User talk:GTBacchus/Archive 9

Discordianism

Believe it or not, I tried it in that place originally. But it reads awfully, and I see no reason to sacrifice legibility for the sake of having a paragraph's first word being the subject. --Belg4mit 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's at least one good way to word it with the first word being "Discordianism". At the very least, "Discordianism" should be capitalized. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FictionH copied an article onto his userpage

He copied the article Crash Nitro Kart onto his userpage. I think it's a GFDL violation, but I forget how that could violate the GFDL. Squirepants101 16:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article has been removed from his userpage~~. Squirepants101 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get it

I don't get your point. What makes a source reliable? On definitions-Wow! I just really realized that we are argueing over the definition of a word. Zantaggerung 15:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as this is not a dictionary, im gonna shut up now. Zantaggerung 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what makes a source reliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Basically, we look for information that's appeared in publications with reputations for academic rigor, or at least fact-checking. In this case, one would consult respected reference books about religion (many exist), and find out how they define Christianity. Then we can just state their definition and tell where it comes from. If sources disagree, we can report that. Then everything's verifiable, and nothing's original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about finding the right stub template

Hello, GTBacchus. I see you around from time to time, and I've been looking at your user page and see that you're a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting and that you're "happy to help new users". So I'm coming to you with my question, because even though I'm not a new user, I still find occasionally that there's something I don't know and should. I'd like to know more about how to find the correct stub when I start a new but very short article. I have just started an article about the World Organisation of the Ovulation Method Billings, and I just put {{stub}} at the end of it, but I'm sure there must be an appropriate kind of stub for such an organisation. I followed the link from your page to the Stub sorting WikiProject, but found no immediate answer to my question. In fact, I felt it would probably be quicker to change the stub into a full article than to try to find the right kind of stub, but I don't have time for either at the moment. Obviously, I wouldn't want to ask you to spend hours going through the list of stubs to find an appropriate one either, but it might be something that you'd already know and that you'd be able to tell me quickly. When I get a bit more familiar with stubs, I think I'd like to join that WikiProject. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can keep up with all the stub types. I generally pick a nice general one, like {{org-stub}} in this case, and then look in the category, Category:Organization stubs, for an appropriate sub-category. If a good sub-category doesn't jump out at you, then the general org-stub is fine. I hope that helps. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I've added {{med-org-stub}} and {{Australia-org-stub}}. I hope not to leave it as a stub for too long, and it will probably be quite easy to get reliable information about it in the next few weeks, because Dr Billings died a few days ago, so his work is being reported in the media more than it usually is. ElinorD (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! logic shows it's face

Thank you so much for joing the discussion over on Wikipedia talk:Polling your application of logic and your excellent explanation are very refreshing. Thanks for that! (→Netscott) 15:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might reveiw Wikipedia:Straw polls (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Straw polls|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and see User:Radiant!'s editing there. At every turn he's taken to anti-polling soapbox editing there (essentially duplicating WP:!VOTE). Myself and User:Kim Bruning have been trying to get the page in shape as an actual guideline for how to conduct a poll... without much success at this point. (→Netscott) 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, would you mind not making personal attacks against me on other people's talk pages? Thanks. >Radiant< 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I attacking you? I am talking about actions...always actions... not about you personally... have you not understood this? Review our talks you'll see what I mean. (→Netscott)

It wouldn't matter much if you slandered Radiant to me; I wouldn't believe you. I already know he's one of the Good Guys, as are you, Netscott. On point, I will be checking out WP:STRAW much more thoroughly later this afternoon. I can imagine arguments for and against merging PNSD and STRAW. We'll hash those out, and come to some sort of consensus, I'm confident. For now, I must get back to work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:FictionH

FictionH keeps trying to add that the episode "Best Day Ever" was ranked #1.5. He provides no sources for it, except for where he lives (see User_talk:FictionH#Best_Day_Ever). The user has had a reputation of being an unreliable source (referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan (South Park character)). Here are his revisions on the page. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Squirepants101 20:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He called me an idiot for reverting his edit. I didn't even notice that there was a discussion about whether to include both title cards and screenshots. I saw it a few weeks ago, but kind of forgot about it. It hasn't received a lot of consensus, yet FictionH added the screenshots anyways. Squirepants101 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good question

I saw on Can't sleep, clown will eat me's page that he had a box with a scrolling option, i was wondering how to make such a box, your help will be appreciated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikizeta (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. The secret to getting tricks from other people's user pages is to click "edit", and then look through the code for the part you like. You can copy that out (don't save any changes to their page! (unless you're reverting vandalism)), and paste it into a sandbox or on your own page to tinker with. In this case, I grabbed the code for the first scrolling box I saw. This is it:

{{/Border| width=100%| header=clown around <span  
 class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me/User/Clownbox&action=edit 
<span style="color: white;">(+)</span>]</span>}}
 
<div class="plainlinks" style="border: none; background-color:#ffffff; overflow: auto;
padding: 2px 2px 2px 2px; margin:2px 0px 2px 0px; height: 100px;">
 
{{User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me/User/Clownbox}}
 
{{/End Border}}

I'm not the best person to translate this, because I don't know much about it (I didn't even design my own user page!), but I'll tell you what I see there. I put some spacing in to help parse the code.

The first, long section of code inside the {{double curly braces}} seems to set up the border around the box, and the last line, {{/End Border}} indicates where the border ends. In between are two parts. The "div" in <angle brackets> is a mystery to me, but it must set up the box somehow. Color #ffffff is black, I think.

The third bit of code there, which is just the name of the page User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me/User/Clownbox inside of double curly braces, is what's inside of the box. In this case, it's a user subpage, and part of the code near the top sets up the little plus sign (+) that allows people to edit that page.

That's about as much sense as it all makes to me. My suggestion is just to copy his user page wholesale and then make small changes until it becomes your user page, being sure not to break any of the mysterious code. If you need someone to look over your code, I could maybe proofread it, but like I said, I'm no expert. I hope that helps. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks--Wikizeta 01:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this

The debate seems to be about whether we should give suggestions on how to poll. But that's not actually the case - nobody denies that we should, and WP:PNSD already covers that (although admittedly this could use some work). The debate actually is about whether should continue discouraging polls. Note how the main proponents of the "split" are the same people who want PNSD deprecated. The idea behind the split is not to explain polling (because we do that already) but to create a page that does not discourage polling. However, as in article space, a disagreement over a page is not resolved by giving each "party" its own page, or fork. First, that results in two contradictory pages, and second, rather than resolving the dispute, it gives us two disputes. The actual solution would be to fix the wording on PNSD, and centralize discussion on one talk page rather than two. >Radiant< 08:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about the idea of making a single page, Wikipedia:Polling, with sections covering what's now covered in PNSD and STRAW? I'm not sure I see anybody opposing such a merge. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I did the move Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion → Wikipedia:Polling I essentially was demonstrating support for such thinking. (→Netscott) 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, nobody seems to actually oppose this idea, is it just a matter of somebody taking the initiative and refactoring the two pages into one? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, once there is a consensus to do that. (→Netscott) 20:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's determined how? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well through discussion of course... lol... do you think Radiant! would ever participate in a poll? Of course polling on a page that's a guideline on polling is logical (if seemingly a bit silly). (→Netscott) 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the opposition is coming from Grace Note and Guy, actually. I think a poll would be rather unhelpful at this point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TNA (again...)

User:OrbitComplete has decided to unilaterally undo the decision of the recent discussion with regard to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. His edits to TNA mean the move now can't be undone without admin assistance, but despite User:JHunterJ's interim fix (redirecting to TNA (disambiguation)) I can't see evidence of anyone being notified of the problem. *coughs embarrassedly, nods head in direction of GTBacchus' sysmop...* --DeLarge 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: scratch that. Someone's listed it at WP:RM's uncontroversial section. Ignore me... --DeLarge 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left notes at User talk:OrbitComplete and Talk:TNA (disambiguation). This way takes a little longer than just using the mop, but it's worth it in the long run. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mister-jones

Problematic user you've dealt with before (see also this IP [5] on who's talkpage you warned him not to make any further personal attacks). He's back from his slumber and calls me "an incredible idiot". A a temporary block or at least a stern warning would be much appreciated! (I also posed about this on the AN/I but nobody responded [6])Mackan 08:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him a note regarding the personal attacks. Regarding the article, I suggest you stop reverting him. If you have to revert the same edit more than once, it's a very good idea to get more people involved. I would suggest visiting WP:3O and getting an uninvolved voice to weigh in over the edits in question. Simply reverting the user again and again makes it look as if you're both edit warriors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Jones has personally attacked me for the umpteenth time. I gave after to removing the "heavily invested" he ferociously opposed, and I gave a reference for the other statement. This is his response.[7]

Can I just remind you of the numerous times you have warned him? [8][9][10] (and others [11])

Do I have to point out that he blanked my page 4 times? That he blanked the Video journalism entry 3 times, a couple of weeks after you had warned him not to blank my userpage? This user is not interested in improving this article. Could you please consider taking your threats into action and block/ban him? Mackan 08:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editing conflict is over since I posted on 3rd opinion. However, Mister-jones finds new reasons for being incivil, after I moved a new section he made on the video journalism talkpage to the bottom of the page ([12]): [13]. This is getting ridiculous, Mister-jones seems happy for any excuse to make personal attacks. Mackan 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LSD

You left me a message about what i left----could i verify the sources, which you say doesn't matter if i can or not. I got the information from The History channel: The Secret History of LSD.

Thank you

Thank you for moving Cinematic genre to Film genre. Cott12 Talk 11:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video Journalism entry.

Hi GTBacchus: I've started taking Wiki more seriously. However, I'm running into a problem with Mackan constantly rewriting the entry for video journalism using misinformation and assumption not included in referenced texts. Despite my numerous attempts to point out the "fluffing up" of this article, Mackan refuses to abide by the rules of citing only what actually exists.

I'm not doing it to be annoying -- I'm doing it because the misinformation he's constantly adding is just that: misinformation.

I know you've got better things to do. If you get a chance, would you point that out? Thanks!

Mister-jones 12:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad

Thanks for moving Chabad-Lubavitch. And for fixing all the redirects! David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your amusement

Wikipedia:Attack sites - I'm thinking you'll get a kick out of this. WE HATE ED, LET'S GIVE THEM SOME ATTENTION TO PROVE IT. Milto LOL pia 00:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "kick". Yeah... that's what I'm gonna start calling it. Does entropy ever give you the blues, Miltopia? I work early in the morning, and have no business online right now. Take it easy, slugger. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC) slugger? I just met 'er![reply]

Not calling spades spades

I mostly agree with that, except in situations where the odds are really really against something being good faith...

... which just possibly misfired today... didn't it. <hmph> --Kim Bruning 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC) goes off to consider my sins[reply]

"rm stray header"?

Hello,

Your recent edit of the Tom Leykis entry has the comment "rm stray header". However, when I compare your edits to the previous version of the page, I don't see that you removed a stray header. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Leykis&diff=next&oldid=121535857

In fact, it looks like all you did was delete some legitimate content from the page.

Please explain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.117.217 (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The edit I did was this one, where you can see I removed a stray header. The one your link points to ([14]) is the next edit, showing a change from my version, to a version by 170.20.96.116 (talk · contribs), which looks indeed to be a removal of content. It wasn't I who removed it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias

wow I mean, I completely understood what you were talking about...thanks for taking the time. I wish you had been my maths teacher that last year in High School. Rosa 02:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dubya-pee aye-ay-are

Just wandering back through the snowball discussion and came across

People. Love. Rules. The idea that there aren't well-defined lines to stay between is terrifying to most people. There's actually a picture of Hammurabi's code on WP:PI, because that's what most people want. It reminds me of the film Harold and Maude, when Maude says, "Zoos are full, prisons are overflowing... oh my, how the world still dearly loves a cage." I don't mean to say that's necessarily a bad thing, just that it's true. The idea that knowledge should be made freely accessible to everybody is a radical one, but even more radical is the idea that it's ok to dubya-pee aye-ay-are.

First, you didn't say Not For Stealing, so consider your thoughts stolen. Second, I think the idea that knowledge should be free and the idea that it's ok to ... you know... are not totally unrelated. [15].

That is all for now. Consider yourself lucky. ("If we're unlucky", says Ford Prefect, "the captain might want to read us some of his poetry first.") --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued embellishment of video journalism article.

Mackan continues to add small and inaccurate edits to the video journalism article, embellishing the article instead of leaving it at its original meaning. He is adding descriptors that are not consistent with the referenced material and that change the face-value of the entry itself.

I would appreciate you throwing a warning his way, as these "little" embellishments are teetering into the ideal of vandalism.

Thank you. Mister-jones 04:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some sort of response on this matter. Mackan continues to embellish the article.

Thank you.

Mister-jones 04:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ucfd on ani

I'm waiting for that ANI discussion to be closed by the archive bots, so I'm trying my best to limit my responses to only those comments I find so objectionable that I can't resist. I largely agree with what you're saying there now, so I'll just reply here, and thank you for your comments. Your observation that "making rules about how others may use user categories is even further removed from our project than using those categories in the first place" is particularly lucid, and not something that had yet occurred to me. — coel acan — 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial Radio article moves

Thanks for combining them into one request. I wasn't planning on finding so many in that one sitting, and wasn't really sure how to combine them all anyway. Thanks again! JPG-GR 07:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCFD history

Jc37, hi. I'm replying here to what you posted at AN/I. I just wanted to clarify that it was certainly a misconception, and not misdirection that I was mistaken about the genesis of UCFD. I appreciate the clarification you provided; thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to the clarification. And in hindsight perhaps I was a bit more "something" in my response than I might have been. The discussion has just barely fallen short (and sometimes not even falling short) of calling myself and others quite a few things, and I think too much of the discussion has been about the validity of WP:UCFD as a misdirection of the discussion, sidestepping the actual issue. If anyone involved still thinks that things involving user pages can not be disruptive, they should read through the archives of MfD sometime : )

Anyway, that aside, as you've clarified that your comments were well-intended, if mistaken, on your part, I'll be more than happy to apologise and retract my comment, which I made as I was starting to disbelieve or at least doubt good faith in the face such accusations. As always, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 12:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IAR

Thanks for your help in rewording this section. I feel that expanding on the rule would reduce controversy, since there have been many reported incidents where IAR has been used wrongly. I was hoping that elaboration would clear a lot of the misconceptions people take about this policy by giving them more to look at. IBeatAnorexia 00:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that purpose is served, to some extent, by IAR's talk page. I look forward to seeing you there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggaeton

Can you please move the Reggaeton article back to its proper place? Some guy moved it to the accented version without even looking at the talk page and the consensus that was arrived at a long time ago. I don't know how to move it back 68.155.122.113 07:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, amigo 68.155.122.113 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My posts at Wikipedia talk:Attack sites

I hope you didn't think I was taking a shot at you. I have seen some comments at that page that worried me — insinuations that stalking victims deserve what they get, accusations that those who want to protect the identities of their fellow Wikipedians are trying to "stifle legitimate criticism", or that they're running a "vendetta" against those sites that give real names, by not wanting to allow links to them. Someone in my family was stalked. I won't give details, but it was sexually motivated, and was quite severe. Probably most of the stalking that happens as a result of Wikipedia involvement is of a different nature. I don't think you are at all unconcerned, but I have been shocked at some of the remarks from others, which seem to indicate that it's high-handed for an administrator to delete a link to a site that gives someone's personal details — we should all be allowed to see that link, so that we can judge if it really does give their details, rather than having to take the admin's word for it!

Anyway, I just dropped by to say that my purpose was not to jump on you for suggesting going to AN/I (and I hope you didn't read it that way), but to stress that I think we really, really, really shouldn't do that. I don't think it's a dumb thing to have suggested, since I've seen several people who seem sensible actually doing that when they are concerned about personal information having been posted. I wrote about that problem here. I joined Wikipedia in January, and I've already learnt the names of several people through well meaning editors who publicised something still further in their efforts to get rid of it. (Of course, I don't know if those names are accurate, but that's beside the point.)

It concerns me that you weren't aware of WP:RFO. I don't mean by that that you should be a better administrator, but that Wikipedia should do a better job — a MUCH better job — of making sure that people do know about it, since you strike me as someone who knows his way around Wikipedia pretty well (probably far better than I do), and if you weren't aware of it, there must be many others who aren't. (And yes, I've also seen people going to talk pages of admins who have oversight, and posting there a diff which needs to be oversighted. Of course, it's sometimes oversighted within ten minutes, but how many people have seen it in the meantime?) Regards. ElinorD (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at the talk page, but here's a thought. Lots of people patrol "Recent changes". If somebody is inserting a link you don't want seen, and you remove it repeatedly without the ability to control the person re-inserting it (i.e., the blocking button), then you are helping to pass the re-insertion of the link, and its re-removal, across RC over and over again.

The best response is to get quickly to a forum where admins are certainly available around the clock. The first thing to come to mind was AN/I, but as you pointed out, that's fatally flawed. I think a batch of emails or a visit to irc would be a good next step. Revert warring without the power to win quickly and decisively is actively harmful, because of RC. Revert wars attract attention. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Debates - Just some thoughts

I've noticed that you respond to a lot of AfD debates with;

*Keep - Does no harm, no reason to delete. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's been brought to your attention yet (and if it has, I wonder why you continue?), but WP:HARMLESS contains an exact copy of this quote...just a thought.~ Giggy! _Talk 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's inaccurate. I've never responded that way in an AfD, and I never would. I've responded that way at UCFD, which WP:HARMLESS does not address. That guideline refers quite explicitly to articles, and there's a big difference. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I was referring to UCFD. Yes, they aren't specifically mentioned in WP:HARMLESS, but I hardly see how there's that big a difference. ~ Giggy! _Talk 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it makes sense for us to tell people what they can and can't do with the actual encyclopedia, because that's the project we're here working on. None of us has any authority to tell others what to do, except insofar as it affects the project. User categories don't affect the project, and deleting the ones that aren't sufficiently "encyclopedic" is just an arbitrary exercise in telling others what to do. If we're telling people they can't play with categories, when they're not harming the project, we're stepping beyond our bounds, and we're alienating contributors.

The only reason I can see for not allowing people to do what they want with user categories is if they're hurting the project in some way. If we're going to disallow some, then we ought to disallow them all. There's no excuse for standing anywhere in the middle, choosing to approve some people's unencyclopedic categories and not others'. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now you move onto WP:ALLORNOTHING.--WaltCip 23:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you misunderstand my argument. Let me ask you directly - how does restricting others' use of user categories help build the encyclopedia? Have you got an shortcut to throw back at me for that, too? That last one wasn't applicable, by the way, because I'm making a substantive argument, and not simply an all-or-nothing ultimatum. I'd prefer you respond to my thoughts in kind - with some thought.

What I see is people telling others what to do with no project-based reason. Wikipedia is not an exercise in governance, and UCFD's attempts at governance are upsetting contributors. So what's it's excuse? Where's the benefit that outweighs that disadvantage? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the purpose in contributing to that governance? I understand you may support the categories (wrongly I believe, see a bit further down), but does that require repeated support consensus?

Besides, I really don't see the point of keeping the categories, for a reason based upon WP:HARMLESS. Just because a category does no harm and is a bit of fun, doesn't mean we need to keep it. Despite how different articles and categories are, there is still the essence that ultimately, Wikipedia has a purpose. If we go against a policy because of a...shall I say....typographical error, the purpose is gone. ~ Giggy! _{Talk (reply here)} 06:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would be in favor of deleting any user category that isn't clearly project-oriented. That's a lot more than UCFD is deleting now. Since we're already keeping so many unencyclopedic categories, deleting some unencyclopedic categories just seems inconsistent, and prone to upset people. If somebody contributes to the encyclopedia, and wants to put themself into a silly category, then that category's making them happy. That's the point of keeping it - it does no harm, and somebody enjoys it, and it's not messing anything up, because user categories are unrelated to the project anyway, so why stop people from making themselves happy?

It's a totally arbitrary exercise is telling others what to do. Deleting frivilous user categories doesn't help the project, and it bugs people who work on the project, therefore it seems harmful to me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Regarding this edit and your comment right above: Thank you for actually getting it and even more importantly trying to spread the understanding to others. --Gmaxwell 20:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Thanks for your note. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User categories

I think that we may agree on more user category issues than you would suspect. I agree with you that the majority of user categories, as is, probably don't help facilitate collaboration. That's exactly what I'm trying to change, however, by nominating so many. I don't think that just because a majority of them don't now, we should let any and every nonsensical user category be created and kept. Change is a slow process, and I believe I and the others at UCFD have slowly but surely helped make the user category system much more useful than it ever was, and will continue to do so until people start seeing categories as a means of collaboration instead of a myspace variant. I highly encourage you to help us with this process by nominating any categories you deem to not facilitate collaboration. Saying keep for categories being harmless, however, certainly will not improve the system, and I will discount any such !votes on sight, as I would suspect every other UCFD regular would do as well. VegaDark 02:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by. Also, though I'm not worried about my "!vote" "counting", thanks for the heads-up on that point. :) I dove into UCFD without lurking, and got some answers pretty quickly. I hope I haven't been disruptive; I was seeking discussion, not to win, nor to upset anybody. I'll stop saying "keep" on everything. Before you dropped by, I had begun to get the impression that there's an understanding that user categories don't actually help with collaboration, but that's just code for the categories that... potentially might?

What I find striking, though, is that the idea of using categories for collaboration is almost entirely redundant with the existing WikiProject structure. Why don't we just encourage people to join the relevant WikiProjects, which also come with userboxes, and which really do facilitate collaboration? Heck, that could be a actionable reason for deletion: "obsoleted by existing WikiProject".

Wait a minute... why not merge the user category system with the WikiProject system? Does that sound crazy? If we want people to use categories for collaboration, just have the categories connect to WikiProjects. Then we could delete categories that haven't got a place to dock up to the WikiProject system, and encourage people to start a WikiProject, if feasible, for any encyclopedic category they want to use.

If we did that, then UCFD could delete categories as unencyclopedic for perfectly concrete reasons - there has to be a WikiProject to sponsor each user category. By raising the bar for the creation of a user category, the whole MySpace issue is avoided, because MySpace relies on being extremely accessible.....

I don't know, maybe that's a terrible idea.

It just seems really weird to me now, that we're deleting the ha-ha-funny categories, but keeping the potentially destructive ideological categories, which are no more encyclopedic. What kind of goal have we got in mind for user categories, and how are we supposed to get there? I'm willing to help, but at this point, I don't get it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a terribly bad idea, although I'd think some people prefer user categories to Wikiprojects because they are less formal, and don't necessarily want WikiProject-based messages left on their talk page all the time. Categories are also used when looking for someone with particular expertise on an issue that pertains to an article (such as seeking out someone who speaks a particular language in order to translate something, or seeking out someone of a particular profession to clarify something in an article about the profession). Stuff like this is the key goal for user categories, hence my comment of "unencyclopedic" as justification to delete many categories. For instance, you aren't going to have a reason to go looking through Category:Wikipedians and Potato Skins for any reason that could help the encyclopedia, like there usually is for other categories. Most existing categories have been agreed to support collaboration, although I think that many need to be renamed. For instance, Category:Wikipedians who listen to A Perfect Circle is justified as the users in the category are likely to be able to answer questions on A Perfect Circle and could collaborate on that article and other articles related to them. I personally don't like this naming convention, my reasoning being that just because someone listens to them does not necessarily mean they know anything about them, and I'd prefer if the naming convention for this type of category was Category:Wikipedians interested in A Perfect Circle, as at least random people who happen to have heard songs by them a few times wouldn't be tempted to join the category. My ultimate goal is to get the naming conventions to be something like Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on A Perfect Circle topics, but as I said, change is a slow process and I doubt there would be consensus to change to this as of now, so I have to take baby steps by nominating the obviously non-useful categories and nominating categories for more collaborative naming conventions. Eventually I think the user category system could be quite useful, as I have been extremely sucessful in getting hundreds of categories changed or deleted to date, many of which have been recent that I know for a fact would not have had a consensus to change just a few months ago, so I do believe I am making progress. VegaDark 03:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:-oM-R-O-O-M-P-A-P-Ao-

This user is a return abusive sock. Please lock the talk page. Part Deux 18:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image vandalism

I had to repeatedly unlink a manipulated variant of the cover art of the album Wake Up! Wake Up! Wake Up! (what the hell is so funny about putting a penis on it?). Anyway, these anti-vandalism reverts also led to four edits within 24 hours on my part and since I've already requested the speedy deletion of the manipulated image, I'd like to be on the safe side, 3RR-wise and have an admin who knows me perform the deletion or at least confirm that it was indeed vandalism. - Cyrus XIII 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image with the penis is deleted. I wouldn't worry about the 3RR; reverting vandalism is certainly an exception, and that image was definitely vandalism. If the image reappears, or if you need any more assistance, please let me know. Thanks for helping out! -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a cookie

Buddhipriya 23:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for House Resolution 333

GTBacchus, I just wanted to let you know that an article you recently pariticipated in, House Resolution 333, has been nominated for deletion. I ask for your input on the matter at the "debate page". Thank you. --OtisTDog 01:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

You need to reread the policy on civility. You continuously attack the messenger rather than the message. You defintiely should know better so I won't remind you again. Thanks.--MONGO 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to point out where I attacked you? Is it a personal attack to point out that you have failed to respond to a particular argument? I certainly don't wish to make any claims about you as a person, and I don't believe I have. I hope you'll point out to me what was uncivil about my message; otherwise, I'm puzzled. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Is it more fun to shoot yourself in the foot than to think?"...I have thought about it. I can see no reason to link to attack websites.--MONGO 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, neither can I. I'm against linking to attack sites. I do find it frustrating that you seem incredibly eager to do something that will reduce security, without even responding to the suggestion that it will do so. I don't think you've addressed the argument that I've made, and I do think you're pursuing a goal that will turn around and bite you in the ass. It's because I don't want that to happen that I oppose the policy in question. I'm trying to protect Wikipedians and not to set out pots of beans. Why, why, why won't you even address this point? Why do you shoot yourself in the foot? Why? I don't imagine it's intentional, but will you even consider that I might be making a point worth thinking about?

Again: I am fully against linking to what you call "attack websites". I note that your calling them that is hurting your position. You don't have to care, but I'd think you would. You don't have to put effective protection in place, but I'd think you would. You can undermine our security, but I'd think you wouldn't want to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday and Today

Thanks for fixing my newbie mistake! --GentlemanGhost 02:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I'm always especially happy to help out with Beatles articles! -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Sebastián

Hi. When deciding what the most common name is we always look at what the most common name is among a subset of English-speakers. It can be academics, journalists, etc., depending on what the appropriate subset to look at is. Usually, we want knowledgeable people, people who care about accuracy. People agreed that taking all English speakers, the most common name was San Sebastián, but that probably wasn't the case among toponymists. Why are toponymists not the experts we should look to? Joeldl 03:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, our policy of going with the most common name among English-speaking sources is probably our most controversial naming convention. I can see the argument for moving the page to Donostia-San Sebastián. I tried to close the move request in keeping with consensus, judging both by the discussion on the talk page, and the consensus supporting WP:COMMONNAME as a standard. In general, it's the most neutral choice we can make, because doing otherwise involves taking sides in too many disputes. Also, considering that the discussion was focused around deciding whether to move from Donostia to San Sebastián, it was difficult to gauge the consensus for a move to the compound name.

As for why toponymists should not be the experts to whom we look... I wouldn't necessarily say that. However, I think of precedents such as Starfish, which was not moved to Sea star, despite the fact that among those who study Echinoderms, the latter is more common. The principle at work is what some Wikipedians call the "principle of least astonishment" - the idea that we want to surprise readers as little as possible, when it comes to which article appears when they click on a link or search for something.

All that said, if you want to propose a move to Donostia-San Sebastián, I wouldn't oppose you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accept that this case is analogous to species names. Joeldl 02:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed

Thanks for reverting at George W. Bush. (You just beat me to it.) Perhaps you could do whatever is appropriate with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Terersa jones? Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted that; thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for your quick response! ElinorD (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage deletion

Sorry if I deleted some good conversations between you and Jeff, but it's clear to me that it wasn't going to do either me or him any good simply going back and forth as we were. We just fundamentally disagree over the purpose and policy of this project and we'll have to leave it at that. If you'd like to retrieve any of your discussions, let me know and I'll dig 'em out for you. FCYTravis 05:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok; I can see deleted pages, too. If I need 'em, I know where to find 'em. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Krauth

Please, when you have a moment, come over and look at the nonsense going on over here [[16]]. I've been fighting with a new user and an anonymous user (whom I suspect are the same person) over this useless article. Help is needed! Thanks. ---Cathal 04:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's taken care of; thanks for the heads-up. I've blocked the account as apparently used only for vandalism, and deleted all the spurious image uploads. Now it looks as if the user made no contributions, which I guess is just as well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just fine by me! Thank you for the quick action. Though, one suspects that a person who had that much fun vandalizing will return... ---Cathal 04:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Over here [[17]], Dynaflow and I were talking about this user, and wondering if it might be advisable to open a sockpuppet investigation into Zuberdam. What are your thoughts? Is it worthwhile to tag that IP address as a sock? ---Cathal 15:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to IP addresses, it's hard to tag them as socks, because they don't necessarily stick to the same computer, and then we get collateral damage. I notice that the IP in question is currently blocked for 48 hours; maybe that will suffice. I've watchlisted the talk page, too. Let's see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a sound course of action. I will keep an eye on it as well, and we will see what happens. Thanks again for your time. ---Cathal 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please warn vandals after reverting their edits on Talk:Homelessness.

Hello. I'm in agreement with the recent revert you made to Talk:Homelessness. You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. G1 gg y ! 04:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty familiar with the warning templates; thanks. A cursory glance at my history would reveal that I've used several this evening. I don't always use them. When an IP with no prior history blanks a page, I'm pretty likely to skip it. Anyway, thanks for being alert. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbcom jeff

I get the feeling this case is going to end up making me roll my eyes hard enough to yelp in pain. Your outside view on the RFC seems pretty much right on, but due to the committee's past inability to recognize long-term disruption sometimes caused by these sorts of early closures and other actions designed to "reduce process" that always seem to explode into a free-for-all, I doubt the arbcom will be so perceptive. Normally I wouldn't care more than enjoying a hearty laugh at their expense, but it bothers me to see Jeff take so much crap because of other editors' resentment over "the past", especially since I no doubt added to that resentment. Anyway, the reason I'm saying all this is because if arbcom deliberates for a month and a half over this and still can't come up with what you saw probably only minutes after reading over the RfC, maybe there's a niche for you there. Milto LOL pia 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe next year. I think I'm not particularly trusted in some circles here, and I'd be surprised to make it, but running would be... educational. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St John's College

I noticed your post at Talk:St. John's College, U.S. and wanted to inform you that the user was reported for 3RR violation and was blocked for 31 hours on both the IP address and the account name. The issue has been happening for a few weeks and it sadly had to come to that. SanchiTachi 05:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed about the article "Yoghurt" here. The following have been listed as participants:

Please visit the request page to indicate your acceptance of mediation. I urge you to accept, as it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere arguing on the talk page. —METS501 (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Yoghurt.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

You missed my answer

Hi, I think you missed my answer, which was at the bottom of this section. I don't blame you at all, as the page was very active, and could have fifty new posts if you left and came back a few hours later. See also here for some other comments. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement drive

Hi, GTBacchus. I have just started an Article Improvement Drive for WikiProject Abortion. Please feel free to nominate an article you believe could use improvement. I think this might be a good way to help motivate and organise work on our project's articles. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 01:17, 29 May 2007

Yoghurt

Hey, I just wanted to commend you for the great points you were making on the yoghurt talk page. I frankly don't see anything happening, as a discussion already occured and people that voted for yogurt said they wouldn't vote again, and as the yogurt side seems pretty desperate - and they're using some strange tactics to convince people ("OMG - If we don't get rid of the h, anti-americans will take over!!!!!!"). Uhh, I wish I could get what the big deal was, I'm actually from the US, and I've never had difficulty with the article, just as I'm sure most British haven't had difficulty with American articles. But again, to sum it up, I just saw the diffs, and you made some really great points.--daniel folsom 01:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Adair.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Adair.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an error. I clearly am not the one who uploaded that image. I've left a note at the bot's talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to the Rock Pigeon edit war...

Apologies for the rapid-fire reverts. If it appears that I was acting hastily WRT to warning/reporting the IP in question it was due to the fact that User:141.149.110.220 (whom appears to be the same person, judging from the IP info) was doing the exact same thing on the same set of articles last night and had already been warned about changing British > American English and given the full set of vandalism warnings. Looking at User:71.246.186.25's edit history, he also seems to have made several strange punctuation edits on articles relating to episodes of The Simpsons. It just looks like a simple case of disruptive editing to me... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken and understood, mate. Thanks. Gotta save the Columbiformes... :) --Kurt Shaped Box 13:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Darkest redcover.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Darkest redcover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as above, I have nothing to do with this image. I reverted a piece of vandalism on the page months ago, and I know nor care nothing about its fair use rationale, or lack thereof. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect Golden Years ((TV programme)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Golden Years ((TV programme), by Masaruemoto, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Golden Years ((TV programme) is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Golden Years ((TV programme), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Golden Years ((TV programme) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I received this message, but I've deleted the redirect in question now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Third Opinion

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[18]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria [19] or History of Northeast China [20][21] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves

We've gotten a bit behind over the last four or five days at WP:RM, and I know you're experienced in closing discussions there. If you have any extra time, can you help us kill some of the backlog? Happy editing... Dekimasu よ! 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly fixed now, so don't worry about it. Someone deserves a barnstar.... Dekimasu よ! 11:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'd vote for that, too. Thank you, GTBacchus, for fixing American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and the tangled redirects! — Athaenara ✉ 08:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio station moves

Thanks for taking care of those radio station article moves that I requested at WP:RM. You may be seeing more in the future, unfortunately, as I continue to go through and check every callsign registered with the FCC. Thanks again! JPG-GR 06:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate law

Thanks mate! Wik idea 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA talkpage & mediation

Thanks for the clarification. I support your continued efforts. LessHeard vanU 19:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

Hello GTBacchus,

You might or might not be aware of a dispute at Talk:Danah Boyd, regarding whether to follow the subject's personal preference of capitalization or not.

Today, an editor who apparently was not previously involved in the controversy ignored the recently failed move request, an open RfC discussion and current guideline text and just went ahead to move the article - three times in a row. His edit summaries actually went like this: "I am ruling that, as her legal name is uncapitalized [...] So mote it be.",[22] and on the subject's user talk page, he proclaimed to "have overruled the debate".[23] Neat choice of words.

On the article talk page and my own, he went on to base his rationale on WP:MOS-CL#Mixed or non-capitalization, even though this particular passage clearly suggests to follow the majority of outside sources. He also names a few examples, one of them being beside the point (e. e. cummings), one of them being already MoS compliant (k.d. lang); the third (catherine yronwode) was new and a quick look at the sources used for the article [24] [25] and a few additional ones easily found via Google showed that this person's name also appears to be subjected to standard capitalization in outside sources, among them Amazon.com and the New York Times no less.[26] [27] [28] Of course, I changed that article accordingly.

This is when the fun began. Turns out the guy is an admin and I'm blocked for 24 hours, because Mr. I-have-overruled-the-debate considers my edits to the Yronwode article a violation of WP:POINT. No warning or word of advice beforehand and of course, this has nothing to do with the Boyd dispute.[29]

Is this an appropriate use of administrative priveledges? I think not and I hope you agree, hence I'm sending you my appeal for an immediate unblock. While I do not plan to re-engage into that particular dispute or even general editing for a little while (as you can imagine, I'm a little steamed and need a break), I'm also not going to stand aside and let this happen to me or my record as an editor. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Take care - Cyrus XIII / 87.122.9.230 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about the Queen mother of the west

hi there , thanks for your contribution in adding information on the page. I am from china, and recently I am writing an essay about her, but in china there are very few articles talking about the similarity between her and the western god mothers, I am just wondering, if by any chance you have such materials ,would you please send me some? thanks in advance and have a nice day!

I'm sorry, I don't know of any material about the Queen Mother of the West. My only contribution to the page was to complete a move request, changing its title from Pinyin to English, and I did that because I was helping out with requested moves, and not because of any expertise.

I wish you luck. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haelstrom 05:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I had two pages open and gave your comment to someone else and someone else's comment to you
I was going to say something about cannabis, believe me the other person was as confused as you were
I just wish you hadn't run and made a complaint, even for a wrong comment, what I said wasn't even bad Haelstrom 17:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "run and make a complaint"; I still don't know what you're talking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge

Hi, GTBacchus, I'm finishing some papers (as I think I've already mentioned), and I've taken the liberty of giving your name to a user who was blocked, brought a misguided (in my view) RfC against the blocking admin, and was further humiliated when it effectively turned into an RfC against him. Despite the disagreements I've had with you in recent months (which have not in any way lessened my trust for you or my belief in your kindness), I've always remained deeply impressed by your insistence that Chooserr was to be treated with respect by others — and I knew that it wasn't exactly because you shared his POV! I just mentioned you in the context of a few friendly admins who would not want someone to feel frustrated by the reactions of others to his edits and posts. Don't worry if you haven't time. I've also given him Phaedriel's name (though I've urged him not to contact her unless he's sure from her user page that her baby is better) and ElinorD's. I hope everything works out at WT:NPA. Cheers. Musical L inguist 18:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I appreciate Musical Linguist's kind intentions, I'm not sure that I really appreciate her going around saying that I've been "humiliated." I have responded to that contention of Musical Linguist here at my talk page. As for Phaedriel, I have no plans to say anything to her, after having made a futile attempt to communicate with her on 31 May, and then having been accused by her of vindictiveness on 5 June, and then having been improperly reverted by her without explanation on 15 June.Ferrylodge 00:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template:History of Manchuria

Wiki pokemon is now trying to replace template:History of Manchuria with template:History of Northeast China, so I have nominated template:History of Northeast China on TfD(Template for Deletion) for POV forking here. Please help reach a consensus on this issue. Cydevil38 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented at the Tfd. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion article

There's some discussion here about the accuracy of the first paragraph of the abortion article, and you're invited to participate.Ferrylodge 19:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem admin still abusing his position to try to carry on personal conflict

Hi, in the past you were involved when User:Arthur Rubin was involved in edit warring over domain kitting aka domain tasting and then using his admin status to show up to threaten to block *me* for "edit warring" when he was completely involved himself and improperly making threats, and then further threatening to block me for "incivility" solely for responding to his improper threats by pointing out that they were further violations of policy. You stepped in at that time to tell him to back off and to stop reverting the page while also threatening me and so forth.

That same admin is up to the exact same thing again, this time on photo editing. He is a very active edit warrior there blind reverting to an old version of the article, and in fact first went to that page back when he was following me around to try to get back at me for winning in the domain tasting conflict. He is again threatening to block me for "edit warring" (for undoing his blind reverts periodically) and "incivility" (for my pointing out that he is breaking policy and, because of his history of personal conflict with me, should not be trying to act like a neutral admin). I would appreciate it if you could possibly go speak with him again, and maybe be around to talk to others should this admin once again abuse his admin status to try to prevail in a personal conflict. DreamGuy 03:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Revert-warring at WP:NOR

Hi there, I thought that I should let you know that SlimVirgin was not being at all accurate when she said to you that "Tim Vickers posted a note on the village pump about conducting a straw poll to force the scholarly edit into WP:V. This is not how policy is made, ever, and these forest fire posts are extremely inappropriate, and make it increasingly difficult to assume good faith." I have dealt with this misrepresentation here. Sorry to drag this onto your talk page, but I didn't want you taking away a bad impression of me. Tim Vickers 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of you is only that you were inexperienced with policy editing, tried to make a few edits, and were surprised at the hornet's nest that WP policy editing is. I'm really not fussed about details like where you set up a straw poll, and with what particular intention. Much more important is whether people are learning from this experience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of NOR here you can see very clearly where the problem came from. I made a set of copy-edits with descriptive edit summaries. SlimVirgin reverted this edit diff, the addition of the single word "new". I did not replace it but asked for guidance on the talk page here. Two other editors agreed with the change and SV did not offer any explanation for her revert. I therefore made the change again. I asked repeatedly on her talk page for an explanation here, to see if I was missing something. She replied a day later and I placed her comments on the talk page. While these were being discussed, here SlimVirgin reverted all the copy-edits. I did not revert, but asked her to engage on the talk page. She did not respond further and has not commented in my attempt to produce a consensus wording here. I can't see how I could have been more courteous or cautious. Tim Vickers 22:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]