User talk:GTBacchus

; Archives
	January 2003 – December 2005; January – March 2006; April – May 2006; June 2006; July - September 2006; October - November 2006; December 2006 - January 2007; February 2007 - March 2007; April 2007 - June 2007; July 2007 - October 2007; November 2007 - February 2008; February 2008 - April 2008; May 2008 - March 2009; April 2009 - June 2009; July 2009 - September 2009; October 2009 - August 2010; ;

Template:Attempting school wikibreak

Please click here to leave me a new message.

PS move request reply

Hello Tony. In case you have added Talk:Pixel Pipeline to your watchlist, this message is probably useless. I just want to make sure you have twice the chance of reading it, just in case.
I wish you a nice day!
MaxDZ8 talk 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll reply to you there. By the way, that's a neat thingy - that secure link. Where can I learn more about that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't truly aware of what I did exactly to produce the secure link above, but it seems it's a result of using the secure log-in procedure. I'm not really sure it's something valuable.
I'm now trying to make up my mind for the reply on the talk page.
MaxDZ8 talk 12:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The American Left

Thankyou for your hard work which I am sorry for having caused you. Another editor had moved the article and then changed the original title to redirect to another article, so I could not move it back. If this happens again I will ask you for help. BTW does the talk page history get moved too or is that unneccessary? TFD (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud Pasha

Hi GTBacchus! I know you can fix things like this one, so here it goes. User Cplakidas made a redirected page Mahmud Pasha to Mahmud Pasha Angelović and than he redirected page Mahmud Pasha Angelović to Veli Mahmud Pasha. Basically, he redirected old existing article to a newly created article (both of them stubs). While doing so he didn't copy nothing from original article. I have manage to find the informations from the original article, and I have implemented them into a new one. I don't have nothing against a new name of the article, just wanted to see if things are o.k. now, or something else is required. Thanks, Kebeta (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe I've fixed everything, so the history of the article is located at the same title as the article itself. If you notice anything I missed, please let me know. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kebeta (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Hi, GT! Check your e-mail? Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... did you get my (partial) reply? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixing"

FYI, turning blue link into a red link is not "fixing" anything. If the blue link is "wrong" (whatever that may mean), first create a NEW blue link that is "right" (whatever that may mean) and link to that, rather than to a red link. Or just leave it alone. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPs cannot create pages on English Wikipedia. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. (So why don't you create an account?) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several of us have been making that inquiry for a couple of weeks now. I believe this user has an account, or had an account. My recommendation is that they log on with that one. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turning a blue link into a red one is completely acceptable. Don't listen to anyone who tells you that it isn't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? Before I make any comment, I'll ask: Please explain. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that red links aren't bad. An example: Suppose there's a genus of butterflies called Paris. (I don't think there really is.) If someone links that, it'll be a blue link pointing to the city. Someone else notices that the link is wrong, and changes the link from "[[Paris]]" to "[[Paris (genus)]]". If there's not an article about the genus, then the link will appear as red. This is perfectly fine.

The person creating the red link is not obligated to first (or ever) create the article. Red links are part of how Wikipedia grows.

Does that help? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Does that help?" - Yes, thanks. Those are the sorts of things I intended to say in response to your words: "Turning a blue link into a red one is completely acceptable."

As for: "Don't listen to anyone who tells you that it isn't.", well, that's just bad advice, (and rather rude). Listening to everyone is one of the ways to learn things. Even when they are things you have already made up your mind about, you learn about the people who are saying them. e.g. I have learnt that some of the things that you write do not always convey the meaning you intend. Also, I've learnt about <p>; henceforth I'll probably use it in preference to <br>. So that's helpful too.

Thanks for your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fair. It was a bit rude the way I said that. I apologize.

I guess I feel very strongly that new (or non-logged-in) users shouldn't be told about "rules" that aren't really rules. I'm a big fan of WP:IAR and WP:WIARM. I don't want people to feel constrained from contributing. Sometimes those strong feelings result in my being less courteous, and that's inappropriate.

The bit about our words not always conveying what we intend is pretty universally applicable, I'm pretty sure. Thanks for giving me a chance to explain myself rather than jumping to any conclusion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that despite first "appearances", we seem to agree with each other. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for helping me get set up on wikipedia. I always loved wikipedia and I didn't know I could edit it. I thought you had to be a super genius or something, but thanks for showing me that you don't have to be. :) AdbMonkey (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:D Being a super genius is kind of overrated anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Montanabw behavior. Thank you. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GT, your name is being invoked at the ANI, so best you weigh in. Check the links, but review the diffs presented in their entirety, in full context. I was just trying to see if other people had an experience similar to mine and I found someone. Apparently, my comment there to that user was ANI worthy. Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, both of you. I've commented there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transatlantic

Hi, now that Transatlantic is a disambig page, could you help fix the misdirected links per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 15:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can help with that, though I'm not likely to do them all in one sitting... :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! WP:AWB is a very helpful tool, as are navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true. Also, if you get to the point where all remaining articles need to be pointed to a single article, I can do a mass edit - but only if all the articles have been reviewed first. --JaGa^talk 16:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for some reason, I like doing these manually. I can do them pretty quickly, the count is about 225 last I checked.

Also needing to be done: I noticed there's a page Transatlantic (disambiguation), which is largely redundant with the current content at Transatlantic. Somehow that situation should be reconciled, but I can think of about 4 ways to do it, none of which is quite optimal. Hmm. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Christianity

The Template:WikiProject Christianity has recently been seriously changed by another admin. I know that at least one group (LDS-work-group) has been completely removed due to syntax changes (not because it was remove). Another Admin who has done work on this template, such as yourself, needs to go back and fix it.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me sir

Do you know if I can make a page? Like a talk page explaining to wiki about myself. Like you did? Omg, I'm sure you know. Do you have a link to the part in the guide? Thanks if you can. AdbMonkey (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopsie

Nevermind! I found it. Thanks! (Der.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdbMonkey (talk • contribs) 05:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you got that sorted out... -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on initial proposed revision of this article?

'Afternoon GTBacchus,

Since you seem to have an interest (and solid knowledge of) the DFW metro area, hoping to get your thoughts on a revision that I've proposed for the Wikipedia article concerning a Dallas-based company (Rent-A-Center) -- an article which, in it's current state, fails to tell what it is that this organization is and does. With this revision, I've sought to bring the article up to Wikipedia's own standards. I would normally implement this revision myself; however with a potential WP:COI present (as it happens, the subject is a client of my employer) I'd like to reach adequate consensus before doing so.

Might you be able to take a look at my proposed revision (described here) and let me know if this seems reasonable? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck of Collins Liner "Pacific" found?

I was reading the additional matter you put down questioning the so-called discovery of the Pacific's wreckage some sixty miles from Liverpool. Yes it does seem to be odd that no wreckage ever showed up at the time (although there is a passage I read in the book WOMEN AND CHILDREN LAST many years ago that the Cunard liner "Persia" saw glass and wooden wreckage when traveling shortly after the "Pacific" left - but it was in the ocean). My question is why has no further investigation of this site been made? It is rare for a century old shipping mystery to be near possible solution. Has anyone approached someone like Clive Custler about it?

Yours,

Jeff Bloomfield

("Jessie Leiman") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.46.143 (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia move

Greetings, GTBacchus. I'm not sure the move of Anarchy in Somalia to History of Somalia (1991-2006) was a terribly good idea, either procedurally or from an encyclopedia perspective. The old article, while at a problematic title, was a decent standard (GA) treatment of a topic of concise scope. The new article, whose title was only proposed by one editor in the past few days in a months-old discussion, covers a much vaster topic, as you can see from the two sections devoted to it in the History of Somalia now-parent article ("Somali Civil War" and "Recent history"). As you can see, the parent article focuses on the two main topics of note in the history of the nation during this period – the civil war, and the warlord-government struggles, neither of which are within the scope of the old article, which focused on the socioeconomic effect of non-state provision of goods and services.

It may very well be that these diverse topics could be covered in adequate length at a high quality in the one article, but that could take years, and we will likely be left with a hatchet job stitching until the systemic bias wikiproject get around to the millenial sociohistory of East Africa (which should be around 2054). I really think this ought to be reconsidered. Skomorokh 17:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SEA Activity Check

Hello Fellow WikiProject Seattle members,

My name is Russell, and I saw that the Seattle WP was tagged as only semi active, so was BOLD and decided to jump in and see about revitalizing the project. Your recieving this message because you are listed as a participant in the project. If you are still interested in participating, please update the table with a status. If you do not respond by Jan 1, you will be considered inactive. If you want to opt out before then, simply remove your name from the table.

Questions, comments, concerns, let me know on either the project or my talk page.

Thank you, and have a great day.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Seattle at 06:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

E-mail

Hello, GTBacchus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA's then and now

You're right — things have indeed changed dramatically in the past few years. Thanks for the note; I'll be very interested in hearing anything else you might have to say after you've managed to get some sleep. :-) Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritical moves

Hi there - I'd also love to see stats on diacritically-based moves. If there are trends, if it makes a difference whether it's a person's name or a place, that sort of thing. And also on how the current titles got that way. How many were "born" with diacritics, how many were moved there later on (with or without consensus). And vice-versa. Any ideas on how to assemble those kind of stats? I'd help (assuming enough spare time - always a big assumption). Dohn joe (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once made a list.... User:GTBacchus/RM closings, of the first few hundred RM discussions that I personally closed. It's a big set of raw data, but it's not particularly well-organized, and it gets more out-of-date every day.

For the last while (few years?), the RM page has been maintained by a bot, so there might be an easy way to document move requests by general type and by outcome. Even if this couldn't be done retro-actively, it might be a cool thing to implement for the future. I suppose that Wikipedia talk:Requested moves would be a better place to have this conversation? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly. I'm probably done with WP for the day, but you or I should bring this up over there. Dohn joe (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP Seattle activity check - reminder

Just a reminder, you have until the January 1^st to add your status to the participant list before your name will be removed from the Seattle WikiProject rosters. Should you wish to remove your self earlier, or add yourself back if you are removed, just edit the list. Thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Seattle at 12:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPR Storytelling move

Hi GTBacchus! This is just to say thank you for closing the move at TPR Storytelling. It's very nice to get some closure on this, and it is a nice Christmas present. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 05:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! If you're in one of the few time zones where it's still Christmas, then Merry Christmas to you, too. Else, uh... happy Boxing Day! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GTBacchus

Hello GTBacchus,

There is a wikipage that needs some valuable content, but I do not have registered user rights because I have not done 10 contributions. You have made contributions to the page so I think you will find the content valuable. Can I contact you about making a contribution?

Thanks, David@eroticflow.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.209.173 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I mean, I guess you already have contacted me. You're welcome to send me an email; just use the link on the left side of the screen. I'm interested to see which article you're talking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you don't need "registered user rights" to contribute to most articles. Have you tried editing it yourself? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argidava

Thanks for the move! Happy Holidays! --Codrinb (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and happy days to you, too. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Jolla

Did you miss the independent discussion at Talk:La Jolla, San Diego? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose I did. How about I finish tidying up redirects, and then I'll see you there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was straightforward. I've fixed it now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Year

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! :) I wish you all the things you wish for yourself in the coming year, and look forward to seeing you around. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:TfGME#Requested_move

Why was TfGME moved? The associated discussion came to the conclusion moving wasn't the best course of action. ChiZeroOne (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I misread the discussion. I'll put it back. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No worries, tbh I should have requested the discussion be closed a while ago but I forgot about it. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is?

"If anyone wants to do anything about Malleus that will be meaningful, and not just pissing into the wind, then they'll have to start with an RFC/U." Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is precisely what I said. I'm not sure I understand your question. I'm not saying whether someone should or should not start an RFC/U; just pointing out that anything short of it is fatuous. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question is rooted in the knowledge that there are many editors here, some of them admins, who would like nothing better than to see me gone. I just wondered if you were one of them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things I'd like better than to see you gone. I'd like to see you contributing to Wikipedia in your usual high-quality manner, and I'd like to see you involved in less heat and static. I'd like to see you not show up in WQA threads that are easily avoidable. I certainly recall seeing you choose to say or do things that would obviously and inevitably lead to heat and static, and then when shit happened, you played dumb about it. You're not naïve, and you can't fool me into thinking that you are. (No, I'm not talking about the current instance, at all.)

So, yeah, I'd like to see less of that kind of nonsense. I'd like to see your good work continue, and your unnecessarily provocative bullshit end. That's a pretty reasonable desire, isn't it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I thought. I doubt you and I will ever agree about anything. Bring on your RFC/U. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We agreed on something just about an hour ago - in your own words - and I suspect you and I would agree about most editing matters. The only points where we disagree involve how to treat other people, and the usefulness of stirring up shit. You seem to think that you can yell at people and have some positive effect in the world by doing it, and I know that to be false. You once tried to "set my hat on straight" by talking to me like I was dirt. That was neither smart, nor useful, nor effective. I mean, unless you think that venting your feelings is a valid use of Wikipedia's servers. It's not.

That's all, though. We probably agree about most other things.

I'll never open an RFC/U on you or anyone else, and I have no desire to do so. If you think otherwise, it's because you foolishly believe you know things that you just don't know. You're dishonest, and emotionally a child. Now leave my talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that's a personal attack GTB, and unless you do something about it I will report it to one of the admin boards. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would both knock it off there before it gets nasty. Seeing this on my watchlist is distracting me from enjoying my last day of winter break (aka catching up with grading and running AWB in the background). You are both good people with good intentions and I wish you would both just walk away from this now. Please. --John (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, I appreciate and respect your point. However, I feel that, given his history, asking for people to just make nice and move along is equivalent to asking that Malleus continue to get a free pass for chronic ass-hattery. He abuses more editors per week than I have in 5 years, he mocks anyone who reports him for incivility, and then turns around and reports me because I actually hit a sensitive spot, which he finds in others for sport. That's capital-H Hypocrisy.

The only personal attack in there is that I called him dishonest (I got diffs!) and emotionally a child, which I stand by, and he has now in the AN/I thread called me a child twice, and dishonest once. I don't support a block of him, though. I support someone getting through his skull that he's wrong, chronically.

This is not a symmetric situation, this is Malleus taking his seat as the God-King of Trolls. I'm not the easiest to bait, but he did it artfully, and I think you'll see that if you take a broad view of the situation. I'm happy that I realized what was going on when I did (right before I said "Gobble"), and I'm happy that his colors are showing now for so many to see. He's been getting a free pass for way too long, and he'll never change as long as people say, "Now, now, you both have good intentions".

If you care about the people he drives away from the project, then I don't see how you can hold us up as equal in any way here. Whom have I driven away from Wikipedia, with my chronic incivility? If I only light into an average of 1 person every 18 months, then it might really be about that person, and not about my "anger issues". Am I making sense here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wind

No. Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just trying reading what you just wrote, as if you were someone else, without all of your baggage. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too little too late. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, I was just about to add that myself. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 12 hours for the diff at ANI and your comment preceding it. Admin or not, there's no need for attacks like that. I'm sure there'll be a review at ANI, but you;re welcome to appeal with {{unblock|reason}}. With regret, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the note. I have no plan to request an unblock. I think we've quite neatly shown that Malleus' brand of behavior is extremely unhelpful (and immature and stupid), by showing just where it leads. I couldn't be happier. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

I've never been blocked before; so this is what it's like. Good work, Malleus, you've proved my point. Telling someone off is unhelpful, and leads to inevitable drama. That's all I had to say. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you consider yourself a martyr, eh? Sacrificing yourself for the good of the community, to bring alleged hypocrisy to light? Wahoh (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I haven't sacrificed anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you sound really supercilious both here and in the sections below. Wahoh (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Go edit an article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Mal

If I'm treated differently from you, it's not because I'm an admin. It's because I haven't got a pattern of behaving this way, and you do. Remember, "fuck off, troll"? By acting the way you act, I stirred up shit and got blocked. Duh! -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My money is precisely where my mouth is, and I notice you continue to engage in the behavior that you decry in others. My point is neatly made, and the mud's on your face. I couldn't be happier. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still doing it! Report me for calling you a child, and then repeatedly call me a child! This is awesome! I couldn't have written it better! Are people taking notes? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Go for it, if you think you're hard enough"???? Does this man fancy he's in a movie or some shit? Is this for real? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Bugs

I'm an admin open to recall. All you have to do is get a handful of editors in good standing who agree that I should relinquish the mop, and I will. I am totally at service to the desires of this community. Desysop me, if you mean what you say. Else, it's wind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not even being accurate, man! That's not when you withdrew. You withdrew after the scene where you ran to AN/I to ask whether it was ok for me to maybe edit Dramatica, and then I made it abundantly clear that you had fucked up. You withdrew, quite appropriately, in shame after that. [1] July is later than April. Convenient memory of yours. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please tell Retro...

...a few things? Not being arsed to spell my name correctly is a bit of a puzzle in a post that asks us to treat each other with respect. If nothing else, use copy/paste. What he doesn't know is that 99% of my contributions here are devoted to singing precisely the song that he's singing now. Only in the case of the very worst and most malicious editors (Malleus and Bugs, for example), do I even come close to flying off the handle.

I've had four incidents in 5 years, compared to Malleus' record of shitting on more people than that every single week. He drives people away from the project, and I get people thanking me for teaching them to be less combative and more collegial. My record is easy to review, and I'm open to recall. RFC/U me, if you think I've got anger issues. I've got issues with the way our community tolerates chronically malicious and trolling presences such as Malleus and Bugs.

Retro's mind-reading is also off. He says that I gobbled "totally ignorant of the fact that he probably insulted Malleus". How insulting can you be? I knew damn well that I'd insulted him, quite intentionally, thus giving him the response to baiting that he sought. In the moment that I did it, I let him troll me unintentionally. Just as soon as I did it though, I realized that I had let him troll me, and that it was going to play out in a way that I find just skippy. I was about to watch him become a fully completed hypocrite, and the best thing I could say was "Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble." It really is the best response to some kinds of energy, at least according to certain scripture. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I've had four incidents in 5 years, compared to Malleus' record of shitting on more people than that every single week. He drives people away from the project." Can you provide any evidence for that slander? I will give you seven days to either support your assertion or to apologise for it before taking it to ArbCom. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just said earlier today that you never demand apologies. Another lie. Please take me to ArbCom; I can't wait. Don't bother with the seven days; you'll get nothing from me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's your choice. not mine. I asked you to provide some evidence. Where is it? Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just said, "you get nothing". I don't lie; that's your game. If I said you get nothing, then you get nothing. Your hypocrisy increases with each post. Do it, already. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What world are you living in? You're a sysop who's been blocked for incivility, yet you persist with it. Has the block taught you nothing? Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're still unwilling to put your money where your mouth is. Do something about it, or you've proven that you're nothing but a windbag. Your threats are empty, Malleus. Empty. How's that feel? BTW, pointing out bald-faced lies that I can easily link to is not incivility. Making them might be, but I don't report people for incivility. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... do you seriously think you can intimidate me? Wow, man. Just wow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Has the block taught you nothing"? You must be kidding. What did you just say earlier today about the effects of blocks on yourself? Do you even remember? And now you try to get all school-marm on me? That's just stupefying. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retro, Retro, Retro...

I'm sorry, but getting the community to take a closer look at Malleus' behavior is not a wrong-doing. I am quite happy with how this is going. You don't know the context sufficiently well to make apt remarks. I appreciate and respect the spirit in which you're offering conciliatory words, but you don't realize just how much shit we put up with from MF. Many people do realize it, and that's why I'm welcoming scrutiny. If I just apologize and sweep it under a rug, then I'm doing the community a disservice. Malleus is an actual problem, and we've been ignoring it for too long. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is nothing wrong with opening up a discussion to get consensus on the matter of Malleus' behavior. But just remember, that how mad we can be is no excuse for the sinful actions we do as a result. Just be calm and just give the facts. Sensible community members would look for the facts I would believe, and contestable behavior can cause more trouble than it repairs. And if Malleus does happen to be committing disruptive editing, then insulting him/her might only make it worse. There are many, many jerks in this world (I am not saying that Malleus is one, as whether his/her behavior is good or bad would be determined by consensus), so do not let them get under your skin. And we all make mistakes, so just learn from them and move on. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't help to use words like "sinful" when talking with people who might not share those notions. We don't go to the same church, okay? I appreciate what you're doing, but that's a good way to push people's buttons.

To reply to your comments... You really aren't familiar with my record. If you think that what you're telling me is anything different from what I say every single day, then you're wrong. I'm a step ahead of you. I was rude to Malleus, and that was an error. That's easy for me to grant, but I'm not going to apologize to him, nor to do anything that simply encourages this being swept under the rug. I believe that Malleus is consistently driving people away from this project. A delay in looking at his editing is not helpful. If he files some kind of case against me, that's the fastest way to get this problem aired before the Arbitrators. Therefore, I'm all for it.

I don't want to make nice, and to pour oil on this water. I want Malleus to understand that he's not as completely above-the-rules as he claims to be. I don't claim to be above the rules; he does. He just did it on AN/I. How many times should we sweep this under the rug?

When it comes to responding to an RFC/U or an ArbCom case, I am actually very, very, very good at being calm and just giving the facts. You are not familiar with my record. I care about this project very much, and I'm tired of seeing it shit on by a troll as insidious as Malleus Fatuorum. He is doing the project very great harm, and that's why I describe him as one of the worst and most malicious editors. He doesn't get banned in a week; he keeps damaging the project for years. How long shall we turn a blind eye to this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome arbitration

I would be more than happy for ArbCom to look at my behavior as well as Malleus'. Unfortunately, they don't tend to take cases if there hasn't been at least an RFC/U first. I hope someone will file one of those soon. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Just to let you know I have unblocked you per the consensus at ANI. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. I've just posted a couple of replies there, and I'd like nothing more now than to head back to my usual haunt at WP:Requested moves, where the only drama I have to deal with is centuries-old ethnic disputes and strongly-held feelings about the English language. A nice break from... this.

I do hope this leads to some scrutiny of MF's behavior, but I'm not terribly optimistic about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that it led to a scrutiny of your behavior, which I think has been apalling. We'll see how things go from here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm for that. Why are you still delaying? Empty threat, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not empty at all, just giving you time to think about what you're getting into. It's your choice. Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need time to think, as I already said. It wasn't a lie. Some of us don't lie the way you do. ("I never demand apologies.") You get nothing from me. Now file a fucking case, already, or you're completely full of wind. I'm calling your bluff; how many times are you going to make me call it? I'm set, and I won't change my mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There would of course have to be at least one RFC/U, but I don't think there would be any shortage of editors willing to endorse it, do you? Continuing to abuse me is doing your case no good whatsoever. Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still talking to me? Do it already! -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you time to calm down, and think about what you're getting into. Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you my position, and I wasn't lying. Nothing will change, except that it becomes clearer with each comment here that you're bluffing, i.e., lying again. I'm calling your bluff. There is nothing further to talk about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. Time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2. L.O.L., this is a user talk page! X-D) He is asking you to file an RfC/U. Why do you not do it? Refusing to file an RfC/U on someone that you claim has thrown a personal attack at you, and who is asking you to file one, almost makes you look like you are afraid of the boomerang (i.e. that you do not want to incriminate yourself). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He won't do it. See which of us is afraid of scrutiny. I've been an admin open to recall since the idea of administrative recall was first mooted.

I would appreciate Malleus leaving my talk page alone, as I'm trying to get back to work on the encyclopedia, and the constant orange banners are annoying. If there's actual new information, then by all means bug me, but this? Please. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just wait and see. Malleus Fatuorum 04:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what? It is awfully starting to look like you are trying to hide from the boomerang. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You're repeating yourself, Malleus. Cut it out. We know where we're at: You're scared to do what you said you'd do. It bores me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore the continued comments from Malleus, I've asked them to stop.[2]. I'll be glad to just remove any further baiting comments and take action if this harassment continues. Dreadstar ☥ 04:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When I saw it, for some reason I though "wiki-hounding" (which happens to be discussed in a section of WP:Harassment. I am leaving this page now. I do not want to cause any more annoying "You have new messages" banners for GTBacchus. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Issues

Hello, GTBacchus! It's been awhile since we've chatted and I know we always got along fine when we were involved at the Charles Manson article about a year ago. I remember you distinctly from then: you came into a fierce content dispute between two ..."opinionated" editors, and you were very helpful and neutral for the bulk of it. Then, after negotiations failed (which I knew they would because no one could have stopped what was happening)... you "snapped". I don't need to put the diffs up here (and I very well have some ;>), but I remember you "changing" before my eyes into a profanity-spewing "different person": almost a Jeckyll & Hyde-like-thing.

The same thing happened (IMHO) with this episode with Malleus: it's all there in the edit histories. We all know how Malleus can react when approached in a certain way, and I was very surprised to see you act the way you did as an administrator. You started out civil and then went "ape-shit". I'm not an admin (and you couldn't pay me enough to go through the RfA hilarity), but when you offer to provide diffs upon request of his dishonesty and then refuse to provide them it doesn't look good. You called him (and it doesn't matter if it's him: he's an editor in good standing) a liar and several other things multiple times without providing the diffs: that you offered, that he asked for, and that you then refused to provide. Those are personal attacks without the evidence to support them, as defined by the policy (point #4 in particular).

In the Charles Manson dispute you mentioned several times "I got pissed", and you mentioned possible "anger issues" earlier here today. "Don't edit when angry" is not a terrible thing to consider. Please let me know if I've got anything wrong here, and Cheers... Doc talk 09:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is just me, but I don't see how bringing up this completely unrelated incident from a year ago is helpful. I can see that you are trying to draw a connection between the two, but I don't think there is one. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I met GTBacchus: I'm not trying to point out a pattern of incivility that should be sanctioned. I hope he will respond: this is not an indictment of him but a request for his input on my "take". Most editors that I "question" either can defend themselves very well: or have no defense. He is of the former category. I'm sure he'll understand what I'm bringing up and why. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's some stuff to think about here. One easy point: "when you offer to provide diffs upon request of his dishonesty and then refuse to provide them it doesn't look good." I didn't refuse to provide diffs of his dishonesty. He never asked for those. He asked for diffs documenting that he's driven people away. Those instances, don't tend to have clear diffs, unlike his dishonesty, which is easy to document. He lied 3 or 4 times during the affair yesterday, and I pointed those instances out, quite clearly. I am still completely willing to provide further documentation of Malleus' dishonesty, and he still hasn't asked for such, nor responded to what I have already provided. He wants documentation of those he's driven away, and I'm holding out on that until he fulfills his promise.

Your points about anger are well-made, and I'll take some more time to respond to that. If anyone wants further evidence of Mal's easy-to-document dishonesty, they need only ask. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! :D Give me few minutes to read this post below, and I will trot out a list of your words and behaviors that I perceive as dishonest. I pointed out some blow-by-blow yesterday, but I'll recap. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Yesterday's examples are fairly trivial, but their bald-faced nature makes them stick out in my mind.

(1) Just a couple of hours after saying at WQA, "I have to agree with GTBacchus", you said that you doubt we'll ever agree on anything. That's trivial and silly, but glaring and telling to my mind. Someone who tells trivial lies will also tell big ones. Saying you doubt we'll agree on anything is also an absurd and grandiose claim, when it's trivially obvious that we agree about very, very many things. We both abhor abusive admins, for example, except that you won't believe me despite my clear record of calling them out, and watching them get desysopped for precisely the behavior I called them out for. What do you care about facts, when you've already decided you know what I am?

(2) Just a couple of hours after saying: "I've never demanded an apology from anyone on wikipedia, and I don't expect to start now," you demanded an apology from me. Is it true that you've never done this before? Perhaps. Maybe this was an entirely new behavior out of Malleus Fatuorum. It reeks to me of dishonest posturing followed by hypocrisy. Technically, you "don't expect to start now" leaves open the possibility that you might, which would make it less of an honesty issue and more of a self-knowledge one. Who knew that you were about to open a new door, reporting others for "civility violations" and demanding apologies? Next thing you know, you'll have a "civility police" badge, and you'll wear it proud. I guess you'll never say again that you've never demanded an apology, because now you've done it. Remember that.

(3) Now we get to substantial stuff. Given your attitude about "civility police" there's something fundamentally dishonest about reporting someone for a civility "violation", but let's not linger over that. I got under your skin, and you reacted as such; this is normal. Lots of us (including myself) engage in behavior that we normally decry, when we're pushed to a certain point. That doesn't make us phonies so much as fallible humans, and if we can start from the premise that we both make mistakes in our interactions, then we'll get along just fine. I've never seen a glimmer of that kind of humility from you. Does it exist? I dunno.

Here's what I'm really thinking about, and it happened a little while ago, leaving a big impression in my mind. There was a WQA complaint about you, and I saw the thread and commented. Someone had posted a civility warning to your talk page for telling another editor that he should grow up. Your response to the warning was "fuck off, troll", and his response was to go to WQA. I told him that leaving you civility warnings was pointless at best, which I think we would agree about. (There it is again! We agree!) Then you and I had a very interesting conversation.

You said that a reasonable person performs whatever actions are most likely to lead to their preferred result. We agree about that. :) I pointed out that you had essentially requested the WQA report, because you performed an action that was most likely to lead there: namely, telling someone to fuck off and calling them a troll, when they've already exhibited an officious and lawyerly approach to civility. This is a no-brainer. Tell a civility-cop to "fuck off", and you've just asked for "escalation, please". You said that my logic was wrong at the following point: that you really expected he would just fuck off. I responded that you couldn't possibly be that naïve, and your reply was fascinating. You said that you'd heard enough of my "psycho-babble", and came around to my talk page to yell at me and "set my hat straight" (another dishonest claim, which I'll get to in a moment).

Now, what really happened here? You knew damn well that a civility cop won't fuck off if you tell him to fuck off. He'll escalate; this is obvious, and you have more than enough experience to know it. You knew damn well that he would escalate, and you pushed that button, quite intentionally. After pushing the button, you claimed that you didn't know what that button did, and that you actually expected him to just toddle off into the sunset. When I pointed out that you can't be that naïve, you became abusive. You didn't argue that, no, you really thought he would leave you alone. You didn't stop and think and say.... "hmmm, there's a thought. I guess that is pretty predictable." No, you started in with the name-calling.

Now, is this a trivial untruth? No. It's not a "lie" in the most literal sense of the word. It is fundamental, deep-down-inside dishonesty. It's intellectual disintegrity. When someone pointed out that you were wrong, you didn't think about acknowledging it; you just went into attack mode. That is the opposite of honesty. An honest man hears criticism, considers it seriously, and either takes it to heart, or says why it doesn't apply. An honest man does not respond to honest criticism by flying off the handle. An honest man owns up to his mistakes.

It's pretty clear that you enjoy a fight, that you like telling people off, and that you get a kick out of seeing people get upset over your blunt words. Do you admit to this? No. What do you do? You say that someone needs their hat set on straight, as if you're stupid enough to think that your yelling at someone will somehow improve them as a person. You would have to be a great fool to think this, and you are not a great fool. Thus, dishonesty. You don't yell at people to "set their hats straight", because you know goddamned well that it doesn't have that effect. That's like saying you piss to make the sun rise. You piss because you have to piss, and you take the piss because you want to take the piss. You see, I can't believe that you're stupid; you weren't just born last week. You know how people react to things, and you know that they'll react in ways that you then claim to be surprised by. Therefore, I must believe that you're playing games with us. Playing games, and not owning up to them, is fundamentally dishonest. Honest men simply don't do it.

I'm not talking about trivial untruths; I'm talking about fundamental intellectual integrity.

So, why did I call you dishonest? Well, partly it was to point out the nonsense in your claims from last time. Partly it was so you would ask me for examples, and as I think of more, I'll add them. Partly - largely - it was because I knew it would piss you off, and I am honest enough to own my motivations, even when they're as shitty and stupid as they were yesterday. Pissing someone off is a terrible motivation, anytime, any place. No question: I fucked up. So did you, Malleus, and I wonder when you'll be someone who can admit as much in public.

I'm owning up to mistakes here. It was a mistake to tell you that you're dishonest and emotionally a child, and it was a mistake I made because I was upset with your ridiculous writing off of my previous statements. Posting in anger is always a mistake, and I've done it a few times. I'm now trying to make the most of it. I'm certainly not apologizing for it, despite it being a mistake, because I want you to file that case. I think it will serve the community, which is much more important than either of us. I don't think that's a mistake; we'll see.

What have your mistakes been, Malleus? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

PS: I'll add to the list if more instances of dishonesty occur to me or are brought to light. I wonder.... applying my advice here to myself, how are you most likely to respond, and is it what I'm after? Hmmm... I hope you respond by filing an RFC, and I hope you read what I've written carefully enough to consider applying it to yourself. I know little enough about how you function that I honestly can't say whether the latter is likely. I don't think it is, but I don't know what would work better, so I'm using the only reliable tool I've got, which is to break things down into logical pieces, and trace the causes and effects. We'll see... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck a word, this brinksmanship really needs to stop. Franamax (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Bigtimepeace

I read about this on ANI because I was bored, I guess (that's not really a very good excuse, I know). I'll say something here because I think it might possibly help (or possibly it will make things much, much worse—I'm not Kreskin).

GTBacchus I forget if we interacted directly—I think maybe so—but I have observed what I take to be very good conflict resolution skills from you in the past, and I recall some meta-comments from you that were quite insightful when it comes to issues of civility and the like. To be honest, I'm not really seeing any of that in this particular situation.

I agree with you that Malleus has created and/or contributed to some real problems in the past (outweighed by excellent encyclopedia contributions in my view) and we've never been able to do much of anything about that, which is not a good thing. I also agree with Malleus that he has been blocked completely inappropriately in the past, and I'm in agreement with him that admins often get away with actions and rhetoric that non-admins generally do not. That is a serious problem, and I think that's what Malleus is bothered by here. It's a very legitimate complaint in general, whether or not this is the best case for it. I think I would agree with Doc above that you, GTBacchus, just got a little too pissed here, which happens to basically all of us at some point. Your rhetoric is just too intense and I don't think it's helping your goal of having the community deal with perceived problems with Malleus' behavior.

For one thing, it's never a good idea—and I really mean never—to call anyone a "liar" or "dishonest" no matter how iron-clad is your case. Even if you produce two diffs that completely contradict each other, that is not sufficient basis to call someone a "liar." They still may read them differently than you do, or they may argue that they just communicated poorly, or they may have a warped view of "reality," whatever that is (in no way am I saying these are true of Malleus or anyone else). Point is you will never be able to prove objectively on Wikipedia that someone "lied" and it is silly to even try because questions about lies and truth are even more subjective on the internet than they are in real life (though that seems semi-impossible). When you do drop the liar label, the person in question will almost always get pissed and then you're off on an argument that will get nowhere. Instead of saying "stop lying you dishonest liar" just say "well that seems to contradict what you said earlier when you told me _____." Some, including maybe Malleus, might look at that as wishy-washy, beating around the bush, disingenuous bullshit, but I think it reads better to other editors and is at least somewhat less likely to provoke a shit storm—it's also hard to argue with since you are talking about your subjective perceptions. This is a specific point but I think it's worth considering in the context of this dispute and for the future.

I'm guessing neither of you are very inclined to do so right now, but I'd recommend disengaging. ArbCom is certainly not going to take a case about this minor imbroglio. It's hard to imagine an RFC/U helping anything. So what should be done? I have no idea (I told you I'm not fucking Kreskin goddamnit!), so best to do nothing, i.e. go back to whatever you were doing before. It's not really "fair," but then again what is these days? Both of you are long-time Wikipedians, so no doubt you're able to deal pretty well with completely unsatisfying resolutions to disputes—better to come to that end sooner than later and without another thirty comments on someone's talk page that you'll have trouble remembering even three months from now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, pathological liars do tend to burn themselves out fairly quickly here, or are found out by others. I ran into this situation a few years ago, and when I brought it to the attention of the community and several different administrators, they chose to ignore the problem completely. Eventually, it resolved itself, but I learned my lesson: don't depend on the community to take responsibility for making the right decisions, as they tend to avoid it altogether. The cultural demographic here is all about "ignore it, and hope it goes away", which says a lot about the maturity level of the average editor and human nature in general. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so there's no misunderstanding here, who are you calling a "pathological liar" Viriditas? Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My personal remembrance and reminiscence of things past could not result in a misunderstanding since it was not intended to convey or impart any private information about current, active editors. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would broadly agree with everything you've said here. As for disengaging, I'm disengaged with Malleus, except for answering his request for documentation above. The ball is in his court, and he'll either file the case he said he would, or he won't. If he files a case, I'll respond, if not... oh well. The only thing that an RFC/U will accomplish is to document problems for a future ArbCom case. That's all that RFC/U's are good for, mostly. I've never been party to Malleus receiving unfair blocks, and if he wants to take them out on me.... oh well. I truly hope that he brings an RFC against me. I want the vindication.

One other thing, and you're welcome to test me on this. If someone says I lied, or calls me dishonest, my very first reaction will be to ask for documentation. That's before I fly off the handle. If it turns out I spoke an untruth, they'll have an apology before they have time to ask for one. I take honestly extremely seriously. If I'm going to stop being honest, then I hope also to stop breathing in that moment. If someone claims to have caught me being dishonest, my thoughts are about identifying and fixing that problem, not about hitting that person. I'm not playing around here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here for lack of a better place: GTB, from what I know you're a pretty good admin, but it does seem that you've had a minor meltdown here. Please put the anger and determination to have a confrontation aside for a little while. You and MF are not going to solve all the wiki-problems in the universe here, I don't think you'll solve even this one the way the two of you are going.

In particular, I've warned Malleus about repeated posting to your talk page. Further thereto, please either take great care in the wording of your posts here so that MF doesn't feel compelled to respond in a matching derogatory vein; or grant your explicit permission for MF to comment here in whatever manner they see fit. Your choice. Franamax (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You warned him? What effect will that have? Same as other warnings he's received? Malleus may reply here in whatever manner he sees fit, and then we can all see what he means by "fit". I have a hard time seeing "please don't have a confrontation" as anything other than "let him be as abusive as he wants to be, anytime he wants to do it". Nobody has suggested any way of mitigating his behavior other than to let him be. That's been failing for years. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you do your admin actions and I'll do mine. I don't issue warnings lightly (and I think I've still never placed a warning template after 3 years, I use my own words). If you're opening up this page to Malleus by explicit invitation, I for one will consider it a no-block zone. But really GTBacchus, you're better than this and I think you could really use a day off. A way to "mitigate his behaviour"? Fer-gawd's-sake just freakin' ignore it would be a possibility. If everyone did that, it wouldn't be a big issue - but there's always someone who will take the bait. So whose fault is it then, the good fisherman or the silly fish? This will not get resolved, and discussing who is the bigger liar just goes nowhere at all that I can see. Franamax (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that baiting is a behavior we frown upon. Until we can change human (or fishy) nature so that nobody takes bait, then having people around baiting for sport is a problem. If I ignore it as I have for years, then fish after fish after fish gets shit on.

Regarding "discussing who is the bigger liar": If someone has made postings about my honesty, I haven't read them yet. When I do, I'll own up to any failing on my part, because I have no wish to be dishonest or misleading in any way, shape or form. It is my extremely honest opinion that if someone sees fit to use our servers to bait, insult, abuse, mock and poke at others, then they should be stopped. I don't do these things, and the only time I get really upset is when I see someone else getting away with treating their fellow Wikipedians like dirt.

I won't look away from active abuse, and I'm sorry if anyone else thinks that looking away is a solution. I'm sorry if anyone thinks that blaming people for not being "thick skinned" enough is a solution. I'm sorry if anyone thinks that we should expect editors here to tolerate contempt and derision as being par for the course. We should be better than that, and I'm very sorry if we're not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had time to catch up, I see that "discussing who is the bigger liar" is a completely misleading red herring. Nobody has even accused me of dishonesty, so that is sure as hell not what any discussion is about. Malleus asked for documentation of why I called him dishonest, I provided it, and that's that.

Looking the other way is no solution, and I'm disappointed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the bigger liar" was not intended as a red herring (as in distracting from the real goal via misdirection) at all, but I believe you are correct that your own honesty has not been questioned here. Rather, I was referring to a) MF's record of calling others liars, which yes I do believe I can thoroughly documemt as needed; and b) my perception of continued "dares" and provocations to each other. You seem clearly to wish a confrontation here, to "setlle this" once and for all, but I rather doubt you will gain much traction heading up this particular road. Anyway, no-one has questioned your honesty. Looking the other way? We all do that occasionally. The question is: is this the issue you want to hang your hat on? If so, then file your own RFC/U or RFAR - or at the least calm down and put what you are saying into reasonable terms of "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" so that others can judge beyond your evident frustration with the current situation. Franamax (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might be significantly calmer and less frustrated than you think. It's getting to be days between posts - how much emotion do you imagine I'm dragging around New Orleans with me? There are bigger and better fish to fry around here than anything on this Wiki, at least for my money. Also, I process things without doing all my thinking aloud on this page.

I feel pretty good about the way this situation is currently disposed: Either MF will do what he said he'd do, and that makes me happy, or he won't do what he said he'd do, and that makes me happy. I do feel passionately that Wikipedia suffers when we allow chronically abusive users to get away with it, and I think that MF is chronically abusive, but I don't have to file any action against him. Someone else will do it, and eventually he'll either moderate his behavior, or he'll have to go. It's just life on Wikipedia. Have a beer; it's a beautiful world. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me "chronically abusive" is a clear personal attack, one that might earn a non-administrator a warning at the very least. I'd suggest that you consider the wisdom of perhaps engaging your brain before posting again. Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm describing a behavior, which is not inappropriate to do. Your behavior is problematic, and it's fine for me to notice that. If you disagree, we can talk about your behavior, but crying "no NPA" in the same breath as telling me to "engage my brain" is not going to get you very far, or make you look very sympathetic. If you feel that someone has been rude to you, then being rude back is not a very good strategy. Try the high road.

I've never suggested that your brain is less than engaged; simply that you're doing something disruptive, and doing it regularly. I don't suppose you mean to be disruptive, so it would be good for you to learn better interaction skills. Now, you work on that, and I'll work on doing what I do.

Don't worry; I won't file a case against you, and you know that because I said I wouldn't. You were quite clear that you absolutely would file one against me, and I look forward to that. Meanwhile, don't act like a "civility cop", crying "NPA" when someone suggests that your actions may be problematic. I'm describing your actions just as dispassionately as ArbCom will eventually have to describe them.

Before you reply, think: What's your goal, and what is most likely to lead there, in this universe? Will berating me get you where you want to be? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm describing your actions just as dispassionately as ArbCom will eventually have to describe them." Please don't waste any more of your time trying to threaten me, it never works. Never. Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! :) It's not a threat, but a prediction, because I absolutely won't be the one doing it. I said I wouldn't file any kind of case, so I won't. Someone will; it's inevitable. I hope you do what you said you'd do. Have a nice day, and I'll keep my counsel on how I spend my time. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I suppose Viriditas was dead on. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"He's a jerk but he does good work" is not a good way to deal with problems. [3] Anyone who seriously considers "ignore it" to be a useful solution to a problem like this should stick to article writing and leave disputes to others. --Kbdank71 22:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offline for a while

I haven't had time to read anything new posted here since my last login, 24 hours ago. I'm going out in a few minutes, and I may log on tonight after I see my friends at our usual Tuesday night gathering.

Tomorrow morning, I set off for a mathematics conference in The Big Easy, and I'll be away from home for about 5 days. On Monday the 10th, I'll be back for sure.

Between now and then, I don't know how much I'll have time to reply to. When I get back, I'll read everything, and reply in detail as necessary and appropriate. I hope that, if someone is putting together an alluded-to RFC, it happens soon, as I'm quite eager to see what people think. Whatever the result of that, you can be sure I will continue to contribute in my usual way, because I've become quite attached to this crazy place that we call Wikipedia. I wish you all peace and good health, and I look forward to re-engaging in a few days. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Po' boy for me: I've heard they're pretty good. Neither you or Malleus are going anywhere far away from the project, by the way. You're too addicted, like me. :> Doc talk 07:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Security Now!

Can you revert this edit. Now that I've noticed it, I want to explain why the previous comment by User:Pnm was unfounded. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, that's done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I've said my bits. You can close or not as you see fit. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move requests

Thank you for you comments in closing the Dee Doocey move request. How would you propose going resolving this issues you viewed. It has purly descended into name calling (I am not wholly innocent, but am trying to steer the convesraion away for personal comments although unsuccessfully.). Could please try and untangle some of the mess which is being creaated by entrenched interests on both sides of this issue. -- Many thanks Lucy-marie (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit messy, isn't it? That's inevitable, but it can be minimized if everyone agrees as to what's actually going on. The whole WP:NCPEER guideline is clearly in a state of instability, and where it ends up will eventually be determined in these move discussions. People will talk about NCPEER at its own talk page, but that's not really where the decisions are made.

Therefore, we'll end up discussing quite a few cases on merits, until we see something consensual emerging from the soup. Whatever that is will be noted at WP:NCPEER, at which point people will immediately start treating it as statutory law, written in stone. So it goes, 'round here.

I'm working in moves quite a bit these days, so until that changes, I'll keep making comments and doing what I can to steer the discussion away from the various rocks and into appropriate waters. I think that's the best thing - to stay focused - and for everyone to remember that we're all on the same side, and that we get to decide how Wikipedia will work, based on our mutual good-faith commitment to the project.

I hope this is somewhat helpful, and I'll see you on those talk pages. Let me know if you have any more general questions or concerns; you know how to find me. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor

I know you said you would not argue against a reversal of your original closure, but I presume you were talking about a legitimate reversal made by at least a knowledgeable editor in good standing if not an admin. That's not what happened. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_move_closer_by_non-admin_User:macr86_at_Talk:Ann_Arbor. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe no one is unclosing the discussion and reverting the move. Are they really going to take advantage of a situation created by an apparent vandal because it happens to coincide with their POV? I assumed at least one admin could be more objective than that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's happened now, although it's beginning to look like we'll be back at Ann Arbor, Michigan before long. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that consensus has not come along far enough yet to clearly support the shorter name, but it has come along far enough to also not clearly support the longer name. The way this is handled in other countries like Australia is some cities are slowing being moved. I thought we were there with Ann Arbor. I still think we might be. I really want an experienced and knowledgeable uninvolved admin to give the arguments careful consideration and close accordingly. Perhaps someone who used to close a lot of requests but is now "semi-retired" or moved on to other tasks? Someone like that. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would be ideal. Maybe a note at WT:RM would be helpful, or perhaps a content RFC. It would be nice to find out what the community of editors really thinks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's insufficient support for the new short name then it should go back to the old, longer name that's consistent with the naming convention. Will Beback talk 04:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear how well supported that naming convention is, but it appears that the discussion is going to favor what you're saying, at least for now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a deja vu. Chicago was debated for five years during which time it bounced back and forth between Chicago and Chicago, Illinois numerous before it was finally allowed peace at Chicago in 2007.

Due to incomplete logging in the early WP software, it's apparently not possible to know how the article was originally named. The earliest edit in the history is on October 25, 2001, but it's obvious that was not the first edit. However, on May 27, 2002, this edit indicates the article was moved "from Chicago", implying it was at Chicago prior to that, and originally, presumably.
First time, apparently, a specific move from Chicago, Illinois to Chicago is proposed/discussed. 00:17, 16 Apr 2005 All objections are based on the proposed move contradicting "the standard". There is voting for two days from 4/17 to 4/19, and Chicago loses 10 to 13. This argument is interesting: "when one is making hundreds of edits a day, lack of convention for names would slow things down considerably.". Editors really should double-check every link they use, and to the extent that pre-emptive disambiguation inhibits them from doing so, is an argument against it. The decision on May 15 is "Stays at Chicago, Illinois, do not move to Chicago.".
Talk:Chicago/Archive_2#Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_.28city_names.29 - a request from User:Dralwik to participate in a survey which would move Chicago, Illinois to Chicago. 30 June 2005 22:27 (UTC) Apparently that didn't fly.
Talk:Chicago/Archive_3#Chicago.2C_Illinois_--.3E_Chicago User:Rob starts a move discussion. 18:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC). Interesting commentary but proposal fails. Mention of another general proposal at the guidelines.[reply]
Talk:Chicago/Archive_4#Requested_move User:Nat Krause proposes a move that succeeds on 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Ariticle is finally moved to Chicago (first time since 2002, I believe) Note that this is before the AP list change is accepted.[reply]
Talk:Chicago/Archive_5#Discussion_to_move_Chicago_to_Chicago.2C_Illinois discussion about moving back to Chicago, Illinois. 05:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Apparently failed... note exception for cities on AP list, including Chicago, is added to guideline one month later, and there has been peace and tranquility ever since.

In retrospect, it's really silly that the article about Chicago was not allowed to stay at Chicago in 2002, nor allowed to move to Chicago all those other times the requests were made. Some day it will be obvious to all how silly it was to not allow Ann Arbor stay at Ann Arbor in January of 2011, if indeed it is moved to Ann Arbor, Michigan again. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ann Arbor

Hi. I hope it didn't come across that I was insulting you. I have seen some instances of closure recently that concerned me - but nothing that you have done. I have left a comment on the Talk page. Deb (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think we both know that we're both working in good faith here. Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]