User talk:GTBacchus/Archive 11

I wrote something similar...

I like your "NOSPADE" essay - I wrote something similar on my userpage a while back which you might be interested in. I used the same phrase "muddy the waters" to describe the overaggressive response to trolls. I really believe that is the main problem with some admins here - they should be letting the troll dig his own grave instead of climbing down into the hole and helping him dig; and in that case, if he wasn't really a troll in the first place, he might just become a productive editor.

Anyway, nice essay, and I hope it sticks. ATren 11:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I only just now noticed this section - sometimes the talk page gets away from me. Thank you for reading my essay, and for the link to yours. I think what you've written is very true, and that you've articulated the idea well. Have you thought of advertising it at the Village Pump, or Wikipedia talk:Civility? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Phèdre

After your unusual question about my drinking habits, I was curious about articles you had edited. I looked at Phèdre, since I have prepared a few english WP pages from french originals myself. You made a small edit to the synopsis which made the article marginally more inconsistent than it already was (unexplained conflicts between french and english spellings of place names). Using the original french WP page (did you know there was one?), I carefully retranslated, reformatted and illustrated the article so that it now bears some semblance to an encyclopedia article. (Of course it still misses comments on comédiennes like Sarah Bernhardt or more recently Isabelle Huppert who have been famous in the title role.) There were several serious mistranslations, e.g. "renoncer" = "refuse" not "renounce", which rendered parts of the plot unintelligible. Aren't careful edits on actual articles, rather than holier-than-thou sermons, what this encyclopedia is about? I intend at some later date to work on Andromaque and Britannicus, which are in an even worse state. --Mathsci 14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Instant Karma, buddy. Congratulations on your edits, and on deciding that you found something wrong with one of mine. Congratulations on creating a holier-than-thou sermon (thanks for the links, by the way!), about why I shouldn't give holier-than-thou sermons. Mostly, thanks for appreciating the work I do here. Happy editing! -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact having carefully read the play in French and English, I discovered that the synopsis in French and English had even greater errors and misunderstandings than I had imagined (acts confused, the sword misunderstood, etc): as you can see, it required an even greater number of corrections, which took several hours because of the difficulty of describing the plot of a fundamentally psychological play. Unfortunately WP works in this iterative, approximating way. This applies also to advanced mathematics articles, although they're rarely as confused as this.

BTW your own Karma might not be quite so great when you look at the possible sockpuppet reincarnation of Miltopia, the permabanned megatroll User:Mr. Carbunkle, whom I reported in private to Durova. Go look at his talk page; I'm not sure whether any identification one way or the other has been made yet. What do you mean when you write that you "know Miltopia"? How can anybody know an anonymous user? That seems to be a major flaw in your reasoning. --Mathsci 09:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said he's anonymous to me? What do you know about what I know? Have a nice day.

Good work again on Phèdre. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Award

Hi. I have been very impressed with some of your recent contributions and therefore awarded you a token of my appreciation. Your contributions have been some of the very few good things to come out of this whole silly affair. Best wishes, --John 22:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; that's very kind. It gets a bit stressful in there, and it's not that pretty at all. I think that we're learning as a community, and I hope that I'm at least pushing in some of the right directions. I guess we hope that, if enough people are pushing with good faith, then we'll all average out to some kind of slow progress in the right direction. Take care, -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Potential sock-puppetry

Hi GTBacchus, could I get your opinion on a case of potential sock-puppetry? I suspect a newly registered user (Saguy1982 (talk · contribs)) to have operated under closely matching IPs before and after using a previous account (Jun kaneko (talk · contribs)). Several other editors seem to agree with this suspicion and now I am trying to figure out, which further steps (i.e. filing a report at WP:SSP) would be the most appropriate. See a related discussion at WP:ANI, were I have posted a detailed history of the events. - Cyrus XIII 22:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It appears that it may be the same person. However, as Saguy1982, they don't seem to be editing disruptively. Seeing that the older account is not banned, and the current account not breaking rules, I don't think you can get much traction out of possible sock-puppetry. I'd be willing to help mediate the related content dispute - I've added Visual kei and Dir en grey to my watchlist. If it's a matter of edit-warring or editing against consensus, then we should be able to work it out without having to talk about past accounts. If the new account starts editing disruptively, then we'll be ready to deal with that.

Does that sound to you like a reasonable option? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It does. As you can surely see from the WP:ANI discussion, this whole affair has been a little more than just a bit frustrating so far, but knowing that you will be around to keep an eye on things certainly takes some of the edge off. Thanks! - Cyrus XIII 00:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus, I'm a bit busy, and can't watch the page as actively as I might otherwise. Please do let me know if a situation arises while I'm looking elsewhere, and I'll be sure to drop by and comment. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do. As you might have noticed, there was another brief edit war over the Dir en grey article, with a 3RR violation on Saguy1982's part, resulting in the article being semi-protected, explicitly to protect it from IP based/sock-puppet disruption. Again, I am considering to bring this up at WP:SSP, not to trigger any sanctioning but to formally establish that Sakaguy1982 and Jun kaneko are the same, for future reference. At this point, do you see any genuine scope for such a motion to fail or backfire? - Cyrus XIII 10:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know anything about WP:SPP. I don't know why an attempt to verify that the two accounts are the same user would "backfire", but I also don't see much point in it. I tend to think that the most effective strategy is to insist that each dispute be treated as a content dispute alone, unless it becomes absolutely necessary to talk about editors as persons. Otherwise, the personal line of argument tends to distract from the encyclopedic one. That's just my opinion, of course. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

I noticed you've been involved in discussion with Tcaudilllg. Quite frankly I'm not sure what to make it and I was wondering if you have any advice. He seems intent on disrupting Wikipedia in the name of his own beliefs, and I'm not sure how to convince him that he's not going to be successful.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have some peculiar ideas about what project we should be pursuing here. Eventually, he'll either decide to be a part of this project, or he'll leave, I suppose. I don't think Wikipedia is going to start including original research just because some people would like for it to. At that point, what would distinguish Wikipedia from the rest of the Internet? That's what I'd like to know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between actually misleading someone into an incorrect direction for scienfic research, and providing (light) synthesis material for a videogame article. At some point, Wikipedia actually ends up censoring geniunely helpful information, which is exactly where it is at now. (see the DBZ debacle for another case in point.) Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He has almost no mainspace edits, they all seem to be in talk pages and project talk pages. Given this I don't think he'll actually step outside the playing field he's drawn and simply adopting a WP:NOFEED approach will work. I'm going to keep an eye on his contributions though to preserve that actual integrity off the rules, especially on some of the lower-traffic or fanbase-controlled pages that may be unlikely to revert his actions.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. Please let me know if I can be of assistance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi GTB

I thought it would be polite to let you know that I referred to your 'when not to call a spade a spade' essay in discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry - it's quite a sensibly exploration of some of the issues that have been around for the last little while - perhaps you might consider contributing? (also, I'm afraid that I couldn't find the correct link to the essay - would you mind letting me know where it is? - thanks heaps.) - Privatemusings 06:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The shortcut WP:NOSPADE works. Thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Hi, sorry I didn't notice the survey. I came there from ANI's where was/is a case about the user erasing diacritics. I suspected it as one of that case so I moved it in good faith back to the version with diacritics. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable enough, I removed it. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of banners and I have no idea why there is not this one. It must have some reason. But what reason ... who knows. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Long Way Off-Topic

Sorry to crash your page - it's rude I know, but I did want to stop by and say hi. It's Migratory here - we used to know each other on h2g2 and you visited me via a ferry. Scandalously, we've since lost touch. Your page there was dead so I followed the directions to here. Anyway, if you want to catch up some time you can find me at (an address I've now removed} I'm aware I owe you a meal, and if I have to fly across the Ocean to pay up, sobeit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Migratory (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Rude? Hah! I'll have to reply more thoroughly tomorrow, but I'll say for now that you can "crash my page" anytime you like, whatever that ends up meaning. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not wiki-savvy so the odds were even that I would actually break it. Apparently it is, for the time being, intact. Since you've now got my name and address I've taken the liberty of removing them from your page, but if you forget who I am just holler :-D Migratory (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Migratory

Smile

SJP:Happy Verterans Day! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Usage of "Bigot"

I see you have taken exception to my usage of the term bigot to describe certain individuals. Unless you can produce an example of a word which includes the British and the Americans (clearly here, "nationalist" does not suffice) whose only purposes are purely from a political vantage point, with no regard to the rest of the world, then I am justified in using the term. Secondly, I suggest you read my statement again, you have missed something; I did not go off-topic. I clearly stated that if other countries have accepted name changes, then this should be no expection. When the pro-Anglo-American Shah changed Persia to Iran willy-nilly to the dismay of many Persians, you didn't hear the then-already-established BBC still using the old name; they embraced the new one. The topic is relevant, and it is I who is obeying the Wikipedia rules. Evlekis 12:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of breaking any "rules", and I certainly don't understand why it's necessary to call anybody a "bigot", in that context or any other. As to name-changes in other countries, they are irrelevant insofar as we're following WP:COMMONNAME, which is a strongly supported guideline. "Iran" is more common in modern, reliable, English-language sources than "Persia" is. "Burkina Faso" is more common than "Upper Volta". "Côte d'Ivoire" is more common than "Ivory Coast". "Thailand" is more common than "Siam". The question is not whether other countries' name changes have become dominant in usage; the question is whether Burma's name change has. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That will probably be the most controversial issue yet. The others are relatively stable as you well know. With Myanmar, you get dozens of institutions call it that name, and several others calling it Burma. I believe that a source is a source - to us readers and viewers, all sources are secondhand - so no one can deem one more relibale than the other. Besides that, I never wanted to offend anyone when stating "bigot"; believe it or not, I was on the brink of editing it to "playing into the hands of specific individuals" whereby I not only omitted bigot but the nationalities too, but it says "Do not modify" so it will have to remain. Any unpleasantness in my tone is to do with the fact that I've started to notice (late though it may be) that Wikipedia really does breed injustice, not so much on that page, but on others (not all of which I have edited on). People gang up, form unions, societies, then present articles from their own angle; it's also a reason that I havn't been editing so much these last few days. So sorry if my message appeared unfriendly, your edits are very positive. Evlekis 13:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I don't suppose you're going around calling people names; I was just reacting to the wording of that one comment. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding dirty sanchez edit

Ok, I have removed the commercial linkspam but have kept the cultural reference intact.

Thanks for the heads-up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.32.77 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

...and yet it's been removed by another for being non-notable, and essentially an ad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment requested at WP:AN/I

Hi GTBacchus;

Yesterday I posted at WP:AN/I regarding an anonymous user who was/is constantly reverting changes made to templates in royal articles. An admin determined that the user was stalking/following my edits and blocked the user for 48 hours (first block). Consequently, a user I suspected who had the anonymous IP as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet is doing the exact same thing. I have seen your name around before and saw that you comment at WP:AN/I, so I was wondering if you could take a peek at the situation since there is a lot going on at WP:AN/I and it seems that it is being overlooked. Thanks! Charles 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually about to be offline for a few hours, but I can have a look when I get back. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I look forward to hearing your take on the matter. I will post back here before then if it is archived away and revive the post. Charles 05:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi GTBacchus, thank you. I have rolled-back all of the ancestry templates thus far and responded to the user's posts on talk pages. His or her only rationale is "consistency" with titles, but with ancestry template, in practice, they have always been linked to bypass redirects, to give a simple form of the name (usually the one prescribed by WP:NC(NT) and to name monarchs, consorts and other royals in distinct ways (Name of Place for monarchs and consorts, Title Name of Place for other royals). This is how it was done and that is what makes it "consistent". Simple cleanup was responded to with Cladeal's reverting. As of right now, he or she has not reverted anything, but if so I shall post back here. Again, thank you! Charles 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the user is not heeding the request at Archduchess Elisabeth Marie of Austria where he or she has once again reverted the material, this time without an edit summary or rationale. In light of this, what is the next course of action to be taken? I truly do not want to be dragged into edit wars, at the same time I want to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and have these silly reversions stopped. In light of this, does he or she get blocked or is an official warning handed out? Charles 03:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has also done it consistently with the following articles (click links for differences) without going to the talk page, as noted and as requested and as I have done:

• Charles Alexander, Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach
• John of Saxony
• William, German Crown Prince
• Charles I of Austria
• William I of Württemberg
• William II of Württemberg

Bearing in mind that this user also has an anonymous sockpuppet/meatpuppet coming up to the end of a two day ban, can he or she be dealt with according to the discussion on my page to put an end to this ridiculousness (which is now vandalism) once and for all? Thanks in advance and for all the help so far. Charles 05:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So after typing on the talk page for these articles, Charles just types "Incorrect" and the same thing he keeps going on about without even bending and changes it back and we're back to the start. Actual look at these pages, there's in no way vandalised by either Charles or myself. And I am the one who types out these ancestry charts and he is tracking my edits, which I sort of resent him implying I am doing that to him. So guess just because he keeps up a stink, I'll get blocked. Wikipedia free use just a nice idea. (Cladeal832 05:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Considering that I am the one who copied the blank ancestry charts to your page to use, I doubt that you started the charts. I have in my watch list, at this moment, some thirteen hundred pages (although I used to have up to 2000 at times). That is mostly royalty articles (probably 98%), most or all of them 17th century or later. Considering that, and considering your history of reverting without reason or cause, I check pages which come up in my watchlist which have your name beside them to see what's happened now. Also given that I did reply on the talk pages, you have no leg to stand on with these disruptive reversions, even if what I did say is essentially copied and pasted (which is sufficient for your inadequate "rationale"). Given that you did not respond on the talk pages at all when reverting again and only posted at WP:AN/I when it became evident to you that you had been reported (from watching my contributions, perhaps) I feel it is probably best to have you dealt with in a permanent or long-term manner. Charles 06:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I handed both Cladeal and the IP a 48 hour block for gaming an edit war on Sophie of Württemberg and probably several other articles. I think this needs to be dealt with better, but that was the temporary fix. --Golbez 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring this issue, but I'm rather busy off-wiki at the moment. I promise to have a look at this as soon as I can. I'm sorry for the delay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi GT, I didn't think you were. In fact, thank you for handling it so far! As Golbez has said, the IP and Cladeal are blocked. I might ask you about help or something at an RfC if the issue comes up again. Charles 07:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm never quite sure how quickly time moves on the wiki. Fits and starts, you know?

One thing does occur to me: you mention WP:NC(NT)... the talk page there is probably a good place to seek knowledgeable outside parties. If the edit warring seems about to start up again, why not ask over there for more eyes on the situation? Additionally, if Cladeal382 disagrees with the guidelines on that page, then perhaps you could direct him to make his case there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an idea! If that does fail though, I will come back here and ask about RfC and how to proceed, if that is alright. Charles 04:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely is; happy editing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

A little disappointed with your comments directed at me at WP:ANI, since, as I mention in your reply, I usually agree with what you have to say. I can't accept, though, that we should base decisions on-wiki on what is likely to offend people, otherwise we'd never have any articles in any vaguely controversial areas. Also baulk a little at your suggestion that I'm unfamiliar with other cultures - for a start, I live in London. I'm not too het up about this, just a little disappointed that a user I respect has seen fit to react in this way to something of this nature. No more bongos 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're disappointed. I would point out that I apply very different standards to article space and to user space. I think our goal in article space is neutrality, no matter what people may think of it. I would never base article-space decisions on what is likely to offend people. On other pages, however, we're presenting the human face of Wikipedia, and I would be disappointed if our human face is one with the attitude, "I don't care whether I offend you or not". "On-wiki", for me, is not one homogeneous place. The article pages are the encyclopedia, and the other pages are backstage, and I make very different edits in one space than I would in the other.

I've been to London plenty of times - I think I would count it as my favorite city in the world - and it's very, very different from the third world. When I used to flee from Kenya to England and regain my sense of equilibrium, it was very clear to me which place was part of my world and which one was not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I'd like to pop in and say thank you for the contribution on ANI as you expressed my concerns better than I did. I was trying not to catch Neil in the crossfire, but give those who, as I saw it, made an argument for an uncaring place something to consider. Spenny 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

In the interest of good form, you should know I stuck my beak in your beeswax over here. You don't know me and didn't ask what I thought, so I'm sorry if it somehow makes your life harder. I'm very impressed with how reasonably you express yourself. sNkrSnee | t.p. 05:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

====&etc====

I swear, didn't we just have this very discussion the other day? Duja ve. Best of luck. sNkrSnee | t.p. 10:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Thank you again for your reply to my questions about civility. Now I'd like to ask you a favor, and this time it's about my own civility. As humans, we are all imperfect and may not see our own imperfections as clearly as other do. For context, please see this comment [1] by one user to another. That uncivil comment prompted this comment [2] by me to the recipient of the first comment. Please give me your honest opinion as to whether my comment was uncivil. After you form your opinion you might read this.[3]

Let me be clear: I ask this only for the purpose of improving my own behavior. I will not quote your opinion to anyone else. I'm NOT looking for "defense witnesses". I'm just looking for an independent 3rd party opinion. I'm also making this same request to a second person.

P.S. Given that everything in Wikipedia is visible to everyone, probably hundreds of people will become aware of something that perhaps I don't really want to publicize. So be it. That might have the side effect of spreading more awareness about civility. Sbowers3 03:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your essay on persuasion. That's a useful angle to take on the issue. Have you seen WP:NOSPADE? It's in a somewhat similar vein.

I looked at the situation here, and thought about it a bit. The comment for which you were warned was not, in my opinion, grossly uncivil, but it did lump a certain other editor into the category of "users deserving of the finger," or something like that. I think it would be an entirely appropriate private comment, but as you note, those don't really happen on the wiki. I don't find it surprising that someone took offense.

It's probably a good rule of thumb that, if there's something you aren't comfortable saying in front of the whole world, then don't say it on Wikipedia. Not only the person you're talking to, but the person you're alluding to, are likely to read your comment, more than once.

I hope that helps. Like I said, I don't think you were far out of line, but if you're looking to see what it was about your remark that pushed a button, I think it was the possible implication of disrespect for the previous poster. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your candid comments. I admit that I was pushing the line a bit (by my own standards). I expect that similar circumstances will not again arise but if they do I will be a little softer in my choice of words. I intended to disrespect the previous incivility, not the previous poster.

I will read NOSPADE. That's one I hadn't heard of. Maybe I'll read through the whole category of Essays. And someday I hope to finish my own essay on persuasion. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Energon Rodimus

You moved all the page from Rodimus to Hot Rod (Transformers), but the Transformers: Energon Rodimus has never been known as Hot Rod, and just that portion of the page should be moved back to Rodimus. Let me know what you think. Mathewignash (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say you're entirely welcome to split off the part of the article about Energon Rodimus. I was just moving the Transformer formerly (and still somewhat commonly) known as "Hot Rod" to the appropriate title. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Brazil nut

Dear Tony; I wonder if you'd be kind enough to wait about a week before closing discussions like this one. Some who may have wished to comment, may not have had an opportunity and I don't perceive a need for urgency in the matter.[4] Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Um... that discussion was open for a full week, from 11 November through 18 November. We usually close move requests after only 5 days. How long would you have us wait? I see that the question of possibly moving the article to the scientific name was raised, but that's independent of the question of how "nut" is capitalized. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you are right. I only saw it this morning, but the move was proposed on 11 November. I apologize. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO/NPA RfAR

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed. Viridae^Talk 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed you as a party. I would still appreciate your input. This started off with the policy dispute, and that is ongoing. But as part of the policy dispute MONGO once again attacked multiple people multiple times. I see no other way of stopping that behaviour but with sanctions from arbcom, he has had so many chances.

On another note good luck talking Guy around. You and I seem to share the the same opinions on that matter, and you seem to be very patient, so good luck. Viridae^Talk 04:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing me as a party. I'll be watching the request with interest, and the case, if it is accepted. Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Data as a "plural noun"

Hi G.T.- Regarding your recent Voyager 1 edit: Yes, "data" started life as the plural of the Latin noun "datum," but it's used differently now. In modern usage, it behaves more like a noun of quantity, like "water." Take a look at the entryfor "data" in the American Heritage Dictionary. To get a sense of their standards, you can look up "impact" as a verb there--you'll see that they don't cave too quickly on usage changes. -Eric ^(talk) 04:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I guess I'm kind of old-school when it comes to such things. Thanks for the update. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Handling incivility

I hope you don't mind, but I'm making you my expert on incivility and what to do about it. I am totally uninvolved in this situation[5] but I want to use it as an opportunity for learning how to deal with incivility - i.e. how to reduce it. I'd like to know what to say (if anything) to each of the two parties. If you would respond directly to one or both of the parties, or to WP:EAR I might learn something. If you don't care to involve yourself, that's fine, too. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

move template broken?

Hey man, long time no see. Thanks for taking care of that RM for me. I did notice that when I applied the {{move}} template, it had the link to the page to be moved redlinked. It apparently assumes that any placement of the template on a talk page means that the request is for an associated project page. I looked for a second argument (like the {{RM}} template has (to explicitly state both names)) but I didn't see one. Is that behaviour a flaw, or by design? Might be a useful suggestion, if it's unintentional. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant side note - we share the same last name. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. That's an interesting point about the template. I don't think I'd noticed the error, although there did seem to be a lot more red than usual in that template, now that I think of it. I'm certain it's a problem that could be fixing with a coding solution, by adding a variable like "talkpagemove" that you could switch on as necessary.

Looking at Template talk:Move#A way to specify the source page, the question has come up before, and the reply was that, since it's so rare, it's better to just subst: the template and manually fix the link. I guess that seems pretty reasonable; perhaps it should be documented somewhere on WP:RM? Does your family come from Oklahoma at all? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would suggest that if it's easily fixed in code, or if a little more code gives the template more flexability to editors it is probably a worthwhile change. I wasn't sure if a subst: would affect anything about how the page is referenced in the RM process (kinda like you have to subst prod's, but can't subst speedies (or something similar)). I know your talk page isn't exactly the place, but I figured you'd be a good sounding board before hitting template talk. I'm not aware of any family from Oklahoma; my father's side of the family weren't much for geneaology or record keeping, so I'm unaware (as was my father) where anyone "futher up" the ancestorial chain were from. I grew up in the deep south.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you know how to add that functionality to the template, and document it, then I'd say go for it. Substing is an inelegant solution, so if there's an easy technical fix, I see no reason not to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the thoughtful input.

GT, You really spent a lot of time sifting through my Wikipedia woeful weject - you were thoughtful +.

I'll be blunt: Never in a million years would I choose that subject to write about *except* that I have a paying job and the payor wanted to see if we could upload an article for the corporate client. I didn't think it would fly. Although, I did like doing the architectural research. But, even though this one's a dog, the info you imparted is certainly applicable next time around, and for that I am duly grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee Axelrod (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Um... I think you may be looking for Sbowers3. I don't believe that you and I have interacted here, but I notice this thread where Sbowers3 answered a question of yours. If I can be of assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

can't find your input

All right. Here's the kicker; I *know* I read your pages long response -obviously, because I responded to it, and now I can't find it. *where* is the thing? link? Dee Axelrod —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee Axelrod (talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it help to look through your contribution history? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of List of national languages of India

I have nominated List of national languages of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 10:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool Under Fire.

		The Barnstar of Peace
		This is for being continually cool, no matter how hot Wiki gets. The term "cool under fire" seems to be made for someone like you. Now, if I had any artistic skillz, I should make a BS to fit purely that... hmm. Meh, until that day comes, if ever, this is deserving of you, and vice versa. --Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for acting as a mediator during the NPA issues. If I ever step over the line in any way, please let me know. I would rather know immediately than things being drug up later down the line. If I am ever dismissive of the other sides point of view or not letting them have their chance to speak constructively, please let me know. spryde | talk 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

About those "beliefs"

http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11079 http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15627 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13766 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15892 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13611 , http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15243

Instincts, actually. Extroverted thinking, perceives the conditions which frustrate communication. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I hardly know what to say. Congratulations, I guess. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it not something you see in your experience? Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Is what? What are you talking about, and what has it got to do with Wikipedia? Do I perceive the psyche in the way that you describe in that forum post? No.

Is this an extension of some conversation we were having earlier, perhaps over at WT:NOSPADE? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically yes; in fact, I drew my conclusions as regarding extremists on the basis of the inability to "transcend opposites" which Carl Jung describes as delimiting the stages of psychic life. For example, assuming an adult attitude about life invariably involves coming to terms with one's own capacity for evil; instead, you learn to live by your own distinct moral code, which you come to find others happen to share, but not everyone, nor even a majority. Surely your work on resolving the abortion article has made that plain.

Until someone makes the transition to adult "relativistic framework" /post-formal thought, they instead try to satisfy that part of themselves which they have not self-integrated, without asking themselves specifically what the domain of information that part of them processes is actually requiring of them. This is not necessarily a problem of personal choice: if one does not have the cognitive organization to consider something, they cannot use it and it goes right by. (think of all the times in your childhood/adolescence when what your parents told you seemed totally irrelevant or made no sense; or those times when they seemed to be communicating in a way that you couldn't quite place, especially with other adults.) Consider, you may yourself have questions of your role in society, as do I for myself, which Jung found to be a problem of our inability to integrate our own "souls".

This next part is difficult to explain, because it's a very sensitive topic; but it is imminently relevant. In philosophy there are concepts of transcendence, which mean "rising above" a conflict or situation, and concepts of immanence, which are states of complete purity. Jung described the integration of the opposites as transcendence beyond one's previously unintegrated state; he did not describe immanence (that I have yet read) but certainly in history there have been figures, as there are today, who are opposed to and perhaps even frightened by certain concepts that the majority are not frightened of. Others see something in the world terribly wrong, and are resistant to abridging their opinion even when shown clear and otherwise evidence to the contrary. Such a person endevors to fight anyone who they disagree with, even to the extent of supressing their "dangerous" views and methods. The Koran instructs individuals to act out their inner demons in holy war, which leads in the Muslim world to Islamic extremists blowing themselves up daily. Although Islamic societies grant extremists cultural sanction, western society frowns on violence, forcing the otherwise socially adjusted extremist into less visceral avenues. Here are the extreme political activists, the "POV warriors" who dedicate their lives soley to a single cause. Certainly their reasons are diverse and often tragic; but the one constant they share between themselves is that they are no longer open to compromise: they must succeed in their bids to suppress a part of reality, whether their ends or their means are just or not. These people are always looking for a fight, their methods are unusually divisive and abrasive, and they always refuse to compromise on any of their stated positions, never once reflecting on their actions or even their thoughts. What happens when they win their battles? Invariably, they look for a new battle, one that is not particularly different from the battle they just won. This because their battle is not from without; but a projection from within, a war against that part of themselves they will never accept, even if it means, ultimately, an untimely demise.

Those are the "spades" I was referring to, the obstacles to unity and indiviuduation. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're still basically arguing for the right to engage in name-calling rather than honest debate. The answer is no, that's not okay, no matter how sanctimoniously you justify it. If you find yourself needing to argue about your interlocutor's personality, then you've conceded the main point. If you can't succeed by talking about the content rather than the contributor, then there's a good chance you're wrong. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. All that information, and that's all you can draw from it? Name calling? ...Utterly ridiculous. If you are that unable to draw meaning from that essay, then perhaps you yourself are an extremist. You are willingly blind to the true forces of reality, and until you admit them your dreams for satisfactory consensus shall remain unattainable. Tcaudilllg (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I draw meaning from it. The meaning I draw is that you're pretty sure you can see through people and classify them according to your own (amateur, unpublished) theory of the "human psyche". Because of this, you feel that you're justified in labeling people and dealing with them accordingly - you believe that you are an authority on who is or is not an extremist, and who can or cannot therefore work cooperatively.

The trouble is that you're not nearly as perceptive as you think you are. You think you have access to the "true forces of reality", while anyone who disagrees with your point of view does not. That's pretty much the definition of an extremist. You'd rather label people as "extremists" than learn how to interact effectively with them. Wikipedia does not sanction such pathological communication behavior, and we're not going to. To work here, you'll have to learn to work with people, and part of that involves taking off those goggles through which you see people as "extremists".

Perhaps you're not here to write the encyclopedia in a collaborative manner. Perhaps you're here to show off just how "right" you are about people. If that's the case, then you should leave. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pathological communication behavior? I suspect the majority of INTJs, even on Wikipedia, would think similarly of your approach to logic and "authority".

Certainly I'm uncomfortable with giving myself, and my values, up to a cause "larger than myself" without knowing whether or not it is ultimately valid or correctly oriented given the situation. (nor would I "surrender myself" in any case)

You present yourself as a posterboy for the problems of the non-socion-aware world, all too eagerly pointing out the flaws in others while being acutely unaware of your own shortcomings.

Someday you'll come to grips with the existence of extremism. Until then I've nothing further to say to you. Tcaudilllg (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing further to say? Super! -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hed PE

Thanks for the close on Hed PE. Can you handle the other pages mentioned in the move proposal as well? I noted them in the listing, and I added the multimove tags to them so that they could be handled as part of the same request. I would handle it myself, but since I suggested the change, that might be considered inappropriate. Dekimasuよ! 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe they're all taken care of now. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

• 65.96.135.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can you handle this IP, or should I take it to WP:AIV? Repeated POV-pushing and vandalism today (see contribs) - final warning issued before latest vandalism. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, looks like JF got it already. Thanks for looking out. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have added your name to involved parties in the MONGO 2 arbitration case.--MONGO (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

query regarding removal policy

Why did you remove the paragraph about Thomas Aquinas from the Drunkenness article? It seemed very encyclopedic to me and it provided a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharecropper (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to this edit of mine. The paragraph I removed seemed to be mostly original research, and it was written in the style of a moral instruction book rather than an encyclopedia. It was rambling, and addressed the reader in the second person. By the end of the paragraph, it certainly wasn't Aquinas' ideas being presented, so it's unclear where Aquinas stops and the writer's interpretation starts. Overall, I didn't think it improved the article.

If you disagree, you're welcome to re-insert it. It would be a good idea, if you do that, to comment on the talk page explaining why you put the sentence back. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Gdańsk vote

I'll clarify with pleasure, here is a copy of the vote:

As you can see in article #5 in all places that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). Therefore: History of Gdańsk (Danzig), Teutonic Takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) and Tumult of Thorn (Toruń). Regards, Space Cadet (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi GT,
Listen, don't even worry about the bitchy mood. Happens to all of us. It never happened, as far as I'm concerned. Your friend, Space Cadet (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now I need to take a quick break to Germanize some maps. But I'l be back with the tumult shortly. Space Cadet (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Holovaty/Golovaty

Just a short note about the dispute. The main conflict is between myself user:Bandurist and user:Kuban kazak. He is the more seasoned editor. I have only been editing for a short time. Our backgrounds are in many ways are remarkably similar, (we can take the same side on many disputes) yet different (we can be dimetrically opposed to each other. That is why we keep on bumping into each other in particular articles dealing with the Ukrainian Cossacks and related articles such as Balachka, Cossack Ukrainian - basically materials primarily dealing with the Ukrainian Kuban Cossacks and issues regarding Eastern Ukraine and that section across the border in russia where there are many Ukrainians. I (of Ukrainian Cossack and Russian background, born in Australia, live in Canada, educated in Ukraine, worked in the Kuban) take a Ukrainocentric view. My colleage(of Ukrainian Cossack and Russian background who was educated in the US worked in Ukraine and lives in the Kuban) takes a Russocentric view.

Our main conflict is with the use and implementation of Ukrainian language and transliteration in the post Soviet, post Russian Imperialist period. If you are interested in pursuing this discussion, and hearing more please send me a note.

If after investigation you find this Ukrainian dispute entertaining may I suggest a short story by the Ukrainian writer Nikolai Gogol (who wrote in Russian) The story about how Ivan Ivanovych had an argument with Ivan Nikifrovych in his collection Mirg/horodBandurist 02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The G\H letter controversy is often called the "political" letter. Ukrainian and Belarusan had both G and H in their alphabets. During the Soviet period in 1933 this was removed by the Soviet authorities in both languages. It was changed back in 1991. During the Soviet period transcriptions were done via Russian which did not have an H but only had a G. I would like yo thank you for your decision. Bandurist 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me asking for some corrections. First of all, I am not a Ukrainian, but a Russian Cossack. I have never been in the US, and got my education from St. Petersburg State University. I never worked in Ukraine, only "lived" there when I was courting my future wife. And as for ethnical background my mother is from Polotsk though I was born and live in my home stanitsa as explained on my user page. The issues are caused because of my people the Kuban Cossacks view ourselves, and how some Ukrainians view us. This is because as rediculous as it sounds, all Ukrainocentric historians believe the same stereotype that we the Kuban Cossacks are Ukrainians who forgot their history. Such a view, is openly dissproved by ethnographic, linguistic and genetic evidence. Yes the Black Sea Cossacks (which themselves included many non Little Russians) came to the Kuban. However that was two centuries ago, and in the conditions of constant war with Circassians, as well as war brides, interhost marriages and the military life that they lived in the frontier region up to the end of the Caucasus War left little of their original Zaporozhian habit. After 1860, the Black Sea Cossacks were merged with the Line Cossacks and from that point a new Cossack consience has taken over.This is supported by hundreds of indepenedent sources. Have a read of the section Ukrainians in Russia and the talk page. --Kuban Cossack 16:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Such a view, is openly dissproved by ethnographic, linguistic and genetic evidence". I disagree. "This is supported by hundreds of indepenedent sources" This is also not supported by hundreds of indepenedent sources. It is a question which I believe is still under discussion. Bandurist 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

1550-1600 in fashion

Thanks for completing the move, and thanks for catching the double-redirect on Elizabethan fashion. - PKM 17:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Mexico State

Hey, thank you for fixing the dot, I'm gonna ask someone to teach me how to do that so I can do it myself next time I need to, regards. Supaman89 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Principality of Piombino

Today I moved this page and intended to move the talk page as well. But I had the talk page open for editing at the time, so I've managed to create a situation with two talk pages: Talk:Principality of Piombino and Talk:Principate of Piombino. Do you have the ability to correct this (i.e. by removing Talk:Principate of Piombino? Thanks in advance. Noel S McFerran 02:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's taken care of now, I believe. Please let me know if you need any further assistance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A reply

Hi, GTBacchus. I've replied your question to me on my talk page. I'm very sorry for the late reply. I would also that I was very impressed by your question - I thought about it a lot - and I appreciate that you decided to continue the discussion. I think people on all sides of the debates in which Wikipedia is embroiled could learn from your book.  :) If you feel like posting a response, I should be able to continue the discussion later today or tomorrow. Again, thanks ~ Iamunknown 00:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Belle and Sebastian

i should have just edited it with my account. anyway, yeah i do have a source... read the book "just a modern rock story" they also site the other major influence in his song writing as being the band "yes" but i'm sure they're not hip enough to be sited. this is just insane. when anyone doesn't agree with anyone else on this site, they are blocked. i'd appreciate being unblocked. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.194.116 (talk • contribs) 13:22, December 9, 2007 (UTC)

86 that unblock request. apparently i am not blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.194.116 (talk • contribs) 13:23, December 9, 2007 (UTC)

There is no "not hip enough to be cited". The trick to including information is to say where it comes from when you add it. Then it stays. Also, try not to remove information that's backed up by a citation, even if you disagree with it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Closure of article move of "War on Terrorism".

Hi,

You closed a rename of "War on Terrorism" of "War on Terror". Talk:War_on_Terrorism#Title, and I think that should be reconsidered.

Can I ask that this be reconsidered as either "No Consensus", or to have the discussion re-opened?

I was not aware of the discussion at the time, and would like to add discussion. The key part that was missing was any mention of was the official name is according to US White house documents. ( in general, I don't think enough discussion occurred to warrant such a change.)

While the informal name is often used in the press, Most all US formal documents on this subject refer to "War on Terrorism".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/faq-what.html - FAQ - What is the War on Terrorism?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/100dayreport.html - The Global War on Terrorism - The First 100 Days

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/ - National Strategy for Combating Terrorism

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/ - Progress Report On the Global War on Terrorism.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/index.html - CIA & The War on Terrorism

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html - Terrorism FAQs

To find official Whitehouse documents on the War on Terrorism , use the search:

google: site:whitehouse.gov "war on terrorism"

google: site:cia.gov "war on terrorism"

compare this with a similar search for the informal name.

Also, I think that "War on Terrorism" is more NPOV, where the informal "War on Terror" is more often directly associated personally with President Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodWasAnAlien (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, the missing signature, was not intentional. GodWasAnAlien (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)).

---

What I am now asking is that the September consensus possibly be invalidated.

There are several more reasons I list on Talk:War_on_Terrorism#War_on_Terrorism_vs._(informal)_"War_on_Terror" that are relevant.

But one obvious reason why the consensus was invalid, is that the consensus references to google searches (the only quantitative reason given for common-name) apparently did not exclude wikipedia referencing matches.

From Wikipedia:Search_engine_test: "The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word 'Wikipedia'"

2007-12-14 Google results:

"War on Terrorism" -wikipedia :: 6,870,000

"War on Terror" -wikipedia :: 1,040,000

Though, if you wish, I can start a new official move discussion.

btw, when I started the category rename process, I was not aware of the September consensus on the main article. Otherwise I would have started with this.

thanks . GodWasAnAlien (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no formal process for "invalidating" a consensus. You just make a new consensus. There's no need to talk about what was right or wrong previously, just open a new discussion and make your case. We really don't do formal procedural solutions here. There's nothing to "invalidate" about the fact that some people made a decision. We can just change our minds; it doesn't mean the previous one was "invalid"; that's a weird, legalistic way of thinking about it.

More to the point, the article is currently at your preferred location, so what's the problem? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about the fuss. I thought there was a process for reviewing a consensus. It should be noted, though, that now the category remains different from the article. Have a nice day. GodWasAnAlien (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Once and for all? I wasn't aware we did that sort of thing around here. I'll keep an eye on the proceedings, and may provide a statement if I decide I've got anything useful to say. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

brain drain guy

thanks, and have you done this in the past? just have another quest. you might be able to help with. 75.23.79.10 (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some experience with the subject... what's your question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just curious if marijuana use (not 3 joints a day, just maybe 1-2 a week) changes people's personality's for the worse or dulls people down more than just temporarily. I've heard so many conradicting stories on this and also seen so many different people that all seem to handle it differently. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.79.10 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: maybe.

You're right that different people handle it differently. There hasn't been much study of the long term effects. There are plenty of daily users who are intelligent and productive people, as well as plenty who are unmotivated slackers. Some people mellow out when they smoke pot; some people freak out. Some get energetic; some get sluggish. Some acquire intense focus; some lose the ability to focus on anything. Some wake up; some go to sleep. Most get hungry. Some people seem not to feel normal unless they smoke pot; some try it a few times and decide it's not for them. Some use for years, only to decide later that it was a destructive force in their life. Others feel that it catalyzes beneficial spiritual experiences. Some of these contradictory things will even happen to the same person.

If you're curious, I recommend researching the subject by reading everything you can find. Our article Cannabis (drug) is a good starting point, but also follow some of the references to external sources in there. You might find answers to a lot of your questions.

Above all, if you're using, be careful. Be as safe as you can, think about set and setting, and don't get in legal trouble - that's probably the worst way pot can mess up your life. Don't sell, and try not to buy for others. That's where you can get into staggeringly bad trouble.

Naturally, I am neither a doctor, nor a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as medical or legal advice. I don't encourage any kind of illegal activity. If you need medical or legal advice, talk to a medical or legal professional. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging pages

GT, We get a ton of old proposals which accumulate at Category:Wikipedia proposals. Periodically I try to prune out the deadwood. Just routine, and it was properly reverted. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry if I came across as too critical. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

your intervention is greatly appreciated

thank you for your intervention.The things were going out of control.

I will follow your advice but I need to figure out how this "Requests for commentt" works....Salutes ! Adrianzax (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki doctorates

Thank you very much for your interst in Wiki Doctorates. I am at the moment trying to contest the deltion of thius particular article. Would you mind explaining about this name space and also a link to where you have copied the article.

Yours Sincerely Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please place a reply on my talk page ASAP

Cheers

Thanks loads for that however now for all your help could you apply on the (project) for a doctorate thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wright93 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that you didn't endorse wiki doctorates, you moved it to somewhever which made me think it was ok and as an administrator you SHOULD NOT have moved it and stated to me that it wasn't "worth" it!!!

I'm sorry. I probably should have said something to the effect that it would probably be deleted. I didn't want to just delete it again, and tell you to stop; I didn't consider that it would be worse to let it get tagged for deletion by someone else and taken to MfD. I was mostly trying to move it out of article space, but I ended up setting you up for a nasty experience. I apologize. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for admitting to your mistake and you were correct about it bieng upsetting. However could you just tell me how things like the welcome comittee and the recent changes patrollers get away with it and not wiki doctorates?--J.Wright (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about those projects. I know RC patrollers are just people who happen to do that task. I guess the welcome committee are the same. They're not some kind of honor system, as anyone can do those tasks. You just put your name down if you're active, and if you feel like being listed. I'm not sure what they're "getting away with". It's just a list of people who happen to work on one kind of job.

The only honorifics we really have here are Wikipedia:Barnstars, which are given to individual people, by other individuals, for individual reasons. The idea of having some Wikipedians who have earned a rank and others who haven't really goes against the spirit of the project, and nobody thinks that RC patrollers or welcomers have any kind of "rank". Even admins are considered janitors, who have certain types of mops that are necessary for dealing with certain types of messes.

Most "power" or prestige on the wiki comes from one's edits, one's arguments, and one's reputation - which is established through making many good edits and helping work out many arguments. The idea that you could just list your name on a page and thus hold some kind of honorific or title is... it just doesn't make sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I also supplied what I beleive was a detailed explanation as to the difference, but J.Wright saw fit to delete it. Cest la vie. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete it for any reason other than that I had read it --J.Wright (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WUFH/WUSH

Thanks! :) Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem - cheers! -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Guideline discussion

Hi, there is currently a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), with the purpose of drafting an opening paragraph for the guideline. One point (albeit a minor one) that remains to be sorted out is the relevance of NPOV/brand management-related concerns to the overall rationale. Since you are involved in move requests proceedings more extensively than any other editor that I know of, your expertise and opinion on that particular issue, as well as the overall draft would be most welcome. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It's late now, but I'll have a look at it tomorrow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

:) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

proposed Move

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia.

I wrote a propsed move for "Queen Mother of the West". Can you review it and if you agree with me could you move that article to 'Xi Wang Mu'? If you don't agree with what I wrote then let me know.

Thanks, Kong, Wo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongwo (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Line breaks

You wrote, "forcing line break - what's up with the blank lines getting eaten?". I fixed that for you (diff). You had (by accident or on purpose) embedded a <p> tag in your comment text. But MediaWiki is already turning our wiki text into paragraphs, such that they begin with <p> and end with </p>. In XHTML, things are a bit stricter than HTML of old, and a nested or unclosed <p> is going to confuse the rendering (I'm not sure what the standard actually says on this, but any which way, it's not going to do what you wanted). If you want to force a paragraph break, you can hit enter twice to insert a blank line in the wiki markup

<--- like that, or you can insert <br/> (make sure you include the trailing slash, which in XML means it's a stand-alone tag, rather than an paired tag (which would expect a closing </...> tag)). Hope this helps!  :-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is strange though... I've been putting <p> tags in my comments for a while now (months?), and that's the first time it's caused a rendering problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That damn register article

You seem to be a voice of reason over on the Criticism of Wikipedia page. I'd like to ask you something without it blowing up into a big conflict. User:Onlyjusthisonetime has been making several comments to the talk section, and when I looked him up, he's only ever commented on internal Wikipedia stuff. On his first edit, he said he was an alternate account for an admin. While I respect his right to privacy, this appears to be a violation of WP:SOCK, especially since he voted on that account. I don't want to cause a big scene, especially since I think people are reacting irrationally because the Register article hits so close to home. But I do want some guidance as to how to approach this. Wellspring (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Background for my recent actions

Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speak My Mind, please speak up

Hi. Regarding your message about Speak My Mind: I've just unprotected the redirect and moved the Speak My Mind (album) article over it myself. I inadvertently missed the message about it left by BritandBeyonce (talk · contribs). Extraordinary Machine (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

About WP:IAR

Generally, I agree that there is a problem of WP:Anti-elitism and as noted in WP:FAIL, German Wikipedia has done better at creating a greater percentage of content, imo precisely because of their elitism.

Do me a favor and look at this: Wikipedia talk:There is no credential policy

The situation:

• I boldly create the page. For a few days, it stays up and people even make minor copy-edits.
• A few disgruntled users pop by, seem to misunderstand what the page is above, and tag it with "essay," even though there's no actual opinion.
• I get into a lengthy discussion with Rogue Penguin where he claims he doesn't even need to discuss with me, per WP:BRD. The conversation roughly goes something like this:

(paraphrase)

"There's no consensus."
"Yes, but why? What's the opinion in the essay?"
"The opinion is that there's no consensus."
"That doesn't logically follow. It's a red herring. There is no opinion in the essay."
"It doesn't matter if there's no opinion. There's still no consensus."
"You're not really adding anything to the discussion, here."
"I'm not required to discuss."
"WHAT opinion or advice am I putting forth?!"
"The opinion that there is consesnsus, look I'm done discussing this with you!!!"

How on earth am I supposed to deal with that?

The only way: WP:IAR. Of course I choose not to invoke it right now, because based on the way Wikipedia is currently, I would probably get blocked for edit-warring, since the 3RR is enforced strictly, despite what the policy page on it says. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that IAR is the only way to deal with the situation is the recourse of the intellecutally lazy. The way to deal with that situation, as with any content dispute, is to bring more eyes to the situation, and expose your opponents logical fallacies to the light of day. Since you're correct (right?), you will easily convince disinterested parties that you're the reasonable one.

Edit warring is a terrible solution; it shows that you don't know how to get things done on the wiki, it makes you look like the POV-pusher when the wider community finally does look, and it fails in its aim, which is to win the content dispute. It's like trying to open a closed door by standing in the center of the room and stabbing yourself repeatedly in the leg - it's a bad idea for multiple reasons.

If you seriously believe that IAR is the only way to deal with a content dispute, then you've clearly never tried effective dispute resolution (walking to the door and opening it). I recommend it. Making an edit repeatedly in the face of opposition might feel very righteous, but it's blinkered, ineffective, and distracting from the good work we're trying to do. Bringing more eyes is always a better solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam

Thank you for helping return the disambiguation page to Adam. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to complete this move. - CheshireKatz (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Voluntary caregiver

My understanding is that we did want a move, just not the one that was originally suggested. I've commented more on the talk page. Franzeska (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it now. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy hangup.

You said:

We need to encourage people to stop seeing Wikipedia in terms of "rules" and "policies" and to start thinking more in terms of "good ideas" and implementing those good ideas by means of communication with human beings..

See: WP:VPP#We need to encourage users to think critically. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading it. We agree on more than you might think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Levon V of Armenia move request

If you want, revisit the move request at Talk:Levon V of Armenia that you attempted to close and review additional comments. I will propose a systematisation of all the monarchs of Armenian Cilicia, i.e., a move to English names including Leo and a dropping of titles before names, following your decision. — AjaxSmack 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of line user

Since you were there cleaning up after User:TJ Spyke, perhaps you can speak to him about how to properly discuss issues with other users. TJ was extremely rude to me, took the conversation to someone else's user page for what looked like the sole purpose of discrediting me, continued to badmouth me for things that I actually did not do on the Request for Move page, and his actions (Even if I could believe was done to improve Wikipedia) were pretty messy as you are aware.

He edited another user's entry on a talk page, correct me if I'm wrong but that is a mistake for any purpose, and needlessly changed a Navbox. He violated more policy that he upheld and caused a lot of article damage that will take a while to fix. In his haste he completely overlooked the fact that a discussion about the article names was being held on one of the pages. His changes were actually only half correct, he didn't bother to research the proper spelling of the names of some of the titles and just made a bad problem worse.

I'm going to talk to him about this, and revert his changes that were made in error, but I would like a mod to back me up so that it doesn't turn into dirt kicking. Thanks for your help. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually know anything about the naming dispute, but was just clearing backlog at WP:RM. As far as the other user's behavior, I might be able to say something if you point me to a page where there's any dirt involved. I would suggest that you can handle it yourself by applying good dispute resolution skills. Just remember not to let it get personal, and if all else fails, go get more people. The more you can treat a content dispute as a content dispute and not let it become a personality dispute the better. Do let me know if I can be of more specific assistance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WIARRM

From Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" really means:

According to your model, the person who is right wins, whether or not he manages to convince a consensus of others.

Exactly. The person who is right wins, Even if they lose.

How should it be any other way?

• Descriptive policy: "The person who is right never loses."
• Prescriptive policy: "The person who is right should sometimes lose."

Which do you believe in? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you retired. :p You're still not replying to the substantive issue I've raised. How - by what mechanism - does the person who's right win? You've got no answer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there GTB. (Sadly, but only for a while.) Cheers, Newbyguesses - Talk 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting an RfC on JzG's conduct here if you'd like to participate. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Me and several other editors have been drafting an RfC on JzG here. We listed efforts by you to influence his behavior in the past but don't necessarily expect you to be one of the certifiers for the RfC. But, if you'd to look it over and tell us if you think anything that we listed is unfair or inaccurate before we post it, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)