, someone complained about my request for a 3O, saying that one had already been provided and accusing me of trying to "garner increased involvement". Did you officially respond to my 3O and simply forget to remove the request from the queue? Or did you offer the opinion outside of the 3O structure? Thank you. (Also thank you for responding at the Sexual intercourse talk page. I don't have the energy for it now but I appreciate your words.) Joie de Vivre° 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. I guess I supplied a third opinion without removing the request from the queue. I didn't mean to cause any disruption, or get you yelled at. Garnering increased involvement is a funny thing to be "accused" of, because I generally think of that as a Good Thing. If somebody doesn't like the 3O listing, then I guess a content RfC might be a better venue, as well as a few relevant talk pages (not user talk pages, per WP:CANVASS). -GTBacchus(talk) 19:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Human sexuality[edit]

This comment is not directly related to our discussion in talk page of sexual intercourse, where i feel only cleanup of "sexual intercourse" is left. This issue remotely related, but i dint wish to add to mess there. issue is:

Article Human sexual behaviour comes under Human sexuality, i feel former should be merged into later. (I have not gone through articles, you also see articles Animal sexuality, and Plant sexuality). They separated these 2 articles as "Human sexuality" and "Human sexual behaviour" on the basis of psychological and physical aspects respectively. It is not proper. (reason for such things(dividing) is promotion of philosophies of homosexuality etc). Im waiting for earlier issues to be settle to start this new merger proposal, maybe i propose it after 2 weeks. Can you give some feedback on this issue? Lara bran 04:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a look at the articles and let you know what I think. It's likely to be a day or two before I have time. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Even i have to go through thoroughly, me taking break. Lara bran 04:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i had came across WP:IAR policy, while going through your contributions. Give a look to my comment in talk page there. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note. I've been very busy, and not logged on much lately, but I've made some comments at WT:IAR. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Not every man wants for good, you seem not to know the sadistic pleasure. I had addressed your queries, you might have overlook, as discussion got distracted. I could not gather any support there though. Lara_bran 10:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
A sadist considers enjoying the pain of others to be a good; otherwise they wouldn't pursue it. Everyone pursues their understanding of the good. Plato made this clear, I believe it was in the Phaedrus. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to know :) but im not much into formal philosophy. To be frank, i found so much work to be done in top level articles (of my interest) in wikipedia, of 5 years old. So much that i avoided community or admins and even edit summary wherever possible to save time :) Lara_bran 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As for original topic of this section, i moved some sections from Human sexual behaviour to Human sexuality, I think i cant help any more about this. My wikipedia voyage is in last phase, not much work i can do. Thanks for support. Bye. Lara_bran 06:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page doesn't seem to roll. Regarding WT:IAR, during my talk topic that WP:IAR was amended to make it mean "ignore one rule at a time", which does not contradict itself like earlier "ignore all rules". My problem was about consistency of rules which no longer exists now, me fine with it. Thanks for your comments there. Best regards. Lara_bran 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed Blondie on your userpage, checkout my another fav Hi and Lois. Lara_bran 15:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a big fan of the old-school comics; web comics just aren't the same. As far as Wikipedia rules, I find that I'm happier when I don't expect them to be consistent. They're more like adages: "Haste makes waste," but, "He who hesitates is lost". They contradict each other, but people don't really worry about it. It's not like mathematics or logic, where consistency is a big priority. Anyway, happy editing! -GTBacchus(talk) 16:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

PTDI & other US commercial driver educational organizations[edit]

Hi! Difficulty in writing about need for commercial driver education comes in part from the lack of categories in this new area of education. You can see from the history of the article added on PTDI that it belongs in a broader article; one that does not exist as of now. Being still under construction, this and proposed articles for other related non-profit organizations intend to improve public awareness: a good thing. Opposition to the construction of these articles exists world wide, where transportation has not yet become a social issue. Wikipedia could benefit from more of these types of articles, but may suffer partly from a lack of understanding the subject. I'm open for suggestions about re-writes, merges, or other methods of constructing encyclopedic articles on this subject. Understanding that Australia is the home of Wikipedia, and that they currently have less concern for driver education may be an indicator of the success or failure of proposing these additions. StationNT5Bmedia 16:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerdo move[edit]

I just wanted to say thank you. Rl 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

missed it[edit]

Hi, I missed you email, please email me - - tx


what does a piture need to not get deleated? It says i need a free license or something like that. Ultimaterasengan 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Images, species unknown[edit]

Only just seen this - MPF 19:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pine tree branch.jpg Image:Pine tree closeup.jpg I've taken a couple of pictures of a pine tree near where I work in Mercer Island, Washington. I'm having trouble identifying the species. If someone can help me figure out which type of pine it is, I'd be happy to add the images to that species' article. Any tips on photographing trees would also be appreciated. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

European Black Pine Pinus nigra. Tips on photos - top one is rather grainy and burnt out; not easy to get a good pic with such a bright sky behind. One of the menaces of getting good tree pics, I fear. - MPF 19:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much! -GTBacchus(talk) 21:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi! This is Icarus!, being non-Wiki (I'm not logged in...), saying thanx for the work on the Discordianism page! Keep it up! 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)



I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof WikiProject:Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion[edit]

Hi GTBacchus, as an administrator who had interacted frequently with User:Miltopia (RIP), I wonder what you thought of this: [4] and [5]. To me it seems highly improbable, and not just because of the fact that they say they're from opposite seaboards of the United States. There doesn't seem to be any basis for this, although it is ultimately irrelevant as Miltopia has left WP anyways. --MichaelLinnear 01:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's absurd. I've been in IRC with both of them at once. They're different people with different personalities, different priorities, etc. I'd like to see what evidence there is for them being one and the same. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I know. If you remember the problem user Samsara at ED, (User:Anomo locally), this probably has something to do with the rumors that he spreads. I hope it's just that Fred got tricked by this user's persistent lies. This is a good example of the stuff he churns out. Incidentally, he has accused me of being both Miltopia and Blu Aardvark at various times. --MichaelLinnear 02:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said at ArbCom, if Miltopia is Blu Aardvark, then so am I. (Maybe I'm Spartacus, too, while we're at it.) I do recall interacting with Samsara at ED in the past. He seemed to be an interesting chap, but I don't think we saw eye to eye. Maybe he's Spartacus, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


You might be interested in the discussion going on here and here as it deals with the merger of the terrorism Wikiprojects. I was never informed that discussion was occuring by him, and only discovered it after the fact when he had declared a consensus was reached and was removing the templates from pages. Similarly, he did this last October, though before any discussion had occured. That was the reason I originally objected - because he basically blanked the Wikiproject before anyone decided it would be the right thing to do. I reacted angrilly and unjustifiably then (due to some of the things outlined in WP:OWN,) and opposed the merge on principle alone, which I know now is not a valid reason. I dont oppose the merge anymore, but I do think that he went about this all wrong this time as well in not informing me, yet informing all other former participants in discussion, and all other members of the two groups. ~Rangeley (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Undoing a rogue move[edit]

The article Nights: Journey of Dreams was recently moved to NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams, disregarding the Manual of Style and a related consensus at Talk:Nights into Dreams.... Apparently due to a previous redirect blocking the move, the article took several detours (NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams (change), NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams -, NiGHTS: Journey of Dreamss) and in the process got separated from its talk page, now located at Talk:NiGHTS: Journey of Dreamss. Could you assist in moving the article back to Nights: Journey of Dreams, restoring its proper talk page and maybe delete a few of the nonsensical redirects? - Cyrus XIII 16:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it got taken care of already. :) – Cyrus XIII 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Heartfelt thanks[edit]


I know this is late being as I've been too busy to make my planned dramatic comeback, but I wanted to give you a big thanks for offering your perpetual voice of reason at my mini-arbcom ordeal. I know that every time you pipe up to bring sanity into situations involving, um, editors like myself, you do so at the risk of falling out of favor with certain crowds, and I'm glad there are still people like you who speak with rationality and fair-mindedness even when pressure would persuade them to do otherwise or keep quiet (and I don't mean in just the Wikipedia sense either, it seems that your breed is dying out in meatspace as well). All the more reason for me not to cause any trouble I suppose ;-)

I'd like to say that I'll see you around since I plan on unretiring long enough to justify my fuss at arbcom, but I actually plan on doing articles exclusively, and probably just one - I'm trying to feature 30 Seconds to Mars - so our paths may not cross. If you have any suggestions on that article though, I'm all ears of course, but otherwise thanks again and happy editing 2 u. Milto LOL pia 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment on User Conduct - Matt Sanchez / Bluemarine[edit]

Hello, may I ask for your participation in an RFC established for user Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez? The reason for the Request for Comment is set out in the RFC summary here. Whether you support or oppose it, your input would be appreciated.Typing monkey 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

War on Terror name change[edit]

Hello. It appears there is a very important problem with the name change. Every single sub-article and template is named ".... war on terrorism", it's totally confusing for the reader. We cannot agree this situation to stay like that. I mean that one (or more) of the editors who supported the namechange have to modify every sub-article and template including their links to avoid double redirections.

If they don't, on purpuse, assume their theory idea. I think that we'll have to change the name back. :( Mrpouetpouet 16:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving the other articles and templates doesn't sound like so much trouble. Of course they'll need to move to follow the main article. I'll start working on that now. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"ok ask if you need help ;) Mrpouetpouet 20:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they're all moved; please let me know if there are any we missed that need admin buttons to move. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We could also use your input here[edit]

Hi GTBacchus, I saw your comment on Johann van Beethoven, and I thought we could use another neutral view over at Talk:Potsdamer_Platz too. There is currently a RfC whether "Potsdamer Platz" or "Potsdam Square" should be used as the article name. There are arguments given for each option, so, if you have a minute or three, we'd appreciate your comments. 00:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your comments, mate. I really appreciate it that you spared the time. Best wishes! 01:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It's no problem. Thank you for engaging in a calm manner; that always helps. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing those - it took me a while to realise what was wrong with them :-)) FlagSteward 00:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - I remember being quite puzzled when I first came across similar situations. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the Shia Views article[edit]

I'm active in the Wikipedia Shia Islam group, and needed your help. You recently deleted the Views on Shia Islam article after a vote, and that's fine. However, we still have it linked to on this important and very visible template. Could you possibly fix that? Thanks. --Enzuru 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Social Parking[edit]

Hi, can you please provide me with a copy of the deleted code of Social Parking? -IDNexpert —Preceding unsigned comment added by IDNexpert (talkcontribs) 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to already have it at User:IDNexpert/Social Parking. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Kidd etc.[edit]

I'd have thought that whatever appeared on the original Record Label woukd be correct. My copy got lost several house moves ago but someone out there must have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcranny (talkcontribs) 16:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say, I'm not sure what you're saying, nor why you're saying it to me. I don't seem to have edited Johnny Kidd, or any of the pages linked from there. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a page[edit]

Hi, I've seen in the google cache that there was a page about the "fight fire with fire" song, by Metallica, but you deleted it, why? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Fire with Fire. Please let me know if you have any further questions. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Political realism[edit]

Thanks for moving the article on Political realism. Your aid is appreciated. I am expressing my gratitude because I was the original one who asked for that move. --Lucretius 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem; happy editing! -GTBacchus(talk) 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Paula Campbell[edit]

Hi, Akhilleus. I was just working on the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and I moved Paula Campbell (singer) to Paula Campbell. After moving the page, I noticed that the article had gone through an AfD in June, here. You closed the AfD as a delete, but it doesn't seem the page was ever deleted (unless I'm missing something). Do you know what happened there? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi GTBacchus, if you look at the logs of Paula Campbell (singer), I deleted the article after the AfD, it was recreated, then deleted by another admin, and the article got recreated again. I don't have an opinion about what should be done with the article right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. I see now that I missed it because there aren't any deleted edits there, so I assumed it had not been deleted. I also have no opinion on the page's existence; I'll look into the subject's notability, and if it seems appropriate, I'll send it back to AfD, or just re-delete it. Thanks again. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Positional good[edit]

I just reversed your move of this page. Please note that all similar page titles (which are linked to at the bottom of the page, even) are in the singular, and singular 'good' is completely standard in economics. The way, the truth, and the light 08:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I've added a comment to Talk:Positional good suggesting that anybody supporting the other title give some reasons. Thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your input on an userbox issue[edit]

Hi GTBacchus, I'd like to ask for your input on a userbox issue I've encountered, regarding the speedy deletion of several userfied userboxes that expressed negative stance toward a thing or concept (e.g. hate/despise/dislike/loathe/choosing one over something else). I've held a discussion with the deleting admin in question, and we have hit a dead point in the discussion. As I know I'm biased in this issue I'd appreciate it if you could spare a neutral look at the dispute. (Note: I've randomly pulled your name - along with 3 others - out of my hat. If I bothered you I deeply apologize - feel free to ignore & delete this comment in that case) Best wishes! CharonX/talk 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Got a link? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Woops, sorry forgot. ^^; it's right on my talkpage. CharonX/talk 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Tactical manipulation of instant-runoff voting"[edit]

I've been reviewing the activity of a banned sock, User:BenB4, and found that he had proposed and voted on this deletion. I have not seen the article, I'd like to. Is there any way?

We are considering a revamping of the entire set of articles on election methods, and having these various loose ends sticking out is probably not good, but at the time this article was deleted, it was nearly impossible to get anything about tactical voting in IRV (which is widely understood to be theoretically possible and some research shows that it actually happens) into the Instant Runoff Voting article due to massive sock puppetry including that by BenB4 and his next sock, User:Acct4, a meat puppet recruited to come in, User:Tbouricius who is at least a real person and somewhat of an expert, on FairVote staff, but who registered an SPA account and immediately dove into an edit war, and an anonymous IP editor who turned out to be the director of FairVote, Rob Richie, using massive reverts to get rid of anything from a critic. Those got cleaned out by admin action and the article partially frozen against anonymous editing and new accounts, but it's still difficult....

Upshot, I don't know if I'd ask for the article to be restored, but I'd like to see it! Abd 04:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I could undelete a version to my sandbox for a while. Please let me know when you've seen what you need to see, or if you'd like to see more of its history. It has 20 versions in the history, going back to April 2006. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese N64 games[edit]

I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 16:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Gabrielle Solis[edit]

Consensus is definitely that her article should be under that name, and since you know how this article has been moved to more than one or two uncommon names for her and took part in the discussion with us about this, I was wondering if you would take care of the matter further addressed in this link and this link about it. Flyer22 08:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that I should have asked another administrator about this, I will. It's just that you were involved with this issue, and I felt that you would be the best option to come to about this matter. Flyer22 06:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No, due to other additions to my talk page, I actually didn't notice this section until now. Please give me a few hours to sleep and deal with this issue tomorrow. I'm sorry for the delay, and I thank you for your patience. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand. And thank you. I should be getting to bed myself, though for most people over here in Pensacola, Florida, they would have already been asleep by now. Flyer22 09:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As I stated on the Gabrielle Solis talk page, thank you. Flyer22 23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone got around it and renamed it Gabrielle Lang. Can you take care of this? I definitely feel that those alternative names for her need to be locked. Flyer22 10:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I moved it back to Gabrielle Solis. But those alternative names for her definitely need to be locked. Otherwise the back-and-forth moving of this article won't least not until she's officially Gabrielle Solis again. Flyer22 10:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi GTB[edit]

I've found our recent interactions around the external link debate to be quite useful - and have just this minute replied to your post on the talk page of NPA - there's quite a conversation to be had around some the issues both you and I mention, but perhaps it would be better to contain it here / not clutter up the NPA page, should you wish to engage.

best all the same, Privatemusings 05:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by.

I replied to that one post at NPA, in the interest of not breaking up the train of thought. If my reply seems inappropriate there, or if it seems desirable to develop that angle any further, you're certainly welcome to be refactor it to this page.

I'm quite happy for the conversation to move to WT:BADLINKS, insofar as it involves proposals for new policy, and to our user talk pages, insofar as it involves more personal subjects, such as our various avatars and intentions. WT:NPA has seen enough turmoil for a few months, I reckon. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving conversation from NPA[edit]

It is possible that my temper is affected, having smoked my last cigarette on Saturday night last, after 35 years on and off smoking. But those two editors were mocking me, and slapping each other on the back about it. "Jerking each other off" figuratively describes what they were doing quite accurately. Uncivil, crass, perhaps. Violent? No. - Crockspot 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What kind of hair is this to split? Is it really the point whether your incivility was a 4 or a 7 on a scale of 1 to Dick? I consider blatantly disrespectful statements to be an act of violence against the dignity and decorum that we try to maintain. "Going off" on someone like that is aggressive and, in a way, violent. Slander (referring to an "anti-MONGO agenda"... what?) is also a form of violence against someone's good name. However, this is so far from being the point I feel silly talking about it.

The point is whether or not you're treating others excellently. If you wish to quibble, then I will cheerfully retract the word "violent", even though I don't really think that throwing accusations and insults around is less unacceptable than throwing fists around. But let's take it away; perhaps my view is off-kilter or just wrong.

There remains the fact that your reaction to being called out for incivility is to argue with the criticism rather than trying to set anything right. Am I supposed to be impressed by that? If you have an issue with what those two were saying, why not present it as a rational, constructive criticism, rather than as accusations with vulgarities attached? Even better, why not address the actual points being made, and show by example what it's like to have a mature discussion? I'm not saying their... banter was helpful or productive, but your reaction to it seems particularly inappropriate. The best reaction to immature behavior is to rise above it. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that I've disputed that I was uncivil with those two. Are they deserving of an apology? Probably about as much as I am deserving of one from them. But since no one seems to be crawling up their asses about their behavior, my expectations for apologies all around are pretty low. If you expect an act of contrition from me toward them, I'm sorry but it's not likely to happen. If someone asks me if I still beat my wife, I'm not going to decrypt and psychoanalyze them, and then address their "points". I find it interesting that Miltopia got all handwringy and bent out of shape about comments that were not even directed at him, considering his overall history. I'm guessing my comments hit a little too close to home with him, so he assumed that I was attacking him. If I was a chronic abuser of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, and did not rise above it 99 out of the last 100 times, then I could understand your desire to play drill instructor with me. I've eaten untold buckets of shit in the past few months, and done it with a smile on my face, so I think I have invested enough time and effort into acknowledging my current sin, and the warning you gave me. - Crockspot 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, keep arguing then. You're right to reply to immaturity with immaturity. If two wrongs don't make a right, then maybe seven or eight will.

I was happy enough just to say, "hey, let's not make comments like that," but you want to go seven rounds over it. Fine. You win. Enjoy it. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You could have blocked all these guys for engaging in the revert war in the first place, GT. Then incivil talk page postings would not have been a problem. You are too kind, it seems. Best Regards,—AL FOCUS! 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input; I'll take that under advisement. Maybe I'll start throwing my weight around and acting like more of an asshole. Heavy-handedness is so much better than diplomacy (which I admit I fail at regularly, but keep trying). I've not observed that more blocking leads to less talk page incivility, but I'm sure you're right. Thanks! -GTBacchus(talk) 21:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, you never know until you try it! Seems to work for some people. (But then, i guess, you'd probably get an article at ED or someplace, so maybe that wouldn't be such a good idea.)—AL FOCUS! 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to stick with my usual position, of trying to convince everyone to treat each other excellently, to choose peace over retaliation, and to stop assuming that other people are some kind of scum or idiots just because they disagree with someone. It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The Dude abides.AL FOCUS! 21:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you been treating me excellently, and not assuming that I am some sort of wiki scum? Was I edit warring on the NPA policy page? I was not aware that making a single edit constituted edit warring. As soon as I started discussing my edit in talk, I had my good faith questioned immediatelyh by multiple editors. After my less than civil comment on the talk page, I immediately went into the next section and began participating as I usually do, in a reasoned and civil manner. I am only responding to you repeatedly here, because you seem to be interested in making me out to be a chronic abusive editor, and expect some sort of contrite acknowledgment, similar to the Krimpet/MONGO situation yesterday. I suggest you examine my contribution history and my block log in full before you make such assumptions about me. Having your admin bit turned on does not automatically imbibe you with great wisdom, nor does it entitle you to be genuflected before. So I had a bad day. Big friggin' deal. - Crockspot 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I sure as hell haven't assumed that you're any kind of scum, ever. I don't think there exist people who are anything other than children of God, with all that such a position entails. Did I accuse you of edit warring? No. Did I accuse you of being chronically uncivil? No. Do I believe that you are an edit warrior or a chronically uncivil editor? No. Don't you dare tell me what kind of assumptions I've made about you - you have no idea what I assume.

What I saw was you responding to one isolated situation in a way that was rude and out of proportion, on a page that really needs de-escalation, and not escalation. I left a very politely worded warning on your talk page, and I said on the page in question, "can we please not make comments like that?" Rather than simply saying, "yeah, that was out of line," you chose to cavil over it. That pushed a button on me, it turns out, because I, being human, have got buttons. Somehow between the two of us, we managed to keep escalating, and I ended up being a dick. I'm sorry. I screwed up.

As far as I know, that one incident was the only time you've ever been uncivil with anyone. I don't think you reacted well to my initial comments, and I didn't react well to your reaction. We're both human. I will endeavor to learn from this experience, so I thank you for the lesson. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I left you a reply on my talk page. I think we understand each other. Moving on. - Crockspot 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Peter Boyd[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Peter Boyd, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Peter Boyd is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Peter Boyd, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

lol Powerword[edit]

'sup Tony :3

You're a math teacher, right? May I ask what grade level? Milto LOL pia 03:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, that's kind of a personal question....  ;)

I teach at a little private school; we work with different ages. My youngest student is a seventh grader doing prealgebra, and I've got a handful on Seniors learning calculus. I used to teach at university; check it out. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds awesome, being able to teach individual kids privately... I'm actually going to school to teach math, have been since before "Miltopia" even came into being :-O And I'm torn between teaching pre-college so I can maybe "get to" the kids before they go to college and fail everything, and teaching at some prestigious university... I probably won't have the grades to be a professor though. One last decision I'll have to make :- (

Also, would you mind terribly if I used this info for the purposes of "cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing you without your consent, and humiliating you sexually"? BADSITES is closed and it's taking all of my willpower to keep from posting a request for clarification asking for detailed elaboration on what constitutes "humiliating a person sexually". Hopefully the results of the case will bring a little harmony to NPA and DONTLINKTOHARASSMENT and their talk pages. Milto LOL pia 06:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Would I mind? I'm pretty sure I insist! You can't out me though; I beat you to it. I've already admitted I'm a furr- oops, I just took care of sexual humiliation, too. If you ask ArbCom what that means, they could answer you with a link to ED, except they really couldn't... you know, post that link.

I too hope that ArbCom's decision will help with the current drama. It's interesting, what they said and what they didn't say. I've not yet suggested any solutions of my own, only tried to reassure people that we're all cool, we're all little Fonzies. Tonight, I've surprised myself by maybe thinking of something; I'll try to post it tomorrow when I'm not falling asleep at the keyboard.

See ya. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't kill me![edit]

I'm really not trying to push your buttons here with my last edit, but it's like we are from different universes. Oh, and have you ever tried Gordon's vodka? I don't know why the Queen of England needs an official vodka. She's the pope of the Anglican Church. If the other Pope has an official vodka I will switch brands though. I (kind of) digress. Look, we need written rules for the same reason mathematics needs axioms. It's about the reality we want to create. If reality is something endlessly fungible in a given universe, like wikipedia, where there's an actual power structure, Nineteen Eighty-Four is perhaps the best artistic suggestion of what such a reality is like. Maybe not right away, but ultimately. What we do here isn't too far departed from Winston Smith's job with the Ministry of Truth. Wikiality is a real issue. Believe it or not, there are people -- governmental agents not too surprisingly -- who have risen through our ranks and are working hard to make wikipedia conform to what those in power want reality to be. But these people don't control the whole world wide web... yet. So if we want wikipedia to be what it is supposed to be, we do need to be able to out such people. And it only makes sense that they will fight tooth and nail for such information to be suppressed. That's the reality of the situation. You need to help pick an axiom that helps keep that reality from coming forth. -- 03:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, wikipedia is the encyclopedia any one can edit. I have no problem with such agents rebooting with a new user name after they are exposed. The important thing is that they at least reboot. I truly believe it's the only chance we have for the cream rising to the top. This is an inflection point, and we only get one shot at getting it right. -- 04:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My talk page has been busy this evening, and I missed this for a while. I'm sorry for going off on you like that; I try not to jump to conclusions about people. When I do jump, I tend to be wrong; go figure.

I don't want to dismiss your concerns, and we do seem to be coming from very different places, so let's take it slowly. Let's talk about vandalism. We haven't got an acid test for it. Vandalism is "any edit made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the quality of the encyclopedia," or something to that effect. Naturally, we can't tell what somebody's thinking, but we revert vandalism all the time, and we rely on each editor and admin to use their judgment to do so. In that sense, the rules are "all in the administrators' minds". This is even more true with blocking, which is an arena where admins are given wide latitude to apply a fairly simply blocking policy to a variety of situations. Despite these going on for all of Wikipedia's history, neither the way we deal with vandalism, nor the way we deal with blocking, has led to any kind of dystopian nightmare. Both pop up regularly on ANI, sometimes due to bad judgment by admins, and we deal with it, every time, as a group.

Now, what you say about people trying to control Wikipedia's content is true. Anyone with an agenda to push would be a fool not to push it here. However, there are people here representing every agenda on the planet. They're all here, so no particular one is dominant. There are certainly cliques that control particular articles, but they're small, and Wikipedia is vast. They also don't last forever, and in the long run, that's a sure bet.

You mention Wikipedia's power structure... we kind of have one. We're kind of a combination of dictatorship, anarchy, democracy, oligarchy, meritocracy and commune. Nobody's in charge of this asylum but the inmates. Jimbo's smart enough (or maybe just busy enough) to stay the hell away most of the time.

Now what we're really talking about is how to handle links to possible harassment, and I think you're putting a lot of weight on something I said about emailing particularly sensitive links to ArbCom or someone for private review. I guess the idea is that we could get potentially damaging material off-wiki while reviewing it. It was certainly a one-off comment, that I had put very little weight on, so please don't think that it's somehow representative of my views.

As I think about it now, it occurs to me that a good way to review a link would be to delete, but not oversight it, so the admins can see it, and then let them discuss what they see on AN or ANI. That makes the process of making a decision transparent, without revealing all of the (presumably dangerous) information under the link. That's actually not too far from the status quo, come to think of it.

A nice thing about that is that admins bring a wide variety of perspectives, attitudes, beliefs, etc. They won't all agree that something is a deletable link except in cases where it clearly is. The gray area cases will be few and far between, and we would have to deal with those on a case-by-case basis no matter what rule we write down - there will always be a gray area.

Now, a plan like this does not obviate the possibility of some admin or small group of admins getting it into their head that they're right about something, that no one else understands, and that they're going to wheel war over it. However, that sort of thing, like shit, happens. No amount of planning will stop those from sometimes happening. When there's some kind of high-drama situation like that (whether brought about by an "outing" site incident or otherwise), people are breaking "rules" left and right. In that shitstorm, having a directly applicable sentence on the right policy page isn't going to change anything, except possibly which names the participants call each other.

Those are situations that involve personalities, and part of what we're blessed with here at Wikipedia is a menagerie of personalities. I assume we're all mostly insane (except, of course, anybody who would take offense if I said that about them). Some personalities and combinations of personalities tend to create and/or facilitate some ridiculous situations, and this is one of them. This too will pass.

You know, I was here during the userbox wars. Do you know about those? It was the first half of '06, and a lot of it took place on and around deletion review. It was a controversial wiki-drama, involving some very strong personalities, lots of venom, and mostly situations for which we already had applicable rules. People just ignored them, because we have a rule saying you can do that, or for what ever reason they thought of at the time.

The only power our rules derive is that of being backed by consensus, because what's written on the policy page isn't a magic formula that forces our hands, preventing us from doing things we might later regret. We do stupid things anyway. We're simply going to have to handle gray areas and intransigent users from time to time, no matter what we write anywhere. When those situations arise, we'll deal with them, and it won't be just a few people pulling strings, it will be all of us interacting in good faith, but with limited information, limited empathy, and limited communication skills.

Whatever administrator pissed in your cornflakes the other day has limited power, and if they really do abuse their power, they may very well be de-sysoped. It's not so rare. During the userbox wars I had conversations with people in which they were insisting about the need for clear rules to control such-and-such admin who had power and was clearly entrenched and popular and untouchable. At the time, I argued against this myth of the all-powerful admin, and my arguments were poo-poohed as a naively optimistic failure to realize that the haves are in charge, and determined to hold the have-nots down, and that some kind of rule had to be written to rein them it. The wars were finally resolved elegantly, with no need for new policy (although some pages did get written, including some good ones!). The most reckless admins involved are no longer admins, and the reckless ones who are still admins have changed their tune considerably.

We'll get past this one, too. ArbCom's rulings in the current case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites should set a tone, and we'll get to see how the melody unfurls from there. It's inevitable that neither side will get everything they want, and that the sheer Brownian motion of countless edits will nudge us to some place in the middle.

If all else fails - and I'm definitely serious about that part - come get me. I can sometimes help, and I'll certainly try. Try not to worry too much about how potentially damaging links will be reviewed. It won't be entirely private, and it won't be entirely public, because we'll insist on both. Even better, we'll insist on a whole continuum, and we'll keep our eyes on each other all along it. That is the way the wiki works. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a type of society that, like many others, has police and laws. In these societies, a new policeperson is given a badge and a list of these laws and told they may go out and remove from society, perhaps only temporarily, anyone they suspect has broken them. The laws are there to make sure the police aren't just casting people out on a whim, and so that a policeperson could conceivably be held responsible by their fellow police for doing so. Any such society is a type of "police state', though there may be whole systems that more advanced versions, believing that power corrupts, set up to diminish the power of the police: a system of ranks among the police in a military junta, courts in judicial states, the pardon in a dictatorship, among others, or some mix thereof, like, as you suggest, wikipedia has. Written laws are the starting point of any such system. Such systems are expensive because they drain resources from society's other goals, and often how effective a police state can be at limiting police power is a factor of how much labor it can spare toward doing so balanced against the society's philosophy of justice.

Another type of society has police and no laws. This is the most dystopian. There can no accountability for police actions when no one, not even the police themselves, know what the rules are.

The problem with invoking WP:IAR, the fifth pillar, is there's actually a sixth pillar no one really talks about. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless they are blocked or banned, and you can ignore all rules, until you are blocked or banned for ignoring the rules. And for blocked and banned editors WP:IAR doesn't really apply. Sure a banned editor can just ignore the sixth pillar and return to the community under another name, but we have an elaborate system, part technological (WP:RFCU) and part argumentative to find these people and re-ban them for daring to violate the sixth pillar. Look at how many have been caught. I agree that the sixth pillar is essential to the functioning of our community, but we can't pretend it doesn't exist and perform WP:IAR hand-waving to suggest that since those of us, in the good graces of the administration, can ignore all the rules, that no rules are needed. The rules are there to protect editors who aren't breaking them, not to punish those who are.

I agree that things at wikipedia seem to constantly work out amazingly well, at least for those of us who are still here; the resources we can devote to ensuring a functioning system of justice are so nearly limitless that we can get away with cutting corners on which rules are spelled out. WP:BADLINKS is certainly a good candidate as any for a rule we could conceivably just not have, though if this were to just be crammed into WP:NPA in shortened form anyway, which seems inevitable, I'm not sure that solves the WP:BEANS problem. If nothing else, WP:BITE is an important consideration; no one can claim the be the victim of an elaborate conspiracy when an admin can just provide a link to an actual policy, and newbies, who don't have our experience with the justice system around here, find that comforting. I have seen only passing mention of the "user box wars"; there are probably a thousand new wikipedians since I began typing this who will never have heard of the "attack site wars." You make many good points that a rule here might not stop the next war, but it could stop the next capricious threat. -- 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Updating userpage[edit]

You may also wish to update the time of the last update since your userpage lists it as Feb 2007. JoshuaZ 04:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, more pertinently, I'm not sure encouraging this sort of thing is a good idea. There are editors who would genuinely suffer if they're editing were traced back to them. I'm aware of at least one person who edited here for a while who could have been in serious trouble if the government of the country he was in found out about it. In general, there's not much need to give in to demands for combining anonymity for the EL issue when they are almost completely orthogonal matters. And speaking from experience, once you give up anonymity you never, ever get it back. JoshuaZ 04:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, thanks for your advice. However, I gave up my anonymity long ago. I posted my name in our facebook quite a while back (see below), and for quite some time, my user page linked back to my old userpage at h2g2, where my real name has been posted for years. I'm really not worried about it. The point you make about encouraging others to do the same is more of a concern, but I don't really see how my name being posted is a suggestion that anybody else do the same. Maybe I'll add footnote to that effect. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
(EC)Your edits were foolhardy. It won't be long till that's up on the attack sites. You should ask for oversight on those, going through the harrassment's no fun. My point was that people like PrivateMusings want attack site links left in, but he's not willing to go public, now is he? If you're not already outed or willing to do it, you shouldn't be arguing for outing sites. I'm impressed you're willing to, but you will be regretting it soon. Those folks watch this stuff like hawks, and the police won't care until it's way past 'bad'. Go ask for oversight on those edits. ThuranX 04:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
ThuranX, I'm not worried about those attack sites listing me. What if they post my name and photograph? Actually, looking at that page with my photo, my real name has been there for months, and it hasn't caused me any trouble yet. They could have listed me long ago, but despite watching "like hawks", they haven't. (Maybe I don't look to them like hawk-food?) I'm not listed on hivemind; and I'm not sure why.

More to the point, I'm not arguing for outing sites in any way, shape or form. Your reading comprehension skills seem a bit off. Your arrogant insistence that you know my mind better than I know it myself is silly. I'm arguing for more effective protection than you're arguing for. As far as I can tell, you're more pro-outing sites than I am. To be very clear, I'm not aware of any situation where it would be appropriate to link to any outing site from Wikipedia, and I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is. Have you ever blocked a troll or harasser for posting personal information, and deleted that information? I have.

Thanks for your concern all the same. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You argue that any restriction on what sites can be linked via wikipedia is objectionable, regardless of the reasoning. As for me blocking others, that's a total bullshit argument, as you know full well I'm not an admin, and thus can't block. And I never will be an admin. I object to crass promotion of outing and attack sites, and their linking through wikipedia. You object to my entire point of view. To accuse me of supporting outing sites because I support blocking them? that's total doublespeak. You can try that all you want, but Up is up, not down. I continue to object to outing and linking to outing sites. You continue to object to any banned sites. Who supports outing sites, and who doesn't? reconsider your perspective. As for your self-outing, I really do hope you dont' get the blacklash I expect you will from it. I went through it, and it sucks. That's why your position is completely incomprehensible. Supporting the linking to outing sites while claiming you hate outing sites is hypocrisy and doublespeak. ThuranX 02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to butt in (again!), but as I understand GTBacchus's origional point of view, he objected to some earlier versions of the proposal on the basis that they opened a huge can of WP:BEANS, in that they essentially put up a sign on a prominent policy page saying "DON'T LINK TO ATTACK SITES" to anyone visiting or warned, blocked or banned per NPA. It wasn't a reasonable approach to the issue, as the drama over people getting blocked for linking to these sites, in other than actual "harrassment" or "outing" instances, has lead to a lot more publicity for these sites than just letting non-directly offensive links be would have. Hence, the hard anti-links ideological position inadvertently but effectively turns into a pro-"attack sites" position in a functional sense, as it continually assists in perpetuating the controversy resulting in more attention to these sites.—AL FOCUS! 02:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
More irrelevant doublespeak, and the Arbcom sees it my way. ThuranX 04:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, you are the one going around saying JoshZ supports Brandt, so I kind of doubt that.—AL FOCUS! 04:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You guys are welcome to take this elsewhere. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(Note to self - start referring to competing points of view as "irrelevant doublespeak" - mustn't miss a chance to complete a self-reference loop like that! It's like drinking a glass of water while peeing - one of those moments when things line up and the true nature of reality shines through.) -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thuranx, you may wish to learn about ad hominem and tu quoque. They are both fallacies. PM's refusal to be open about who he is annoying, and I have some suspicions about that, but it doesn't change the force of his arguments at all. JoshuaZ 04:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Blah blah blah policy blah blah blah NPA blah blah blah. We all know what you think of policy. ThuranX 04:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
ThuranX, keep digging. You clearly know a whole lot about JoshuaZ. Yeah. The more you talk, the less you annoy me and the more you amuse me. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
ThuranX, might you not have perspective on GTBacchus' self-outing here? I mean do you really expect him to return and panic, rushing off to oversight and screaming "WHAT HAVE I DONE???", or were your comments directed at someone else? Maybe I just missed the sarcasm... anyway I don't think there are attack sites that target Tony GTBacchus so you probably need not worry for his sake. Milto LOL pia 05:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Inside baseball[edit]

Hi, about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside baseball. I've just wrote Inside Baseball and accidentally noticed that the article was deleted only two weeks ago (see Talk:Inside Baseball). I am a bit suspicious what was there, since one of the voters called it ""neologism". (in fact, it is a baseball term of 19 century). So I guess the previous article was about the political lingo. Can you check whether the contents of the deleted article are recyclable, e.g., contain interesting references, etc.? Thank you. Laudak 00:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the material to User:GTBacchus/sandbox; please let me know when you've got whatever you need from it. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of real people[edit]

Okay so if you want to upload a picture of a real person, the license says something about comferming the picture. How do you not get the picture deleted, every time i do that it gets deleted in about a week or so.Ultimaterasengan 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know much about uploading pictures, but I can try to find the answer to your question. I probably won't get to it tonight, though, because I'm about to go out bowling. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD: Black Merda[edit]

This article was volted to be deleted, but is still up. It appears to be written by a band member with POV. Vytal 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've completed its second AfD nomination; let's see what the community decides about this rewritten version. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"This user assumes good faith"[edit]

I've made an admittedly grudging concession at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. I still think we're running from shadows like scared little wabbits by eliminating the link to the top page of Wikipedia Review. But I've conceded on the issue. Incidentally, I never did edit war on the link. I assumed good faith and discussed the matter on the talk page. And I've now given up. Casey Abell 13:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't assume good faith; you assumed I was on a mass link deletion spree. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Iao Valley[edit]

Hello GTBacchus. I noticed you closed the move proposal at Talk:Iao Valley. Although the outcome was clearly in favor of a page move and you did well in closing that way, I must say that I found your closing comments rather inappropriate, as they clearly denoted your personal position in favor of the move. I believe that administrators should present themselves as neutral as possible when closing discussions, and this was just not the case. I think that if it was your intention to provide personal arguments supporting the page move then you should perhaps have participated in the discussion rather than choosing to close it. Sorry, this is just my opinion. Best regards, Húsönd 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that my job in closing moves is to read consensus. That includes taking into account comments made in that particular discussion, as well as larger-scale consensus for established guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME. When I closed the discussion, I could not claim that a clear consensus was displayed in the conversation, so I felt is was appropriate to cite the consensus-supported precedents that are relevant.

I'm sorry you thought my comments were inappropriate. Although it may have come across as my personal opinion, I was actually just trying to restate the arguments in favor of the move. I don't personally have any feelings on the matter; I didn't mean to come across that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)