User talk:Privatemusings/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This user is sharp as a marble.
This user will make anyone a cup of tea, as long as he can have one too.

Contents

Welcome back[edit]

If you come back. Since your block didn't auto-expire, and Mercury is no longer an admin, I've requested it's lifting at WP:AN. -- Kendrick7talk 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Welcome back pm - I hope the three months haven't been too stressful and you're eager to get back on with editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks ryan! - the break has been pretty good actually, with my only criticism being of its compulsory nature! - good to see you, and I'm sure we'll see each other around! - thanks for the note..! Privatemusings (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
great, now I have Kotter's theme song as an earworm. I can't bring myself to say "welcome back" without chuckling sardonically, but since I only have to type it - WELCOME BACK! Never has so little been so manifestly due. Do try and not step on any more toes with your pointy sock feet, but if you must, I understand "confounding issues" are all the rage now. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 21:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
hi Snick! - aside from the aspects of 'that' current case which read a bit to me like a 'how to', I am concerned that our devilish plan to appear to be different people may come under some scrutiny. With our editing habits not interleaving at all over the last 3 months, the jig may be up....... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
plus, we both edit from Earth, in a similar way... sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Cool - I can unwatch this page now. Welcome back, and... one of my bylines on another site is "Sharp as a needle that has lost the thread." LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't go too far away, less.... goodness knows what can happen to an unwatched page! - thanks for making sense, even in contexts that really didn't! Privatemusings (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back. I trust that the Wikback was helping you keep sane? bibliomaniac15 22:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikback was keeping me something - though I'm less sure 'sane' was it! It's a bit ironic that my ban from wiki actually led to me digging a bit deeper into some issues than I would have bothered to previously - which translated to me banging on a bit over at the wikback.... nice to see you here biblio, and see you around! Privatemusings (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the lateness, but welcome back! I enjoyed talking with you on the Wikback, and hope to work with you here. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see you back, PM. Let's hope I don't get this account blocked for saying hello. Best, Ameriquedialectics 09:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thanks chaps - and who is this Amerique? I recall chatting with the leader of an academy, but have no recollection of Amerique? Clearly a disruptive influence in these parts.... ;-) (good to see you too!). Privatemusings (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Hi there, if you need any help or advice, please don't hesitate to get in touch. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well thankee very much! - I'm having trouble gybing at the moment, so any pointers would be welcomed, otherwise I'll surely head your way with wiki questions as and when... know anything about Sunscreen? Privatemusings (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really, but I can decode any of the science people throw about in that dispute and provide you with sources that require subscriptions. E-mail me and I can send you PMID 17693182, which should be a good review on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's bad enough...[edit]

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

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

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

Mmmmmm... round these parts DC is the wet, wobbly stuff that is on the other side of the beach to DLAND, so I can't say the offer interests me much. Thanks, anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought DC published comic books. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was Edison's favourite way of lighting up a room but he lost the battle of the bands to Tesla? ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it stands for 'Don't Care'? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG RfC[edit]

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

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

My advice would be to steer clear of controversy and just edit articles, at least for a while. Seriously. Unfair? Sure. But a prudent course. You KNOW that topic is going to be controversial. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
good advice Lar - as you know, I feel very strongly about certain aspects of Guy's past behaviour - I felt he abused my trust in forwarding information which I expressly asked to be kept private - but now is probably not the time for me to be overly involved, for no other reason than it likely won't help at all. I've commented in what I hope is a quiet and fair manner on the talk page of the RfC, and will probably leave it at that. If you think I should strike or remove my comments there, do let me know, but I really did want to put something on the record in some way..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say neither add nor subtract, just leave what you said and say no more for the nonce... ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's my plan.... I'm hopeful that Guy and I will get on better in the future - but thanks for your notes too.... Privatemusings (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) ps. I saw your blog, which I hope is the precursor to further writings - I think you're in a great position to promote positive change, and I made a note of your blog on mine
"My advice would be to steer clear of controversy and just edit articles, at least for a while. Seriously. Unfair? Sure. But a prudent course."... still true. Why are you involving yourself in several of the latest flashpoints? It seems massively imprudent. I strongly advise against it. Leave it to others. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's still good advice, Lar - and I thought I'd bow out by adding a couple of words of explanation in this small wiki bywater, for what they're worth. I well recall the anger and embarrassment I felt (and feel, to be honest) when first indef. blocked without so much as a 'by your leave' - and I also recall at that point how important the short notes that I did get on my talk page were to me (this may be cheesy, or foolish, but it's true!) - so I guess it was that pet peeve of mine, the lack of notes on Mantan's and Mackan's talk pages, which drew me into these broo ha has - my continued posts at Georgewilliam's page were probably best left to others, and I'm glad to see good people making similar points - I hope George didn't find my posting annoying, and I would have stepped back if I had the impression that he was doing so...
The Mantan case is one that I've tried to be assiduous in avoiding for now. Another intention of my leaving the note I did was to forestall any need to unblock before Mantan had responded - I see that Doc chose to do exactly that, and I'd question why, given that it certainly raised the temperature. In my heart I deeply wish to comment on a variety of issues this case raises, about which I feel quite strongly, but I understand that this just isn't really possible right now. If you examine my block log and arb case, you'll see that admin.s repeatedly blocked me, following which discussions emerged with a consensus to unblock, followed by yet another block, thus it frustrates me to see admin.s writing about 'clearly no consensus to ban' appearing to me to be hypocritical. The fact that I am an arbcom sanctioned 'puppet master' both galls somewhat and indicates to me that the approach I chose, to confide privately in an administrator, led me further into trouble - which is a shame.
You'll also be aware of my concerns over 'checkuser' in general, and the fact that a 'private checkuser' was run on Mackan I feel should be more surprising and concerning to many - I hope you'll agree that I'm taking a gentle approach there to try and get to the bottom of what I see as a damaging systemic trend. I suspect Mackan, like myself, doesn't really mind the individual impact of having had one, or a series of, 'checks' run, but I think the bigger picture is worrying. Offensive hyperbole such as mentioning 'lynchmobs' adds to my disquiet - in short, it looks to me like good people may be doing the wrong thing, because they believe it's exactly the right thing to do. This shouldn't be overly surprising in terms of community evolution, either... history shows it's an endemic trap to fall into, and I believe the sooner we can explore it, learn and grow etc. the better the community will be.
Hey ho, lateness and a relatively uncharacteristic seriousness have made this post longer than I think I intended, but I'm pleased to commit thoughts like these to my userspace, and now plan on returning to gnoming away on Socrates, and other articles, helping out at WP:TOV, and planning another chit chat which I'll shamelessly encourage you once more to consider joining! We'd love to have you! best, Privatemusings (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Audio broadcast[edit]

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

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

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

Socrates Article[edit]

Hey Privatemusings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you[edit]

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

Be healthy,

Marc

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

Plano[edit]

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

WP:TOV[edit]

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

the Sydney Journal[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

To make sure I understand correctly[edit]

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

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

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

I didn't previously know why you were blocked. After the MM mess we just went through, it seems like disparate treatment to me. Cool Hand Luke 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
ah well I certainly view my block as an odd note in arbcom's behaviour - I would love my 'conviction' to be overturned, but that's a story for another day, probably..... Your understanding is exactly correct - that I operated the 'Petesmiles', 'Purples', and 'Privatemusings' accounts (and all the others mentioned, though several weren't used, and the other 5 have less than 40 edits over a long time period - so probably aren't much use). I hope some good might be able to come of crunching the numbers - my intention was to run two accounts concurrently, with one being used for what little 'wiki-gnoming' I got enjoyment from, and one for discussion which seemed likely to be rather heated. I retired 'Petesmiles' quite a while ago, because I used to have a bunch of 'real world' accounts at other sites under that name, so the pairings of interest may be 'Petesmiles' and 'Purples' - and 'Purples' and 'Privatemusings' - I'm very happy to be entirely open about all of this, so do feel free to ask any questions you might come up with too.... cheers! - Privatemusings (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WikipediaWeekly/NotWikipediaWeekly[edit]

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

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


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


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


On this...

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

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

NTWW episode 4[edit]

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

G'day raul - just back online after a bit of time on the water.... will head over to the NTWW page now, and drop you a line too..... Privatemusings (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, i don't want to go to every talk page you just posted the message and fix it, but if you are reccording at 8:00 PM EDT on tuesday, then it is March 26 00:00 UCT. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Not the Wikipedia Weekly[edit]

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

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

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

The momentary interloper yesterday on the Skypecast was me; sorry about that (I just left a similar message explaining my weird appearance and disappearance yesterday on Filll's page -- thought I should do the same here). I misunderstood the nature of the call -- I thought it would be a fishbowl conference with several active participants and perhaps 40 or 50 listeners. Some glitch dropped me off after the effort to join a conference call with the Skypecast. I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia (one year) and tend to listen and lurk for awhile before speaking up, but I'm perfectly happy to listen to recordings after the fact if the live call is really intended only for active participants -- I really don't know how Skypecasts scale for larger audiences. Perhaps the NTWW weekly page could use a little more explanatory text in this regard? I will watch for the next call. You and your regular participants are doing a fabulous job, so thanks for that, I'm learning a lot! I'll keep watch for the next one, perhaps over time I'll get a little less shy about participating. --Sfmammamia (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't be sorry at all! - and it's certainly not so much your misunderstanding, as the fact that you came across the project in its very early stages, when no aspect of what we do is really written in stone (or actually written at all!) - you're most welcome to pop in and listen live - my ideas for how this project could develop include large listening audiences - possibly with 'IM' chat running alongside etc. - I'm hopeful that if we're open to such ideas then they'll evolve organically - that (and the fact that I've got limited time, and am probably a bit lazy!) is also my rationale for not nailing too much down by way of explanation at the wiki page... It'd be great to have you in the room - in the 'audience' or as an active participant if you so wish - nice to meet you, and I look forward to seeing you around! best, Privatemusings (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note[edit]

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

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

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

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

Hi and Thanks (for all the Fish)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Future show ideas[edit]

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

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

NTWW template[edit]

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

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

This is not funny[edit]

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

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

Sheesh, and you pretended to be Giano on Jimbo's page??? Oh PM... Risker (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
messages crossed in cyberspace.... one at your talk.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Check your email where I have explained some of my concerns in a more detailed, and possibly more diplomatic way. Risker (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Inviting guests for interviews[edit]

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

Discussions by banned editors[edit]

don't worry folks.. I'm just refactoring a bit... there's some good points here on all sides, but it's in danger of de-railing (plus I can't keep up!!) - give me a few mins..... Privatemusings (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried some re-factoring - and thought about creating a sub page for discussion to continue - but found it hard to do so in a way which actually helped at all... I want to be very clear that I've read all of the posts here - and here's a link to the thread which I've removed - in which there really is some useful substantive commentary, and some useful responses, but also quite alot of distraction / noise.

Everyone who's interested in discussing this a bit in 'real world' conversation is of course welcome over at NotTheWikipediaWeekly - and maybe the talk page there is a good spot to discuss the best way to balance the previous discussion with banned users, and explore the issues further in general - I really hope that in talking with other users, we might avoid talking past them...! thanks to all for comments, and see my note at the bottom of this page also.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

please don't add stuff at this point here - I think it's hard to make sure it's productive, so I'm declaring this section 'closed' for now..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 06[edit]

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 06, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 06 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 06 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Probation violation[edit]

Because your edit was an indisputably good edit, I chose not to report it on the arbitration enforcement board, but please be aware that according to the arbitration request you are "subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. [You are] prohibited from editing any article that is substantially a biography of a living person." Heather Mills is a living person. You are not permitted to edit her article. Beyond that, she is a controversial living person involved in a dramatic court case - the same kind of person your restriction was initially based on. Please refrain from editing these articles per the terms of your probation. Thanks. Archfailure (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit was removing defamatory material... and haven't various strong proponents of WP:BLP often proclaimed that doing so takes precedence over all other rules and policies? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I'd love to see an admin block over that edit. Please take your trolling elsewhere. ➪HiDrNick! 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The biography of living persons policy trumps all. Any unsourced contentious content is removed without waiting for discussion. PM did the correct thing here. For PM to report it, would be equivalent to waiting for discussion. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Editing is the adding or removal of text which effects the consensually agreed content. Vandalism is not editing, and therefore removing vandalism is also not editing (it is termed removing vandalism.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to be contrary, but this edit, while fully unconstructive, adverse to our policies on NPOV and our guidelines on tone, is not vandalism. As I believe you know, Vandalism is "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (emph. in orig.) In fact, "test" edits are not considered vandalism - vandalistic edits require that one be acting in bad faith - specifically "adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated." PM is not permitted to remove or restate such, as he is not permitted to edit articles about living individuals. Additionally, if PM intended to alledge he was "removing vandalism," there are a series of steps he should have taken after removing said vandalism - he did not warn the user, and he did not mark the edit as minor. In summary, said edit, however rightful it was, however justified it was under WP:BLP, and all else, was expressly prohibited by PM's probation. If he would like to apply for a modification to that probation allowing him to make good edits to living persons biography, I would have no comments on that application, but untill such time, he is not permitted to edit biographies of living people. Archfailure (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Arch, no administrator will block PM for removing BLP violations. Simple. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That is clearly vandalism - I would have RV'd that as vandalism, and left a vandalism/BLP warning in a heartbeat for that if I had found it. Lawrence § t/e 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked the Arbs[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_User:Privatemusings. Seems more efficient than just circling around here. Lawrence § t/e 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

a gust in a tea cup[edit]

..is how I'd characterise the above - I honestly feel very differently about content editing compared to simple reversions, and have taken my arbcom sanction to refer to the former. I've only got a few BLPs on my watchlist, so hopefully this won't be a big deal going forward.... moving on... Privatemusings (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

suggestion[edit]

Put together a "censored edition" of Episode 6 which leaves out the banned users (i.e. keep only the chat with Somey), and then "For the full uncensored version of this episode, click here" with a link to your gallery on Commons. --Random832 (contribs) 16:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since efforts to force such censorship failed completely in the MfD debate, I don't see how there's any need to placate the censors in this manner. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

just got up....[edit]

and I have a cup of tea, and have read through most of the comments about the recent 'view from the review' conversation - I will respond substantively to the comments above in due course, and thank the folk who took the time to come here and make their points.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

..and I'm up again! - didn't get the chance to respond yesterday - and I see there's been a bit of discussion above - I'm kinda moving on myself, into thinking about how best to facilitate an appropriate response - both to articulate some of the above, and also to keep the momentum heading in a good direction. While I'm cogitating, I'm probably not going to respond 'in-line' to the posts above, because I'm not sure it would help - but if you do want something answered personally, then do feel free to drop a note below - further comments above are also most welcome, and most certainly will be read.... cheers. Privatemusings (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I had to look up "cogitating".  :) NonvocalScream (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NTWW[edit]

Regarding "Monday 7th April, 22.30 UTC", I get out of work about 30 minutes before that, and it's a 10 minute drive, so if that time is still a go I should be able to make it :) -- Ned Scott 04:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just checked WP:NTWW and see more times are being kicked around. I'll comment there. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Transcripts?[edit]

Are transcripts of Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 06 available? I realise that posting such transcripts would be seen as posting on behalf of banned users, but I thought I'd ask if they were available through e-mail or something. I can explain further by e-mail if you would like. Carcharoth (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

With the right kind of technology, we could convert these automatically into transcripts, and then edit them a bit. --Filll (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean wikilinks or censoring or annotating or... I'd still like a clean version first, mainly to read actually, as I'm having problems playing the files. And that would apply to all podcasts, skypecasts, indeed any audio-only format with words. And the ones that didn't involve banned users could be posted on-wiki no problem. I mean, we have transcripts of Jimbo's interviews, so why not these as well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just talking about a possible technological fix. I do not know that anyone has done this yet. You cannot hear ogg files? I have several methods for listening to ogg files that seem to work. Windows Media Player has a plugin that seems to work for this. Also I have used VLC media player on these with no problem. My best technique is to save them to disk first, and then when I have the complete file downloaded, then play them (then I erase them after so I do not waste space). We are thinking about mp3 files as well which more people can listen to. There might be methods for converting ogg to mp3 as well but I have not investigated this.--Filll (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you are involved with producing this? Is your e-mail enabled? Carcharoth (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I am helping. Send me an email if you want help.--Filll (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. E-mail sent. Don't worry if it is not possible, but just see what you can do. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just got the reply, Filll, thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

<- It's great that Filll could help you out, Carcharoth - I should just point out that the original recordings are in mp3 format (about 12 - 15MB per conversation) - and the only thing prohibiting me from 'publishing' them is the lack of an available facility (plus the time and know how, which might be possible to find!). I very much support the idea of transcripts, and hope that we might find some method of providing them - unfortunately I don't think I'm going to have the time to create them manually - but I suppose we could either find a technical solution, or try and harness a wiki effort to the task - either would be great!

I'm also very keen to solicit feedback from as many people as possible, as well as encouraging anyone who wants to create a recording to do so - it's very easy, and my 'bigger picture' concept for the project invovles devolving it somewhat - perhaps the non-centralised effort will in time be the clearest point of difference between this, the 'official' wikipedia weekly, and other projects which may arise... basically all input is welcome! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you need a hosting place to put the MP3 versions, I might be able to give you space within my own hosting account for it... I've got plenty to spare. I may also be able to figure out how to get it up on iTunes as a subscribeable podcast; it involves creating an RSS feed linking to it, I think. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
sounds good to me Dan - we'll chat about it later... (by the way, you can join the skype 'room' now if you'd like to test it - check Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly for the link....) - Privatemusings (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Sent you an email. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New NTWW episodes[edit]

Don't forget to update Template:NTTW-subscription Raul654 (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have new email ;) Anthøny 02:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

[2]. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the note, nonvoc... after a heap of edit conflicts, my small reply finally made it! - that's really all I plan to say on this one in that forum, but if you (or anyone) is interested in chatting further, do feel free to drop a note here....thanks once again for your courtesy, nonvoc. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
After being edit conflicted a third time I found the section had been closed, so I didn't get to post my follow up... suffice to say that I was suggesting to a certain party that they open a dictionary and look up "proxy" and "copy" and see if they can tell the difference. Sometimes... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad it was so quickly resolved with a sensible outcome!
actually - I thought I'd add this short note to say (just in case it's not clear) that I didn't receive any sort of request to report this post, and saw that it had been removed, but remained in the history of the page - I just found it a little silly that I would have to click through the the history of the page to read something which I thought was relevant, and actually contributed to the discussion. (plus it was short, and easy to read and understand quickly - which is great!). Just for the record! - and do feel free to offer any further thoughts / ask any questions here..... Privatemusings (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It was classic Brandt, an intelligent argument mixed with his own sense of ire and then signed, knowing full well that by revaling who he is it was going to be a source of controversy. It does show the controversy and strong feelings this proposal is bringing up in many people though. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
just a brief note to myself really, to record that it didn't really end quite so tidily, with the comments being removed on a point of principle which I didn't really agree with... hey ho... Privatemusings (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge[edit]

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [3] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll not only consider it, I might just do it! - I think it's more a kind of 'dispute resolution workout' - but then the name doesn't really matter, I guess..! Privatemusings (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano talk[edit]

May I ask you a favor? Please leave the Giano page alone. This is just a request which you are not under obligation to follow but I would very much appreciate that.

I am just afraid, sorry for being blunt, that his support coming from you gives weapon to his detractors. Sorry if this sounds harsh. I don't know your story, did not study the arbcom, etc. Just that you are perceived (justly or not) as a trouble-maker so widely that any help coming from you may not actually be handy.

Sorry again, I hope people are wrong about you and you will become a great editor perhaps at some point. Best regards, --Irpen 06:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to cause any problems, or make anything worse around this issue, so will definitely tread carefully, and leave Giano's pages alone (if you're around GMZ - apologies if I edit conflicted you earlier fixing a few typos - was entirely unintentional, and I hope didn't annoy or interrupt unduly...) - I hope these important issues are resolved for the greater good as soon as possible... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope my signing support of Risker's measured and accurate analysis over at Giano's page doesn't cause further damage - I think they're wise words, and wanted to endorse them, for whatever that's worth..... Privatemusings (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a time...[edit]

The next episode is set for 21:00, Friday 18 April 2008 GMT. Would you like to do your whole notification thing to the regulars, and to those that have expressed an interest, asking them to confirm their attendance. Anthøny 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is as good a place as any to advertise, I'll try to get online myself this time and best wishes for the project, Private. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
*nudges* notifications need done, we're recording tomorrow :) Are you still okay for tomorrow, and can you notify everybody? Anthøny 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
g;day agk! - I'll pop on skype in a bit and look for you... around? Privatemusings (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As I noted on the NTWW page, I'm interested in being on the next convo, and I've got Skype all set up. My next question is how to proceed at the established time? Is there a user I should wait to hear from, or what? (My ID is eric.piotrowski).. Thanks! – Scartol • Tok 23:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I just saw the instructions, which – I swear – weren't there a minute ago. Sorry for the confusion! =) – Scartol • Tok 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano's page[edit]

Hi PM - I'd just like to say that I appreciate your support of what I had written there, but would really have appreciated it if you had posted to my talk page, as I had asked at the top of the essay. Unfortunately, I didn't catch it quickly enough before someone else posted below you, inflaming the situation once again. Risker (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

geez - what a stupid stupid stupid situation - I'm watching the baby fly off with the bathwater, and I hope it has a safe landing (the baby seems big enough and ugly enough to be ok, but the whole's thing's still pretty stupid...). My two words weren't intended to inspire many more, and I hope everything calms down as soon as possible - I know you're doing what you can to move things forward, and sorry if I was a fly in the ointment. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You know, perhaps we are both in an interesting situation - close enough to understand the UK/continental thinking but also exposed enough to the American point of view to see where they come from too. Unfortunately, our ability to bridge the difference is adversely affected by sheer numbers and loud voices from both sides. Well, we do what we can. Risker (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
tempting though it is to see some of these issues as ethnocentric - or nationalist in nature, having lived on both sides of the pond (and now being about as far as you can get from either) I sorta come to the conclusion that people are people everywhere.... I'm not sure that it doesn't just all come down to a sort of collective common sense being a bit lacking - I'm sure I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, and p'raps the best advice would be for folk to worry much less about 'the project', an abstract beast, and to try and just say what would be best for themselves, rather than what is somehow 'for the greater good' (the experiment must continue, right?).
One day I'll learn the art of formally constructing my points in a less vague and rambling way, but until then, keeping on keeping on is my only option! I could go on, but it's all a bit un-thought through - so p'raps more anon! - cheers Risker, and well done for your attempts to bring things back on track - it'll all come out in the wash.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Notify Me[edit]

I'd like you to Notnotify me on my Nottalk page when Notthewikipedia is notscheduled.. I'm notforgetful, and do notneed reminders. --Tablepie (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would love to notnotify you, and indeed have been doing a pretty good job of doing so for some time! - If we can come up with a clever bot-type solution for informing everyone with an attractive orange bar, then we shall do so, otherwise, I'm afraid your only option is to 'watchlist' the wiki page and try and check out what's going on.... if it's any consolation, we barely know ourselves!! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

NotTheWikipedia Weekly[edit]

I have been listening, and love the idea. I will set up a website for it soon if it's okay with you. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 18:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A web site / presence for this project is very interesting - and I'd love to hear more! - let me know via any of the usual channels what you might be thinking, and thanks heaps for your appreciation and energy to keep things moving! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I use freewebs, so the name could be something like www.NotTheWikipediaWeekly.webs.com. Good idea? I'll get started. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 17:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you have to pay $8.95 for a custom domain name, so I'm not sure if you would do that or not. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 17:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You could put up a home page at ntww.dan.info, in the root of the subdomain I already created to host the MP3 files. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd[edit]

An article in which you have shown an interest, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano is being nominated for deletion. Just a heads up. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Squeak - I did notice the recent broo ha ha brewing, and am watching with interest. I don't think I'm allowed to comment further (per arbcom), but do have some thoughts on the matter. I believe this is a very tricky situation being inexpertly handled, and I hope it resolves itself without undue hassle for anyone... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Appeal over arbitration findings[edit]

The link which was put after the 'finding of fact' is to the evidence page of the case; when making a finding critical of the editing of a party in a case, the committee normally thinks it best to give an example of the problem. It doesn't necessarily mean that the assertions made by the user who supplied the evidence are accepted in their entirety, just that the committee agreed it was a problem. (I presume you're aware of the latest developments on that particular biography)

As far as the 'how long' goes, how long is a piece of string? There's no set time, so long as it's clearly established that the restriction is no longer helpful. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You restore (some of) my faith, Sam! - I think this is the very first meaningful note from an arb. that I've received concerning my case at all! - I very much appreciate it, so thanks heaps! I don't have much faith in the arbcom as a body, even whilst believing that the individuals on the committee are able, smart and act in what they believe is the best interest of Wikipedia as a whole - getting a note like this however is great!
If you've got a few more moments, which would also be appreciated, I'd be happy to discuss my response to your comment "Privatemusings has improved his behaviour considerably since his return". I wonder if you've had the chance to dive into some of the diff.s etc. to take your own counsel on my previous behaviour, or if you're basing your judgment in part on an impression / received wisdom? - this obviously affects my case, but I see this kind of issue elsewhere (per Carcharoth on Giano - ping me if you want me to explain) - and think it may be worth addressing. In short, I'm not certain that my behaviour has changed all that much (you may be aware that I've been the subject of one post to the Arbitration enforcement board, and one discussion of proxy editing for banned users - both mistakes on the part of the complainant, in my view).
I assert quite calmly that the arbs made a hurried and misguided decision in my case - and that my account should be unencumbered immediately. I understand that the chances of a substantial review are kinda limited, so I take the patient course of action, and smile!
I'd love to catch up 'real time' at some point to discuss my case - and even if you've no time for that, I'd also love to have you along to a 'real world' conversation at 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' - a project to promote good communications which I'm really pleased is kinda taking off.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
ps. - re giovanni, I'm watching with interest, and per my comment above, I think the situation is being somewhat inexpertly handled. Happy to chat further on that one too if anyone's interested (although it will have to be 'off wiki') - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

sorting[edit]

Great that you like it. I've redirected the episode pages to titles with a leading 0, which means the pages will be correctly sorted up to episode 99 (I didn't want to become over-optimistic). If and when there is ever a hundredth episode, I suggest putting those new episodes (100-999) in one subfolder, and the older ones in another. Dorftrottel (complain) 02:42, April 22, 2008

IRC channel access request[edit]

Privatemusings, after discussion by a wide range of users, there was a consensus to decline your request for the time being. The main reason was, there isn't a sufficient reason to make an exception for additional non-admin channel participants. However, there is currently a general discussion on invitations to the channel and if there is a change to existing practice, it will be noted in a public manner. Please feel free to contact a chan op in the future if you have additional inquiries. MBisanz talk 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No chat for you! Come back one year! Seriously though, I wonder what the problem is? The request that I see on wiki (here and here) suggests that PM does not want "permanent access" but rather a tour, for which I assume he will comment about on WP:NTWW. Who is #en-admins PR agent? I think they dropped the ball here!  ;-) I assume someone will say that PM was not allowed because of "sensitive information" that is discussed there, and I suppose the consensus was to not assume good faith of Mr. PM that he would not reveal anything he happened to see discussed...? Just a guess, who knows what the reason is, we could create conspiracy theories about that for months!
Given that PM seems to have requested temporary access, the decline reason stated above ("there isn't a sufficient reason to make an exception for additional non-admin channel participants") makes little sense to me--I think that convincing people that you do not have anything to hide in that channel would be sufficient reason, but what do I know...It's not like it is my channel or anything.  :-) Keep on chattin', daveh4h 02:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh! any post with a Seinfeld reference is always welcome! - The admins channel is a likely topic for discussion at some point, and I'm also interested by what I think is tension between the 'there's nothing to see at the channel, it's really just quite dull' perspective and 'but you can't take a look I'm afraid' - maybe I'm not getting something, but as it stands I would quite like to visit the channel for a short while to take a look at the place - p'raps it'll be allowed in due course? - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't waste time on this. You won't get access. I have nothing to do with this. But incidentally, even I am not sure if this would be a great idea (including, but not limited to, your own sake.) Those logs are pretty depressing thing to look at. --Irpen 05:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good advice, Irpen, I think I've said enough on that for now. Though you know, if anyone's following this - there is a very clear rebuttal option for Irpen's assertion that reform can't work, and that I won't get access..... ;-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NTWW topics page[edit]

I've created a topics page. I'm not sure if this is anything like what Filll had in mind, so please let me know what you think and feel free to edit that page any way you see fit. About the colors: I had sked Chetblong if he could give it a try, because I'm really stupid with colors. Dorftrottel (criticise) 05:48, April 23, 2008

editing help[edit]

Hi there PM!

A university class I've been trying to convince to get involved in using WP in their class has today agreed to do so. In the class they rewrote the text of Religious Nationalism. I was wondering if you could have a look at it and edit it mercilessly (as the saying goes). Perhaps if you could convince others to get in on the act too that would be great.

Here is the diff of the edit they made [4].

Thanks for your help.

On a different note - we should meetup in the city one evening. Casliber too, et al. etc.....

Witty Lama 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

made a few tweaks, witty - hope it's actually an improvement! - and on your later point - I think I might post something at the meetup page - there's probably room for something useful a bit less than a full scale meetup - maybe a bi-monthly few beers at a suitable pub? - I'd definitely be up for that once is a while..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the section Religious Nationalism has now been separated from the main article Nationalism into its own article Religious nationalism. Please join in and help bring this newly formed article up to standard. Especially important is avoiding a Systemic Bias and adding Citations.

All the best, Witty Lama 04:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: homeopathy lead bit[edit]

Just a little help. One advice: be sure that you have (lots of) consensus before replacing the lead with the new version. It will probably be better if you wait for the arbitration case to end before doing the big change --Enric Naval (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responsible Editing Pledge[edit]

Would you give your consideration to signing this pledge from doc Glasgow. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw the pledge, and totally respect its intentions - and the folk who've signed it so far... I'm also glad that the language has been tempered a little since the first draft, and have been giving this issue quite alot of thought over the last little while. I'm in a somewhat interesting position, that the pledge would remain moot for me at the moment, due to the ongoing arbcom sanction - and for that reason, as well as the desire to take a bit more time to think about the issues / principles involved, I'm going to hold off from adding my hancock to that page. If the signatories to the pledge can continue to calmly promote positive change in the wikipedia culture regarding rights and responsibilities in editing biographies of living people, then that's fantastic - and I certainly hope to be able to support that cause too... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration. Appreciated. Nothing like a good arbcom restriction to temper the mind, and I, of course, speak from experience04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

Maverick detected[edit]

I like you, and you live in Sydney! :)

Looking forward to drinks at the Paragon.

Happy ANZAC day, mate!

PS not a logician by any chance?

Alastair Haines (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

happy anzac day back atchya! - I'm not exactly a logician (but today, I'd recommend you stick to 'heads' - it's a foolproof plan for sure!) Looking forward to the Paragon too - last time I 'metup' with wiki folks, I was wiki-banned - so at least I'll be able to sit at the same table this time..... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you're even organizing it! :0 Alastair Haines (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

well it's a pretty good place to start my canvassing for a spot on the arbcom, and the board, no? Privatemusings (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

NTWW confusion[edit]

Are you aware that Durova is implying that she has editorial control over your podcast? To what extent is this true?--Random832 (contribs) 13:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the basic premise of the Not The Wikipedia Weekly. It is that anyone can host on any subject they are interested in. The only thing is, Primatemusings has been the host of 9 of these, and Durova of 2 so far. I have played pseudohost once or twice because of hardware concerns.--Filll (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
sorry it's taken a bit of time for me to reply - been a bit busy elsewhere.... I haven't had the chance to talk to the participants in the skypecast Durova mentions - or catch up with Durova herself yet! - but what Filll says is pretty much accurate - that the project isn't really mine - and that all I can really take credit (or responsibility!) for is kicking it off, and my own thoughts and opinions I've expressed in the audio chats.
I'm really pleased the project is growing though - and over time, the communication of what exactly is a 'not the wikipedia weekly' will become clearer - any thoughts or ideas on that front are most welcome either here, or at the talkpage of the project. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode 10[edit]

I have listened to episode 10 now, and uploaded ogg versions to Commons. For some reason they are not available on the NTWW page, but then I have no idea what I am doing either. I might have easily made a mistake. I also have the mp3 files which I can send to Dan Tobias or whoever is hosting them.--Filll (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: BLP Opt Out[edit]

PM, could I kindly suggest you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass? To some people

That at least has the benefit of empowering the many people I see around who are trying to move things in a healthy direction - without recourse to a big 'policy' decision - whaddya reckon?

starts rubbing against the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT guideline, and well if the person doesn't eventually hear the message, WP:DISRUPTIVE. Cheers. MBisanz talk 06:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

heh - I'm quite safe around horses, honest! (even dead ones!) - maybe I'm coming from a slightly different vibe, which I hope might be useful - I think it's useful to be measured, and calm, and not to rush stuff... and as you've seen I think folk are rushing somewhat over at that proposal. I'm a bit worried that some approaches seem to have the effect of stunting, or at least not encouraging, continued discussion.
I totally understand that it's not really cool to bang on and on about a matter which is completely resolved - but I don't really think that's the situation here at all - hopefully a few more eyes and ears, and comments are a good thing - and we'll see how it goes....
thanks for coming by here though - my intention is to try and continue to promote sensible and useful discussion in this area, and I hope that will calm the concerns of anyone who is confusing wanting to continue to talk about the issues with being disruptive..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographical optout/Noticeboard[edit]

Hello, I'm chiming in here because it seems that you and Ryulong aren't communicating very well, no fault on either side there. Sometimes it is hard when typing.

The reason why he deleted the page was that it was a failed proposal that you hadn't fleshed out before posting, so it wasn't even eligible to be marked historical.

If you're serious about trying to create such a page, you should work out a nice draft and explaination for the noticeboard in your userspace. Once completed, take it here for discussion. New policies such as this don't fall in the same place as making encyclopedia pages. There is some red tape, no matter the merit of the idea.

I hope this helps, happy editing to you. Keegantalk 07:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea Keegan - thanks for helping - if it's really really easy, could you pop a copy of the page somewhere in my userspace (although I didn't put much effort in, I'd prefer not to have to redo it, particularly if it's very easy for you to copy... it'd be appreciated heaps!) thanks... Privatemusings (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thought I should note that it's done - so no further action required - but thanks for the thought anyways.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard[edit]

User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MBisanz talk 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the notification MB - I don't think it's a good idea to delete it, and have made a small note there... feel free to come around here ahead of potential deletions discussions too, if you'd like.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

IANAL[edit]

I would certainly think your BLP editing restriction would permit you to comment on an MfD debate about categories, but perhaps you had best email arbcom-l and ask... --Relata refero (disp.) 08:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid my experience in communicating with arbcom through their list has been that polite questions or comments are met with absolutely no response - and I'm afraid I kinda find it a bit rude, so won't pursue that angle at this time - but I think it's ok to just follow my nose a bit on these things and will comment at the MfD (the opening of which I somehow completely missed too...) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sydney semiweekly tomorrow[edit]

Meeting tomorrow (hopefully!) Andjam (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

well I'll certainly be there! - I'll try and figure out how to hook my phone up to the interwebs so I can update the meetup page too - thanks for the reminder, and I look forward to catching up tomorrow! - Privatemusings (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to the NotTheWikipediaWeekly[edit]

Greetings! You have expressed an interest in joining in with the next NotTheWikipediaWeekly episode. We now have a confirmed date and time: the episode will take place at Friday, 9 May 2008, at 00.30 (UTC). For that episode in various local times, see here. If you'd like to attend, please "enroll" at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed participants. Please also feel free to browse the suggested topics for this epsiode. We look forward to seeing you on Friday at 00.30!

All the best, Anthøny 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode 12 mp3[edit]

The sooner you upload the finished version, the sooner I can delete the files I have. Everyone has agreed to release the rights to the bonus section, so there should be no problem. I would be appreciative.--Filll (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

oops - have I uploaded the wrong version (here)? - sorry if so.... I'll check and replace it with the right version if so.... and apologies too if I've failed to update one of the wiki pages appropriately - that's another likely scenario.... either way, we'll get it sorted out pretty quick hopefully.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that page has the wrong version. I just didnt see any note that they had been uploaded on our wiki page so I assumed they were not up yet.--Filll (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
yup - looks like I forgot to update the wiki page at all! - sorry - I can't even fix my mistake now, because Dan T bas beaten me to it.... my next job is to figure out how to hook up an RSS feed, I'm told it isn't all that hard...? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


I don't know to be honest. But since I havent heard any shrieks from anyone of problems yet, I will delete the versions I have on my disk. I still saved out a couple of these edited versions in email files, but the two largest I couldnt since they were over 20K. If a problem arises, we can always download the Commons versions of the ogg files and reconvert them.--Filll (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: G'day[edit]

Thank you for discussing this with me before bringing it up in the chat. I'm not particularly happy about this being brought up in this manner, nor for being used as a reason to discuss "admin competency". Had either of them mentioned who they were, or bothered to log in and discuss things with me, I would have taken a more careful look at things. As it was, I had no idea who was there, their edit did not appear to be constructive, and in any event a hotel IP address isn't much better than an open proxy as anyone can connect to it and do whatever they like, just the same as an open proxy. For that reason, I reinstated the original block. Perhaps I did make a mistake, but I acted in accordance with what I was aware of at the time. I wasn't even aware of the full details until several days after that fact, and still haven't been contacted by either Tim or Angela. I am offended by being put up as a sort of "dunce admin of the week"; I do thank you for having the prudence to not mention me in the episode summary, but do ask you to please be more considerate about what is discussed in the future. G'day, as you say. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

replied at Hers' talk page.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought my last comment made it rather clear I am offended. Shall I continue ranting, or would you rather re-read my last comment, because you've clearly missed the point. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replied at Hers' talk page.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Your concern is touching. Consider this a standing request to keep my name out of your conversations from now on. I have a severe problem with the morals of a project which is willing to publicly ridicule someone for acting simply with the evidence that was in front of them and then simply "hope that [they] recover." I'd also request you censor my name out of that episode. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replied again. Privatemusings (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm sorry you feel that way, however I also feel you're not being very responsive to this. This situation has already been made public enough by you posting it on your Skypecast. I'm just asking for you to censor out my name, to protect my privacy in this. Anyone who really cares enough to check can go through the logs and such to investigate for themselves. However, to have my name dragged out and used as an excuse to comment on how admins require more oversight amounts to attacks and trolling. I know you're a big fan of people opting out of having a biography on them; I don't see how this is much different. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replied at Hers' talk page.... Privatemusings (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
PM, I do understand that there is a chance to learn from this - there is with everything - however, the way in which this was presented could have been done in a much better manner. Put yourself in my place for a moment - you assume good faith and unblock someone because a WHOIS doesn't conclusively prove that the IP is an open proxy. The IP edits, and makes an edit that could be considered vandalism. Another admin (I was not the only one involved here, I was backed up) points it out, so you reinstate the block, because based on what evidence you have at hand it seemed perfectly justified. IP addresses do, in certain cases, get indefinitely blocked, and open proxies are one of those cases. Some time later, it's dragged out on a publicly and well-advertised conversation that you make a mistake, and are used as a spring board to discuss "admin competency", as though your actions, which seemed perfectly justified considering the circumstances, were those of a fool who has no business holding the tools.
I'm sure all this would be a non-issue had it not been brought up again. But the fact that it was, and in a non-joking manner that implies incompetence on my part, makes it an issue. Your lack of compassion in this isn't helping, especially considering your advocacy of BLP Opt Out as I mentioned previously. It can't take more than a couple minutes to remove my name from the episode and replace it with white noise; I know I could do it myself quite easily were it not for the fact that doing so myself would rather defeat the purpose thanks to the file history.
I know I've made mistakes, and I do understand this can be a good lesson for new (and old) admins, but my name isn't really an integral part of that. I would greatly appreciate your help with this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you've marked the situation as resolved on your page, Hers... which has got to be a good thing. I haven't taken any action, but am happy to continue to talk about stuff if you'd like to - come by any time... Privatemusings (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode 15[edit]

In my opinion, we should censor the episode. I do not think it is too hard to do.--Filll (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we talk on Skype asap?[edit]

Durova is asking for you.--Filll (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

will head that way in 15 / 20..... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to the NotTheWikipediaWeekly[edit]

G'day NotTheWikipediaWeeklian (p'raps we need a catchier nom de plume?) - it's terribly short notice but I'm going to be hosting a discussion tomorrow, Thursday 15th May at 23.00 UTC (head to the 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' page for full info, and a date and time convertor) - that's about 21 hours from now....... There could well be an additional conversation 24 hours later - so take your pick! - I will likely cover the topics which I nominated, and am aiming for a snappy 40minute conversation - do come along if you can! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have some info for you[edit]

come on to Skype.--Filll (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

will be there for another 10 or so.... then it's off for 13 / 14 hours...... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

An urgent note: Skype, please?[edit]

Hey Privatemusings. Myself, Durova and Jdforrester, amongst others, are chatting about the idea of NTWW's banned users episodes, and whether banned users should be given a place (is it just a platform for them? is it correct that we even invite them? et cetera) on our episodes.

If you get the chance, please log onto Skype :-) Much appreciated.

Anthøny 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I popped in right at the end - and we went ahead and recorded a skypecast. I think in practice everything is working pretty well - although I haven't really worried too much about the rules 'n reg.s around who's allowed where... I'm happy to plug into such a conversation - perhaps one morning EU time? - let me know.. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode 16[edit]

Thank you for having Moulton on the NTWW. It was a good listen! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

and thanks heaps for coming by and dropping such a nice note! It's appreciated! Privatemusings (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

oh dear - fingers crossed for a net project gain to come from this - I don't think it's a good idea. Privatemusings (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Skypecast[edit]

Hi -- I've just listened to your discussion and wanted to thank you. You clearly have quite a talent for this! Very enjoyable, thought-provoking and informative.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks very much for your kind comments, Sam - it's appreciated. I think you've done a great job at the noticeboard re: Moulton too, and have said as much. Now that we've 'met', I can start pestering you to come along to an audio conversation! interested at all? - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ask me again in a couple of weeks, when my exams are over! Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll hold you to that! - will pop up again in a few weeks - and the best of luck with your exams. Privatemusings (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Who’da thunk it indeed! I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

live 'up'? - to be honest I'm not certain myself which direction my expectations would be in! - just stay sane, and all that 'to thine own self' stuff..... hooray! congrats! - Privatemusings (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
"It'll take a hundred lifetimes to live it down." -- Kim Carnes, "More Love" *Dan T.* (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Real Life Barnstar[edit]

Reallifebarnstar-transparent.gif The Real Life Barnstar
For your work at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly, I hereby award you The Real Life Barnstar -- Kendrick7talk 19:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks heaps, Kendrick! - and sorry I'm so rude that it took my archiving to get around to saying thanks! I expect a real-life barnstar to arrive in the mail, you know...! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not The Wikipedia Weekly Episode 17[edit]

Hey there Privatemusings! Not The Wikipedia Weekly Episode 17 is now available. Listen to it on the episode's page.
The cast is a special episode on start-up Wikipedias in African languages, and other information on Wikipedia around the world with special guest: Gerard Meijssen of OmegaWiki, and the World Language Documentation Centre

From the Not The Wikipedia Weekly team, Addbot (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case[edit]

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. RlevseTalk 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)