User talk:GTBacchus/Archive 4

Amokolia

hmm Amokolia is a year old nation the reason it is not in the cia factbook is because the cia is just a bunch of fucking bureaucrates and you are hearing this from one of the royal Heimeriths Amokolia 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amokolia2

hey you were the one who blanked my page! :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amokolia (talk • contribs) 00:58, June 1, 2006 (UTC).

Help

could you help me by creating a page for amokolia? Me and my country would greatly appreciate that and if you type in amokolia on yahoo it will show my page! Thanx Amokolia 01:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. We went through an AfD on Amokolia a few weeks ago. Result was

07:52, 21 May 2006 GTBacchus deleted "Amokolia" (A7 - group of people w/ no claim of notability).

The proponent of the Amokolia article last time around was Jimpartame (talk · contribs), who is currently on indefinite block. A sockpuppet check on this new user Amokolia (talk · contribs) might be appropriate. Thanks. --John Nagle 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure

header says it all :-) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got it, will think about it, and get back to you tomorrow. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok

www.yahoogroups.com/spacecity www.dbwf.net

those are the only links we are a year old and the dbwf is only 7 months and you have an article on them

SirIssacBrock

Thanks for letting me know. I'll let your block stand. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox war ended

I hope that you are right that the userbox wars are ended. The credit primarily goes to Jimbo, that is for sure. I found it a pleasure to work with you also - nuanced responses are better than the alternative. I know the preservationists are still worried about whether the deletionists will come after userboxes in user space, but since I never gave up on assuming good faith, I'm not too worried. A few more voices chiming in in favor of the solution at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes might help keep the momentum for implementing the solution going. GRBerry 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Release Dates of Sade Albums and Singles

Could you look into the constant changing of the release dates for Sade's singles and albums? Several users keep changing the real ones for erroneus ones. Currently user: 70.255.142.46 has changed all the dates to phony ones. I would appreciate your help. THANKS ED.1961 02:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:John 3:16

FYI: see my answer to you. -- ActiveSelective 05:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wombdpsw has been identified as a notorious vandal using many usernames before. He's been blocked indefinitely: clerk's report. -- ActiveSelective 06:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:WalterWalrus3

Hey, I'd like to ask your advice about this fellow. If you look here, at his recent contibutions, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=WalterWalrus3, you will see that he has created a series of articles, with the names of different individuals, and then redirected said articles to other articles---one gets the sense that this is clearly designed to disparage the individual named. He created one article (tagged for speedy deletion as a personal attack) entitled "Mother Fucking HomoseXXXual"---this article is already gone. He also redirected the Sweeney disambiguation page to the Incredible Hulk article---I have already reverted this, and posted a message on his user page on the matter. In general, though, what should be done about this fellow? As I say, I would very much like to hear your thoughts. ---Charles 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I had a feeling after seeing the previously mentioned "MFH" article that he may have posted some other nonsense, so I thought I would check. What puzzles me is that his previous contributions seem to have been legitimate, then he suddenly goes off the deep end, as it were. Again, thanks. ---Charles 06:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for wanting to get it over with

I saw where longtime user/admin User:Doc glasgow has left ... take a look at this bit from his talk page ...

A consensus with an arithmetical 70% is/was never going to happen. If someone/some group had just been able to say - 'OK - we are charged with keeping wikipedia on track, userboxes are not important, but uncertaintly and warfare is worse, so here is how it is going to be......'. If someone had been able to do that - there would be some grumbling but then we'd all have moved on. And who knows, I might still be editing articles.

He's exactly right ... that's what is needed ... otherwise, we're going to be spending long amounts of time arguing over out of process deletions. BigDT 08:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Edit at ED

I'm having a bit of trouble tracking down the edit that you speak of. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. --Xyra e l ^T 09:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see what happened. I didn't see what you did because my page had loaded and there must have been only a second or so between your edit and my reversion. Feel free to revert back, but thanks for checking first. --Xyra e l ^T 09:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was simply that with no edit summary, I thought it might not have been true and was just more patent nonsense. Nothing more. --Xyra e l ^T 09:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, please! You wern't bothering me at all. Sorry if I made it seem that way. --Xyra e l ^T 09:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off DRV continuation response

Not sure as to your preference for keeping talk page discussions on one page or going back and forth between them, so crossposted to both.

More than anything else, I'm annoyed with myself for not trying to say this, say, 2-4 months ago. I was aware of the debate, but I didn't think of myself as worthy of giving input for some reason or other. Anyway, my biggest concern with the German Solution/Pacification is that it will, by its nature, stifle further debate from occurring and make the underlying issue, whether we allow unencyclopedic userboxes or not, take even longer to be addressed. So long as the Userboxes stayed in the main templatespace they were at least addressable. But, due to the seemingly widespread view that userspace doesn't matter (which I find higly ironic since User templates are only used there in the first place) the issue seems as if it will simply be whitewashed over and ignored. The German Solution seems to me to be faulty on several counts.

First, it values appearances over actuality. We "avoid the appearance of endorsement" but don't deal with the things we were trying to avoid endorsing in the first place. It's like a family having an argument over whether or not little Jimmy needs to clean his room, and claim it's been settled by letting Jimmy shove his toys under the bed. Sure, it looks better now, but the fact remains the mess has not been put away. Which leads to my second point.

It overvalues peace at the cost of resolution. Peace has great value, I don't dispute that, but only when peace is gained through actual closure of the dispute in question. In wars that end merely due to attrition, the root cause of the war is not dealt with, but rather suppressed, ready to come back at any time when the parties have regained their strength. The German Solution could be implemented today, and it might keep the peace for a short period, or 6 months even, but a year from now, when the deletionists have had their stress levels de-escalate, and the userbox supporters have become even more entrenched in their drivel-clad userpages? The debate will start again, with reinforcement from hundreds of new members who think Userboxes have always been normal, and hundreds of old editors who still hate them.

Finally, the German Solution shows a misunderstanding of what the issue under contention is. The real debate is not which server folder userboxes should go in, it's whether some of them should be here at all. To continue my room-cleaning parallel, the argument is whether Jimmy has to put his toys away, not whether it's better to have them on the floor or under the bed. If he doesn't have to put them away, then let him leave them on the floor, that's fine. If he does have to put them away though, make him actually do so.

All this said, I don't really mind so much which side wins, so long as we have a resolution, I'm just opposed to superficial compromise. In other words, both the final decision of toys go on the floor and the final decision of toys get put away are fine with me, just don't let him shove them under the bed! (And definitely don't sneak in at night and throw his toys in the trash, which is what certain admins seem to think is a good idea...)

And with that, I'm off to bed. Apologies for the inevitable failings of my room-cleaning parallel.--tjstrf 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike888 and sockpuppets

I want to bring another matter to your attention. The user Mike 888 (here are his recent contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Mike888) and two sockpuppets he has created, Mike888@aol.com (his contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Mike888%40aol.com) and Mike69@aol.com (his contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Mike69%40aol.com) has been committing spamdalism all over Wikipedia today. Two articles are currently afd'd, I have speedied another article, and reverted at least two incidents of spamdalism in the last 20 minutes. I think it is time for an administrator to step in. ---Charles 18:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Only for those that are actually divisive and inflammatory. The entire purpose of the userbox is to be disruptive, kill it with fire. Kotepho 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amokolia is back.

Amokolia (talk · contribs) (who may be a sockpuppet of blocked user Jimpartame (talk · contribs)), having been thwarted in creating an article for his phony country "Amokolia", is now inserting references to "Amokolia" into various articles. See Micronation and List of micronations. What action should be taken? Thanks. --John Nagle 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've dealt with that problem. Someone else already reverted the relevant articles, so we're done for now. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titles???

Hi, I would like to know if there's any way of changing a title to an article for a better one or at least consult it? Thanks, --Evelyn Zuñiga 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:OURS

I've seen your comments on Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Rgulerdem.2FWikiethics. Would you please take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:OURS as well. It seems like all my additions get deleted, because I share some views with unwarrantedly indef-blocked editor User:Rgulerdem. Raphael1 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:GTBacchus/Temp

I see you mentioned in the aside in the T1/T2 debate that you were looking for conversation, I hope you don't minf if I add a few ideas into the mix, at the talk page of the above article. You're free to add them into the essay and/or ignore them as you choose! Regards, MartinRe 12:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

too much frustration

Dear GRBacchus,

it seems, that you don't see the dilemma, that you can either assume good faith on Netscotts or my behalf. I am sorry for this, but you are personally attacking me, if you assume good faith on Netscotts behalf.

Unfortunately you got the impression, that those pages got removed, because a banned editor has been involved in creating them. I can assure you, that this is not the true reason. Instead the Wikiethics proposal got removed, because this proposal tried to incorporate decency in this encyclopedia and unfortunately there are a lot of Wikipedians who prefer profanity.[1]

Reg. WP:OURS: Even though I'd like to discuss policy proposals with you, and would like to explain the ideas of WP:OURS again, I'm just too frustrated right now. Unfortunately all my work got deleted, which is why I'd have to formulate all the ideas anew.

-- Raphael1 18:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait, this entire issue is over PROFANITY? That's ridiculous. Raphael, let me give you some advice: Wait 3 or so months, then repropose whatever ideas you have, in your own words, and see if you can get them passed when they are no longer tainted by bad memories. It's the best option available to you. --tjstrf 18:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity here WP:OURS got deleted due to candidates for speedy deletion general criteria #5. Banned users cannot create pages (even through a proxy). Netscott 18:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want evidence? Well, I could post a hundred of diffs, which would explain the reasons, why Rgulerdem decided to copy the Wikiethics proposal to his user space. (i.e. the link I posted above and edit wars like this) Johntex was Rgulerdems mentor and can as well tell you about it. You can read about the issue, which motivated Rgulerdem to write his proposal, here. WP:OURS btw. is a different matter, which is^H^Hwas about user <-> admin relations. Raphael1 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user spam

I saw the message you posted on the anonymous user's talk page. I tried to add this tag (vandalip|Name of owner) but must have done something wrong. I used the ARIN index which is linked on the Wikipedia: Vandalism page, and it tracked the IP address to XO Communications in Virginia. I am certain that it is a sockpuppet of Mike88, since same anonymous user posted the exact same spam as he did. ---Charles 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

D-Day told me you are pretty knowledgeable. I put why this article should be kept on the Deletion Review but it's not there anymore did they change archives or something. Leave me a message on my talk page and tell me about please -- Metal Maiden 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see why it got deleted It was a good article It had good information -- Metal Maiden 20:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:Music I couldn't find the criteria needed to create the article but could you help me create the article. -- Metal Maiden 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band was one of the articles that needed to be created for the wikiproject heavy metal. So in other words you are saying the article will never be created. -- Metal Maiden 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band is still together recently released a new album but they aren't so famous is because they live in The Netherlands and they only tour in the Netherlands. -- Metal Maiden 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reason for deletion of Transpresence

you deleted my article with the reason "word made up one day", which is exactly what it was. can you show me a wikipedia policy that says this is illegit use? i am trying to develop the term as a way of describing a new and emerging set of practices. the term is arising out of research we are conducting at the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto.

isnt Wikipedia supposed to represent the evolving, changing corpus of human knowledge? this kind of behavior/policy seems to be a good way to stifle that process.

Well, I'm not GTBacchus, but the answer is quite clear: See Wikipedia:No original research. Stuff you made up is definitely under that category. --tjstrf 00:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of the Beast

sorry, the vandalism revert wasn't aimed at you, was aimed at the blanking... you just beat me to the revert... ;) - Adolphus79 06:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VINE

Thank you for taking the time to appraise my essay. My counterpoints:

Each user gets one vote, and when the voting closes (either by a consensus or predetermined time limit) the side with majority votes is the winner.

You may be right here, but this is the kind of vote that I usually see.

A classic example of this is WP:AfD, where articles are appraised for deletion. There are two choices: keep (either as an article, or in a merger into some larger topic) or delete.

If AfD isn't a vote, than what is it? If you're right, I've been misreading it for the last thirty-three months. Oops.

There are people above, and there are people below.

Sorry, honest misconception.

votes are semi-permanent.

Here I disagree. Votes are not binding (they can be overruled, as I mentioned) but the thing is that if you ignore a standing vote and do your own thing then you're actually fighting the editorial community. There are a whole host of these on AID, and in retrospect that may have been a mistake of some size.

Anyway, thanks again. I'll yank the "people above" bit (if you haven't already) and if we can hammer out the other three - through concensus - I think we'd end up with a better essay. -Litefantastic 18:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accusation of being a proxy

I'd like you to note, that User:Netscott draged you into his case I've filed on WP:PAIN. Raphael1 19:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really surprises me, that you don't understand this. Would you like to get endlessly accused of acting on someone elses behalf? I cannot get anything done, if Netscott continues with his smear campaign and claims all of my edits to be on behalf of an indef-blocked user. Raphael1 19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly could do that, but why should I have to? Even though Gulerdem is now blocked, he made valueable contributions. Why should they all get lost, just because Netscotts mission is Gulerdems FULL departure? Raphael1 20:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I need to be a martyr? Be rightous yourself and block Netscott for his endless denouncements. Raphael1 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for bad guys either. If we keep in contact and you read Netscotts messages, you'll soon realize, that a large part of Netscotts "contributions" are denouncements. Anyway, you are certainly right, that "it's silly to try to knock a hole in a wall with your head when you could just walk around it". Unfortunately one can't always just walk around it. watch this before it gets removed. Raphael1 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see what I mean? [2] [3] Raphael1 00:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Here is the result of Netscotts agitation: [4] Raphael1 01:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you above what motivated Rgulerdem to write the Wikiethics proposal. WP:OURS is a different matter and has IMHO nothing to do with the cartoons. Raphael1 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is this diff. It's not, that I'd consider those cartoons profanity against my belief, but it is clear from the article and the many cartoon removals, that many people do. As you might know, the english Wikipedia gets primarily written by Christian American/British editors and Muslim editors are a minority. Since you are an admin, you can still look at User:Raphael1/Consequences_of_enforcing_results_of_polls_in_February. Now ask yourself, will the enforcement of the current display characteristics rather neutralize that bias or increase it? IMHO the answer is obvious and the censorship of that page intends to hide that fact. The current practice of enforcing the poll results either drives away or blocks most of the editors, who could write "the other side" of this cartoon controversy. For more details you can read this thread and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_User:Raphael1. Raphael1 00:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTBacchus, I would highly recommend you pay close attention to User:Azate's commentary on the ArbCom case about User:Raphael1 that directly relates to what Raphael1 is talking about here. Netscott 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Netscotts denouncements, see [5][6][7] I'd say, Netscott restrained himself today. Raphael1 01:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you understand. Raphael1 01:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right with the last link. It's a bit late already - Good night. Raphael1 02:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raphael1

GTBacchus, despite your best (and honorable) intentions if your goal is to improve Wikipedia and not get tangled up in conflict I would highly recommend that you disassociate yourself from User:Raphael1 who unfortunately has a bit of a history of disruptiveness (with a number of other examples besides that one). I think the best way that you could possibly assist User:Raphael1 would be to do the same thing that User:Johntex attempted to do in relation to Resid Gulerdem and that is to mentor Raphael1. Of course you two would need to come to some sort of an agreement about that... but I honestly see Raphael1 ending up in the same boat as Resid Gulerdem (which is to be permanently blocked) if he does not get some sort of mentoring. Thanks. Netscott 20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "The Eumenides" comment makes me think of Truthiness. Well said. :-) Netscott 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User EFF

Can you give me a hand to edit that page? It was originally a redirect after I userfied it but it got speedied by an admin which replaced it with {{deletedpage}}. I want to put up a more friendlier message there:

{{TGS UBX to|EFF|Winhunter/Userboxes/EFF}}

Can you give me a hand? Thanks. --Hunter 10:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to help? (Userboxes)

Hi, I remember that you put forth your name as a friendly admin at WP:TGS, and I was wondering if you could help me out. I created a number of userboxes in my userspace without thinking, and I'd like to get them deleted so I can actually move the templates there in order to preserve the history. The thing is, I'd like to do it in batches so I can fix things up without falling too far behind. If I just posted a few links here a day, could you drop by and delete the pages? Thanks. —Mi r a 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I'm dropping by with the first bunch. If you'd rather I put the links somewhere else in the future, just let me know where. Thanks for doing this.

1 2 3 4 5 6

P.S. Please delete the talk pages too. And thanks again. —Mi r a 03:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batch 2

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 —Mi r a 09:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a question.

Is this your own words or are they someone elses "Polite dialogue moves mountains; just grabbing a shovel and attacking the mountain makes you look like a hot-head. Why invite conflict, when you could invite cooperation? Read MeatballWiki:ColdBlanket, please. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)". If they are your words, I would like to ask you if I could put it on my userpage? ILovePlankton 15:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. ILovePlankton 15:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia conference

Will you be attending the Wikimedia conference? --HappyCamper 17:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this page :-) --HappyCamper 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HC do you mean WikiMania? ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Portland

Hi Tony, are you still living in Portland? There's a meeting in town next week that you might be interested in. Oh yes, it also involves free food & drink. -- llywrch 19:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A group of us are getting together to participate in 100 Geek dinners; the party is at Ray King's house, whom I met at Recent Changes Camp earlier this year. It's to encourage bloggers, Wikipeople & assorted Geeks to talk to each other. Here's the invite; I can give you a lift if you'd like. -- llywrch 20:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as your friend is part of the target audience, I don't see why not. (I'll leave it to you to decide if that is so.) -- llywrch 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tony, and good faith

I appreciate the note, thank you. I should mention that this incident certainly began WP:AGF but, once you look at the recent history at User talk:Tony Sidaway and at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3, you'll see why he threw it out the window (where the dogs were salivating [grin]). At any rate, I'll take your comments to heart. RadioKirk talk to me 19:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get for trying for brevity, eh? Sorry (grin). Yes, I began with good faith, but his actions caused me to lose it, hence his "(throwing) it out the window". RadioKirk talk to me 19:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent posts (and indeed your not-so-recent ones)

Even though things you've said on talk pages give me the impression that you're not a particularly devout Catholic — please don't block me for a week for saying that ;-) — and therefore can't be part of that sinister "cabal" that I'm supposed to belong to(!), I want to say that I place you among the very, very top editors here for the way you respect other people's dignity. I wish there were more like you, and if ever you want to be a bureaucrat or an arbitrator, you'll have my full support. AnnH ♫ 19:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine too. Although I think you already know how I feel, it bears repeating... My respect you seems to just increase and increase the more we get a chance to interact. Your recent comments to Tony were especially profound, I felt. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Tony to mediation

Please see: User:Georgewilliamherbert/TSMed

If you are interested in joining the mediation, feel free to add yourself there. I will move that to the Requests for Mediation page once I have done working it up and given others a chance to give feedback and join if they want.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is documented at Wikipedia:Mediation; the process involves having a neutral third party work with both sides, as its name suggests. Georgewilliamherbert 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony hasn't indicated either way; the user page TSMed is just a draft, it isn't official until we file it at Requests for Mediation. I hope he will, but I don't know. I don't think it hurts to try it and see if he will. Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Tony has not even been asked. I only found out about this by accident when I read this talk page. Never mind, I'm open to offers. --Tony Sidaway 07:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: List of music video television programs; Guttermouth; Rob Burch; Chris Stein; WCWM; Oliver P. Bolton; UP SyNDROME; Bill Laswell; Cyberpunk music; Legalize It; R. Talsorian Games; Shabba Ranks; Jim Borgman; Adrian Tomine; Walter E. Powell; Stéphane Grappelli; Hazel O'Connor; Tavares (music group); Coffy

Cleanup: Ruffus; Hopi mythology; Lee "Scratch" Perry
Merge: Belgian comics; Influences of other musical styles on Heavy Metal; Erotic art
Add Sources: Quasi-empiricism in mathematics; Record producer; The All-American Rejects
Wikify: Yorkshireisms; Operation Ivy Bells; Louis
Expand: List of Little Penguin colonies; Akkadian language; Sexploitation

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legalism

I was just reading the talk page for the German Solution and really appreciated your comments to Ashley Y about avoiding a legalistic approach. Thanks for taking the time to post them. --William Pietri 06:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of wills

Your comment on Tony Sidaway's talk page about not wanting to lose a battle of wills is exactly on point. The guy is utterly convinced he's right, and he'll trample anyone in his missionary zeal. Now do you understand why I'm so adamant about the userbox war ending in a true compromise? As things stand, especially if T1 applies in user space, Tony will have won his battle of wills - and that's the same as giving in to a bully, which is exactly what I refuse to do. FWIW, I'm considering adopting an obnoxious signature just to piss Tony off. Jay Maynard 13:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the judgment of how excellent I've bene in mainspace to others. As to whether I allow him to ruin my enjoyment of Wikipedia, there's not a lot I can do about that, just as I don't have a lot of choice about whether I can enjoy a movie with a screaming 2-year-old in the row behind me of a full theater.

It's obvious to me that someone is going to have to rein Tony in, or else he will continue to drive people away from the project. I've seen his type far too many times in my years of dealing with volunteer organizations. No matter how much work he does, if he creates a hostile environment for people who don't hew to his narrow ideas of how the project should be run, he's a net detriment to the project.

However, since he appears to have the support of those whose opinions really matter - and it's apparent mine doesn't - that's not going to happen. Apparently, the project thinks he's more valuable than those he will run off. That's truly sad. Jay Maynard 20:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okkay. Suppose I decide not to let Tony set the rules. I load a set of userboxes on a subpage, as proposed by the German userbox solution. Tony comes along and deletes them. Now what? The simple fact is that he has lots of power on this site, and nobody appears to be willing to rein him in. I have next to no power on this site. That means that he does get to set the rules, at least until someone with even more power tells him not to. He's not listening to you; why should he care the slightest what I think? Jay Maynard 22:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right. If your view is proven by future actions, I'll apologize humbly. Jay Maynard 00:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange

Regarding your comment [8] I wonder what this whole thing was about? Already asked the user who claimed to have replaced the comment but his user talk page says he is away until July. Socafan 12:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

post-gangsta rap

why would you delete this and not delete the post grunge,and post pop wiki entries? what makes post gangsta less valid than the 2 former entries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackdragon6 (talk • contribs) 22:07, June 12, 2006 (UTC)

Re: German solution

Dear GTBacchus: Thank you for contacting me. The definition I use as to what userboxes are acceptable in userspace is based on the Arbcom ruling on the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway as "polemic or inflammatory"; I don't believe any "This user opposes X" userboxes are acceptable, because they will give rise to conflict, but I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with "This user supports X" or "This user does not support X" simply because it is a statement of point of view versus being advocacy against something. This is more or less congruent with the T1 definition of "divisive or inflammatory" also, although personally I don't believe userboxes should be deleted just because they represent a POV; it is more latitude of conflict I consider to be the primary factor in determining the suitability of a userbox. I hope this outlines my rationale a little more; please do let me know if you would like me to answer any further questions you may have on the subject. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Nicholas. I'm concerned about these particular deletions, because I'm working with The German solution, and I'm very keen to see the "userbox wars" be over. Right now, we admins have a choice, to pursue this issue in a way that results in more aggravation of more users, or less. I'm pretty firmly opposed to doing it the inflammatory way anymore, because I think the userbox affairs of January and May alienated some good contributors, and were damaging to Wikipedia. Moreover, I see a better way, and can't let it go.

I wonder whether you'd consider taking those boxes to MfD instead? I know it seems a bit wanton, to use a deletion review for something that really should go, but we do it all the time with article deletions. Remember that we're not required to speedy anything, although in some cases we really should (copyvios, creations by banned users). We actually can choose speedy deletion or XfD in almost all cases. Why choose MfD for userfied userboxes? Because it gives us an opportunity to explain what's wrong with them in the deletion discussion, and it avoids the (very real, very avoidable) bad feelings incurred by speedy deletion. I'm absolutely certain that people will take speedy deletions of userfied userboxes as an act of agression right now, and voila! - we're back in a dynamic that many will want to describe as a "war". If we can be smarter about it, and avoid entering into that dynamic, it's worth the week on MfD.

I'm making this request - that you restore those templates and take them to MfD - out of deep concern for the well-being of this project. We have a chance to not start Userbox War III. Please, let's take that opportunity, to do what Jimbo actually suggested (educate), instead of what he's continued to recommend against (alienate). I warmly encourage you to trust me on this, and to put your good faith behind a different approach to dealing with the userbox problem. I look forward to your reply. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GTBacchus: Thank you very much for your detailed response. Let me try and do justice to your very eloquent and well-considered message to me by considering the very valid points you made individually:

The German solution, and administrative choice further to T1 deletions. I think it would be truly excellent if we could end the userbox wars, since they have unnecessarily detracted from the principle focus of our project - to write an encyclopaedia - and it is time, I think, that an adequate solution is put in place to remedy the issue. I am of the personal opinion, however, that although the German solution would seem to offer a degree of compromise, permitting inflammatory and polemic userboxes to be transcluded across pages, be it from user space or template space, is not the solution to the war. It has been my view that permitting inflammatory templates or template-like pages containing userboxes to be used merely foments more war, since thus a series of miniature wars are borne from the creation of divisive userboxes of a series of opposing view.

MFD. I personally think all the xFD processes have devolved into something resembling an uncontrolled "slanging match", if you will, and I don't really have any desire to promulgate the mud-slinging that generally occurs over userboxes as it tends to merely fuel the flames of dissatisfaction versus performing its role as a means for consideration over deletion. This is, indeed, why I believe speedy deletion of the userboxes that clearly fall within the T1 category is justifiable, since, after all, we have T1 policy enacted by fiat, and it seems sensible that it should be used. Of course users may - and have, in this case - bring such deletions to DRV anyway, which if anything is a worse scene of mud-slinging and poor faith than the xFDs; but really that is a reflection of how the status quo should be changed in such a manner as "opposition" templates don't exist, due to, as I wrote to you previously, the latitude for conflict they create.

Conflict and the "userbox wars". I understand however that the conflict surrounding the mere issue of the "userbox wars" tends to create a controversy that makes POV issues pale to insignificance, and in that regard you are quite astute in observing that speedy deletions will be viewed as an act of aggression. I wonder if perhaps a better solution, rather than the "German solution" migration of userboxes into userspace (which does not exempt them from T1 classification) would be that some form of userbox guidelines, perhaps policy, develops stating that opposition userboxes must be worded as mere statements rather than direct statements of conflict (e.g. "This user does not support X" versus "This user opposes X" or "This user considers X to be <negative adjective>") which I think might perhaps be a better solution than the German approach. I agree with you, however, that under the present climate speedy deletion of userboxes is unwise, and indeed further to your message above I will not delete the German solution userboxes in the future unless pressing circumstances really do dictate it, which they have not to date. Rather than speedy deleting German solution migrated userboxes, would it be amiss of me to change them to acceptable wording - as in, expressions of point of view versus opposition?

Faith in the German solution. As I've outlined, I don't think that permitting opposition-related userboxes is the manner of solving this conflict, but I will follow your request and will permit the German solution project to run its course without interference from my administrative actions in the future, in the spirit of good-faith attempts to end conflict, and I hope you will accept my apologies should my actions to date have been eviscerating the good work you have been attempting to achieve through the project. I regret, perhaps, my principles of neutrality as regards statements of POV by user have extended too far - as I consider that we should, really, be working in a completely NPOV environment - and I appreciate you may well have a better grasp of the situation than I. I hope you have the best of success with the German solution despite my doubts as to its ability to mitigate the controversy, and thank you very much for taking the time to talk to me about this. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. By the way, I have written a brief essay on my idea for more neutral wording of POV userboxes at Wikipedia:NPOV in userboxes (I don't think the title of the essay is really quite right, because it is more neutral representation of POV that I am aiming for, but I couldn't think of anything better at the time.) I would be most grateful for your input. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

As a reader, I don't understand the question/comment you posed in the current deletion review of a pair of userboxes. It is past my bedtime, so it might just be that I am tired. You might want to go take another look though to see if you said what you meant to. GRBerry 04:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV comment

"This comment is very close to inspiring me give up on all compromise and turn into a hard-core userbox deletionist" (re "Userboxes are here to stay")

Hello. Your comment above mirrors quite closely what I've been feeling recently, and while it mightn't turn me into a hard core deletionist, I can appreciate where they are coming from. I do worry about the compromise, and whether it will turn out to be a true compromise/stepping stone to eventual removal of userboxes, or will it end up being "give an einch, take a mile". I have a sinking feeling that it will be the latter, from the initial reactions that now that userboxes are in userspace that they are immune. As I commmented in the DRV earlier, sometimes a compromise is not a good solution, for example when one side is what wikipeida ia, and the other is what wikipedia is not. (I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here, though, but it's definitely close) I'm also not sure that *fd's are working, as, if according to policy something should be deleted, but it has lots of popular support, then one of two things seem to happen. Either the result is keep by the numbers, or the result is delete by policy, and it's taken to drv, where it's overturned by the numbers (as drv works on numbers), and round and round we go. So, right now, the deletion process is broken, as it ends up keeping material that is popular, but against policy. So, I can fully understand those that think "this is going to argued on *fd, probably argued on drv as well, and might end up being kept, on pure numbers, not policy, as well as causing huge amounts of grief in the process, so so why not just speedy it for a similar amount of grief, but to save that waste of time, and be sure it will end up deleted?" Although, while I can understand it, I think it's a risky strategy, but the only long term solution is to make people very aware of policy, so *fd is argued on policy, not personal preference, but I don't see that happening in this case, do you? Regards, MartinRe 09:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A risky strategy? I guess that depends what you mean by risky. Some people think it's pretty safe [9]. I'm not on the verge of going rouge yet, though; there are still good conversations happening, and some of us have to keep up the dialogue side of the equation, if only for the sake of damage control. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, how do you resolve the conflict between consensus and principle, or, how policy normally gets set (it follows consensus, which is based on what people say and do) and how it has been set in this case, it is derived from fundamental principles around what the WP project is, and from (somewhat oracular and thus hard to interpret crisply) statements the founder and chief policymaker has made, rather than based on what popular sentiment at the moment is. I am starting to get increasing sympathy for those that delete outside process, I must say. GT, your you know what touches on this. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One can't continue to not talk about the elephant forever. I recently was in a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Spam, where some questions came up, like what's really up with the vote-stacking (sic) situation? I posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Request for examples asking for good examples of when "vote-stacking" has managed to derail the proper functioning of AfDs, as I feel certain I've seen, but didn't want to rummage for examples. Nothing was forthcoming within 24 hours, so I went ahead and did some serious rummaging with the help of a spreadsheet. ("Evidence, of a sort") Of the 149 AfDs I've participated in, only one has actually been closed against the numbers, and that one was silly - an admin (I think it was an admin) userfied the page after 10 people in a row had said "delete". Perhaps we should be more willing to close against the numbers if we have to - but that way lies GNAA and Brian Peppers and The Game (game), right? Right now, enough noise gets an article (or a template) kept, and that's an example of Wikipedia not working properly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Brenneman enters stage left.) I've closed "against the numbers" as you say several times. ^{[citation needed]} I think that all but one of them stuck without too much drama. As to the three examples of failures above, I note they are in chronological order. And that I think we've handled it a bit better every time. Partly through process but partly through experianced admins and editors knowing how to handle it. In every one of those cases my opinion is that an effective request for comment system could have handled it, possibly with a deletion discussion at the end. As to noise getting things kept, the way for that was paved with schools. Where are they now? - brenneman ^{L} 01:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer vacation? :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pint2 question

So would you (& your guest) like a lift over to Ray's house tonight? I've been there, & I can attest that it's a challenge to find. -- llywrch 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello

my name is stoli User:Stoli

Hello again

Hi, it's me again. I just wanted to mention that I posted the next batch of subpages I'd like deleted back up under the old heading where we were talking a few days ago. I hope I don't seem impatient, because I'm not; feel free to delete at your convenience. I'm just a little worried that you didn't get my message, as I didn't post it on the bottom of your page. Thank you. —Mi r a 03:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD for Gape shot

I have nominated Gape shot, which in Talk:Gape shot you have disapproved of—though for a nominally different reason—for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gape shot. —Centrx→Talk 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agf

Sorry the agf was for Tony, not you --Facto 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amokolia

Sometimes, they come back. This time, from Stoli (talk · contribs). Marked for speedy deletion, of course. Can we get this blocked against re-creation? --John Nagle 06:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PISSED AMOKOLIAN CITIZEN

I FUCKING HATE YOU I CANT FUCKING STAND YOU ANYMORE AND BESIDES WHAT WOULD ONE FUCKING ARTICLE DO! :o

I guess I can add one to the list of micronations that have it in for me... -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox location straw poll

Hi GTBacchus, I've been thinking that WP:GUS has made some progress in developing consensus about userbox location and some related issues. It really hasn't gotten as far, IMHO, about Wikipedian categories. I've also been thiking about a straw poll related to UBX locations. Would you be interested in working with me on a straw poll draft in my userspace? Nothing's there now, but I've sketched out some notes on my pc. If we can focus on that part of the solution for a bit, we might be able to solidify an anchor point to attach other issues, such as categories. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 20:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I figured as much. I also assume that if we can agree to something, it might have a shot at moving things forward a little bit. I'll let you know when there's something to rip apart! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 20:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a draft: User:Rfrisbie/Sandbox. Rfrisbie^talk 21:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I'm not "convinced."[10] "Great" Scott!!! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pschemp

Thank you for your attempt to get through to Pschemp, but I don't think there's much chance of success. Not only did she show no remorse over deleting criticisms instead of replying to them, but she falsely accused me of personal attacks, which is in very bad form. Moreover, her buddy, Lar, wrote some nasty things on my talk page and Romarin's, including threats of blocks. I'm just going to politely write off both of them as bad admins. It's a big list already, but there's always room for more. Al 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus, That's a rather interesting definition of nasty, I must say: [11], [12], [13] I stand behind those remarks, and don't really think a reasonable person would see them as nasty. I suspect you're not going to get much further along this line before you're "politely written off as a bad user" so you may want to choose a different road. ++Lar: t/c 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My willingness to recognize that bad admins exist is a big part of what makes me a good user. Being an admin is hard; too hard for some people. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this as good a place as any to link to my latest meditation on assuming good faith? Yeah, I think so. You might both (Alienus and Lar) enjoy it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was interesting, particularly the part on IP-profiling. I'm not sure if I agree entirely, but it gave me food for thought. Al 01:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a bit that I didn't write, but I think it makes sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change

Should I edit my messages to say "straw poll" rather than "vote," or just leave them as is? Rangeley 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence?

I'm too new here to be taken seriously by anyone (even myself), but I added a commentary on the Talkpage of your excellent essay. I also noticed your edit summary to the Mainpage which came a little later. I just have to ask if it's coincidence, or is it possible we have a similar (and somewhat lamentable) sense of humor? Doc Tropics 04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA 'citations'

If you can't be arsed to do a simple google search to come up with "citations" for the article, I would suggest not editing it at all. Since you clearly care, spend an extra 30 seconds to find the citation link, isntead of putting up a //citation// template. how about that? kthx. --timecop 08:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admistrative intervention RE: Politics Edit Warriors.

I warned Rangeley for this edit. The transparent desire to get in juvenile fights on the encyclopedia is old, and it is a violation of WP:POINT. If I were an adminstrator in good standing, I would begin sending out short blocks. But I'm not an adminstrator in good standing (probably because I'd begin sending out such short blocks.) Have you considered sacrificing your good standing to make them all stop? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My note in the edit was intended to make it clear: "Link provided disputes its justness, but recognizes the Iraq War as part of the War on Terrorism, and critocizes it likewise." It was therefore innappropriate to place there, as it contains critocisms of the War on Terror. After this I received my "final warning" for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and now I see the attempt to block me was made. I hope that this was only a misunderstanding, because I honestly do not see what I did that would warrant a block, or even a "final warning." Rangeley 18:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeley, are you ok with the word "(disputed)" being there, without the link? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I would actually prefer the entire thing to be removed, for the time being, because I do not beleive the discussion to be at a point that we can consider a conclusion reached. But with Hipocrite bringing the discussion itself up for deletion, and infact wiping out a large portion at one time [14] unilaterally (which I reverted, probably a factor in his anger towards me), I dont know if the discussion can last. I posted an incredibly lengthy response to why we must not compromise truth simply because some dont beleive it, which you may have seen here, and if not I would appreciate if you gave it a look. Its either part of the War on Terrorism or not, just like the Earth is either round or it is not. Controversy should not interfere with this. However, I will not remove the partof or even touch it for now, as I am much more interested in sticking around to discuss the issue so that in the long run Wikipedia gets it right, even if this means it will be wrong in the short term. Rangeley 18:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very encouraged that you're willing to take a long view of the situation in preference to edit warring. I'm working on a reply to your post at Wikipedia:WOT, and you probably won't be surprised to find that I don't think it's a matter of yes-or-no fact whether the earth is round. It depends entirely on what you mean by round. Perhaps controversy should not interfere, but it does. I've been working on the Abortion article for a few months, and the very meanings of words get so damn prickly that you can't touch them without taking on a whole raft of political baggage. I'm confident we'll work something out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree somewhat, and saying it is round would be a generalized statement. Saying it has an equatorial diameter of "12,756.274 km," an equatorial circumference of "40,075.02 km," and so on would, however, be right, would it not? A similar problem would exist by calling the Iraq war a war on terrorism, as that is an open ended term, much like round. However, in avoiding this open ended nature, we would state it as a part of The War on Terrorism, a specific conflict, with a specific definition - a campaign waged by the USA and allies against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. Rangeley 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

didn't realize it, its hard when Rangeley's deleting comments all over the place... my apologies, wasn't trying to silence you :) --kizzle 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I didnt delete anything on purpose. Why would I want to greaten my chances of getting banned? I sent you a message as well. The shear amount of editing thats going on, problems are bound to happen, they shouldnt be held against anyone. Rangeley 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Tony

Hi, I was very suprised in the way the Administrator Tony Sidaway reacted with regard to the removal of political userboxes [15]. I am not very familiar with the procedures surrounding adminship, but looking at his block log [16] does not give me the impression he has behaved admin-like since he became Administrator in March 2005 [17]. What is your opinion on this matter as an Administrator? Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard to this user in particular, there is an excellent essay that gives practical advice on dealing with a percieved problem.
brenneman ^{L} 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen Nescio

He has continually edited the article's argument for inclusion, and it has been copied and referenced several times, such as here. He seems to be purposely trying to change the discussion into something it is not, through a variety of reverted edits: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. I dont know what to do about it, but those are most certainly not the issues attempting to be addressed... Rangeley 22:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really important. I think he is trying his best but the whole thing was misconceived and is not going to change the facts. The White House describes the Invasion of Iraq as part of the so-called "War on Terror" and this statement can and should be included as a fact in relevant articles. A vote won't change that. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The straw poll has no bearing on the issue other than to gauge oppinions of the conclusion proposed. The issue at hand is not the mere fact that the Iraq War was stated as part of the War on Terrorism, but that it infact is part of the War on Terrorism, which is a specifically defined conflict being waged by the USA and its allies against those they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. As it stands, it seems that this view is being accepted. Now we are dealing with how to represent this, along with recognizing the controversy. So yes, a poll will change nothing, but a grueling discussion will. Rangeley 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... gruel. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Rangeley 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you work

I like having someone who can interpret stuff like the signature squabble for me. Keeps the discussion from going entirely off the rails. --Tony Sidaway 01:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. I'm glad when I'm able to help out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for informal mediation

GT - I'm very pleased with the progress you've been able to make with regards to this issue. But I'd like to ask three indulgences:

I've tried to be very clear and civil with Tony, and would appreciate any feedback you'd like to give regarding my recent edits to his talk page. I'm going to avoid making any further comments for a while, however.
I'm asking for a few extra concession from Tony, can you tell me if these are unreasonable:
- That he add "+sig" anytime he refactors a signature.
- That he pipe in the "display name" when he refactors.
I also am not clear exactly where it is that he intends to attempt to avoid refactoring. Anywhere in his user or talk space, of course. On an ANI subpage, I suppose. But I'd like him to make it very clear that he'll not refactor outside those spaces: Other user's talk, wikipedia talk, article talk.

I'm shy of leaving any possible areas of misunderstanding, in order to avoid repeating the events following defacto RfC 4.
brenneman ^{L} 01:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<_<

Alright alright, sorry. I respect you keeping your cool through all this. I apologize once again.

Blerg1 03:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I still find very disturbing that people having that sort of userboxes on -their only reason to exist being to annoy the opposite side anyway- can then go and point their finger at me for being "uncivil". I guess that promoting their own divisive personal agendas as many of them do is not being uncivil. Funny old world... TheCooler

Consensus

In my oppinion, we have discussed the issue to the point where it seems that most people agree, with the notable exception of Nomen Nescio (whose objections seem to be out of a misunderstanding [25]), to state the Iraq War as part of the War on Terrorism, as it is a specific, defined conflict. We also seem to agree that for the infobox, in order to clearly show it is a specific conflict, War on Terrorism will be put in quotes. I found these two conclusions to be acceptable of course, and would like to know how it would be determined to be consensus exactly. I think its in everyones interest to get this out of the way, since both Zer0 and Nomen were blocked for 6 hours due to a 3RR violation. We all want to put this chapter behind us and move on to more enjoyable things. Rangeley 00:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio is insisting there is no consensus, and has not actually stated why. I honestly dont know what to do, he has reverted several times and I have the feeling that all of the effort was for nothing if he can legitimately do this. Can people, who have no actual complaints relevant to the consensus, ignore it? Is there any way that someone can put their foot down, or can he just keep reverting and make the consensus useless. Zer0faults was also warned by another admin to stop harassing Nescio... I would just hate to see everything fall apart. In my oppinion, Nescio is not being at all constructive, and while he could very well, in his mind, think hes helping out, he simply is not. He hasnt responded to the consensus to state any complaints, except to say it wasnt a consensus. Rkrichbaum stating a lot of the things Nescio used to say when he still discussed things, [26], and doesnt beleive in the consensus. So thats where we are today. Rangeley 20:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politcal User Categoris discussion

Hi,

I have recently made a new suggestion in the deletion discussion in order to solve this dispute and the user category related problems, in a way that I think is better than the current proposals.

I thought this proposed solution might interest you, and I'm interested to know what you think about it. Tal :) 07:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just replied at the discussion. Thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that its time to analyze the results of the discussion (7 days have past) don't you? Tal :) 12:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you wait until tommorow (at least 14 hours) before closing the discussion, I think I have somethings to add but I'm too tired right now. Would that be okay?Tal :) 18:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batch 3

Hey, I know it's been a while again, but here's some more userboxes you can delete.1 2 3 —Mi r a 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those went really fast - not many links. Here's batch four: 1 2 3 —Mi r a 02:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those were fast for me as well. Here's batch five: 1 2 3 —Mi r a 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here's batch six: 1 2 3 —Mi r a 03:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran into another situation, and I'd like to ask for your help and/or advice. A userbox was recently brought up on Deletion Review. At this discussion, I volunteered to host the box in my space, and this was supported by all users participating in the discussion. The only hitch was that the userbox had been deleted and salted. An admin just removed the discussion with the summary "Silly. Ancient issue long settled."[27] This seems out of process to me. Is there any way I might go about getting that template undeleted and moved to my userspace? Is this something you'd be willing to do? I appreciate any help you can give. —Mi r a 03:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus decision making

GT, I really appreciate the time and thought you are putting into the discussion at CFD. -- Samuel Wantman

It will be interesting to see how the CFD gets closed. We seem to be the only 2 people left discussing things. This was the Politics notice board I proposed. It is based on the LGBT one. All you need do is change "Politics" to "Abortion" and remove my name as I probably won't participate. I'd suggest keeping a close eye on it when it starts. I spend quite a bit of time reformatting things so that everything is well linked. I've also done descriptive links to the archives which I wish would happen more often. People have a tendancy to state their opinions on the project page and discussions often begin there. I then move them to the talk page and link them. We are occasionally accused of stacking votes, but it seems to me that participants often don't agree. I suspect it would be near impossible to do a MFD for an established notice board, as all the participants will be against it. I would tread lightly in setting it up, so that nobody accuses you of being pro or con. You wouldn't want the heavy fist of a certain unnamed admin to swoop down on you. If he does, let me know and I will come to your defence. -- Samuel Wantman 09:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject

GT-- I've gone ahead and created WikiProject Wikipedians working to create alternative user categories. I hope you can take a look at it and help me flesh it out. As soon as it is in a reasonably good shape I'd like to recruit some more people to help. I'm thinking of posting at the Admin notice board, individually asking the people who contributed to the CFD discussion, members of the Wikipedia:User categorisation, village pump, CFD talk, etc... -- Samuel Wantman 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss roll

Hi, GTBacchus, I need advice from some Americans. If you have a moment, could you take a look at Talk:Jelly roll? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 11:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh

Well, perhaps not ugh, but a mixture of almost laughing and being quite dissapointed in things. It appears that the consensus here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WOT is that it should be kept, but "any "consensus" supposedly found therein is deprecated in favor of a traditional RfC or talk page discussions." It speaks for itself, obviously it is asking us to ignore the broader consensus and instead make an RFC on every page that may deal with this issue. If this is seriously Wikipedia policy, then this is dissapointing. I brought it up with the admin that did it [28] but who knows. Things are just so messed up with this whole thing, and the fact that some nights I was thinking about this in my sleep has shown that I dont want to go through the same ordeal all over again. Sorry if I sound whiny about this, I just hope that that admin made some mistake or something that can easilly be fixed. Rangeley 21:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just as one would expect, people are capitalizing on the "no consensus" decision [29]. Rangeley 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania

Hello there! We met ages ago at the last Seattle meetup. I was the girl who came up from California :) I'm reminding folks about Wikimania this summer [30] and if you're coming, to register soon, before prices go up [31]. We have a fabulous program planned and it should be fun times. Hope to see you there! Brassratgirl 19:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batch 7

Don't worry about how long it takes you, I'm not moving all that fast myself. Anyway, here's batch seven: 1 2 3 4 —Mi r a 05:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here's batch eight: 1 2 3 4 —Mi r a 06:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link titles

As far as I know, it's customary to title external links according to the title of the target page. For example, the for URL I'm at currently viewing, I would probably use the following notation, unless the context demanded otherwise:

Editing User talk:GTBacchus (comment) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

If we want to explain how the Gay Nigger Association of America is not widely regarded as a "corporation" we can do so elsewhere in the article. — Jun. 28, '06 [13:45] <freak|talk>

Hippie-Travel Section

Hi GT,

You added a "citation needed" tag to a section on "Travel" which I wrote for the "Hippie" article. Not sure what an appropriate citation might be. What I wrote was based on my own experience, as well as the experience of thousands of others. What did you have in mind? Please inform. Thanks. Founders4 15:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your informing me about the "no original research" policy, which I didn't completely understand. I'll be careful to provide more citations in the future.Founders4 07:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WalterWalrus3

I do not know what the policy is on a user altering his talkpage in order to remove warnings about vandalism, but WalterWalrus3 has done just that. I reverted his edit, and now I am not certain as to whether I should have done that. It seemed to me that such warnings should remain, just as a marker for future editors and administrators who may place such warnings. Can you advise me on this issue? I am not trying to pick on this guy, either, in case you get that impression. ---Charles 21:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!

Al 05:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GTBacchus. I saw the conversation on Alienus's page, and just wanted to let you know that {{vandal}} was moved to {{userlinks}} on 27 May. See discussion here. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 08:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Dear GTBacchus,

Thanks for welcoming me into the strange but interesting world of Wikipedia. The links you sent over helped as I submerge myself into the culture.

Thanks again!--OBIKristin 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Alienus

Caught your comments on User talk:Alienus. Believe me, I know the frustration. You intervened (correctly) with this comment on my talk page. I sympathise with your frustration, but just want to return the favor by asking that you not get yourself too bent out of shape over what some may consider "trolling." Keep a cool head and all that. --Ellis kev 17:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I don't consider him a troll either. However, I wouldn't blame anyone for interpreting some of his edit summaries or talk-page edits that way. --Elliskev 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that I'm more of a hobgoblin than a troll. Just thought you'd like to know. Al 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, we've got room for hobgoblins at Wikipedia, it turns out. Some hobgoblins, anyway, despite the superficial resemblance to trolls, are quite good to have on board. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more like it. Passive-agressive and what-not... --Elliskev 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that hobgoblins are much smarter than regular goblins and also smell better than trolls. Al 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's POV. --Elliskev 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have numerous citations to support these claims. Al 13:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]