Template:Attempting school wikibreak

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

Hello, wiki-world. I've just begun the third semester of my Ph.D. program, and it seems to be up a level or two from last year. My classes (Group representations & Lie groups, Measure Theory, Algebraic Geometry) are harder, and my teaching duties more challenging (I'm breaking in a new class format). At least after I pass one more qual, I'll get a raise.

As indicated by the template at the top of the page, I can't say I'll be reliably present here for a while. I'm certain to make edits, and maybe even log in, but they'll be gnomish edits, like the redirect I just created for Qual. I have no idea how long it will last, and I might not reply promptly to talk page messages.

I hope to keep tabs on WP:INCUBATE and help out from time to time. Of course I'll honor what I've said more than once, that if the project goes belly-up and needs to be put down, I'll push the button. I may even mix a metaphor. I'm more worried about entropy and inertia that I am about explosions, to be honest.

Ok, enough paragraphs. I go now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend can u send me some pics taken from mombasa, Keneya?

I am from beijing china, sunliping

my email: sunliping0213@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.56.191 (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 17:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Were you aware that I had previously closed the RM discussions related to WP:FOOD before my edits were reverted by the nominator? If so, no big deal, just wanted to make sure you knew about it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware; thanks for pointing that out. :/ -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the situation, I would have liked to see some indication of the previous closure and reversion thereof. That said, I see no reason to revert the move now. If the editor in question is showing some interest in otherwise inactive projects, and can maybe get some activity going in them, I say let him move 'em around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still around? I and some others are visiting DFW for New Years, and want to have a meetup: Wikipedia:Meetup/Dallas-Fort_Worth. Hope to see you again :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great comment on the Wikiquette alerts page. You said it all.(olive (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello GTBacchus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 939 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Arthur Phillips - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you and I don't know one another but I'm sure you heard of me by now. I just want you to know I commented at the alert about Wildhartlivie since I was given notice I've been talked about. Just so you know I didn't inflame anything and hopefully what I've said is acceptable to all who has commented. I forgot the dif, sorry, but it's under Wildhartlivie name. I did what I can to make a reasonable comment under the heated circumstances and I want you to check it out to see if it's acceptable to you. I am leaving the site now and will probably be back in the morning. If you have anything you need to say to me please do not hesitate to comment on my talk page. I want this all to stop too so if you wouldn't mind watching the Ted Bundy article and talk page that might do a lot to stop all of this. I think you will get a full picture of things at the talk page there. Some of it has gotten quite testy. I don't do testy and anger so you won't find me involved much unless things change a lot. I come for fun, if I want agrevation I have real life to deal that to me. I'm off for now, I hope you do agree to what I say at the alert. Have a nice evening/day and Happy New Year. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Hi again, one thing you didn't clarify that I would like to know, are you watching the Ted Bundy pages? I really do think that you being there as an outsider would help keep things from esculating again. Some have decided to just remove the judge's words for now until the movies can be verified which I think is a good idea, well it was my idea but that's beside the point. I would just feel better if there was someone watching and able to jump in if things get moving again. Thanks again, glad I got to see your comment this morning, and even more glad I went to bed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry never mind, I just saw your comments there so, thank you for helping us out with this. You are very much appreciated for helping here, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no I can't necessarily see the message at the top of the page on the phone because the screen isn't fully visible and must be navigated with my finger touch to maniuplate and move it around. The last time I was trying to view the comments you made to Chronie was the second, and last unintentional rollback - it was only at that time that I saw "Action Completed" and realized what happened. When I got home and saw the messages, etc. - that's when I knew for sure what happened. Sorry for the confusion. I would never *ever* intentionally abuse any rights I have been given in Wikipedia (or anywhere, for that matter - heck, I don't even speed when driving ;-). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I can see how using a very small screen would make things awkward. I'm such a Luddite, my telephone is only good as a calculator, stopwatch, calendar, address book, alarm clock, and... what is it?... oh, making telephone calls. ;) I can't browse the 'Net with it, so I probably fail to appreciate those limitations. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regard to your instructions to, "Say nothing about Wildhartlivie, and if she talks about you in any way, just let me know, in 50 words or less. Don't say anything about Wildhartlivie except to let someone know - in 50 words or less - if she talks about you." Well - here goes...

Looking through the history of posts on the WQA page (there are so many now, it's hard to wade through them outside of the edit history), I read Livie's comments that read, "You have nothing except my support for User:LaVidaLoca, User:Crohnie and User:Vidor as evidence against me. You seem to have left out Equazcion, who also posted against you. Should he be notified as well? Also, since you posted that you want others entire username used in posts, show other editors the "courtesy" you demand. If it seems the entire Wikipedia world is against you, then perhaps self-examinination is in order. I have notified User:Vidor and User:Crohnie of this accusation that we are all bullies." She then proceeded to post what I see as nothing more than "gossip" designed to stir the pot and, indeed, start a fight and encourage bad feelings from other editors in my direction. Here are the diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

BTW - I never mentioned Chronie nor Equazcion nor "a conspiracy of bullies" as Livie is claiming. What's more, she further lied when she stated to the other two editors (with whom I have never even spoken, IIRC) that "other unnamed editors" were implicated.

(p.s. - I know this is more than 50 words, but the majority of them were Livie's, not mine ;-)

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now, unbelievably, Livie actually continues commenting about me in Vidor's page. In response to Livie's "message" about the so-called "conspiracy" left on Vidor's talk page, Vidor answered thusly, [6] and Livie almost immediately replied, [7]. As I predicted, she's not going to stop. It's just going to go on and on and on no matter how many suggestions or warnings she gets. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I just got back from dinner, and I'll have a look. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MY perception of "leaving me alone" extends to not wikistalking my edits, and looking for reasons to tattle. This entire thing took place about 8 hours before this posting, I notified Crohnie and Vidor about the WP:WQA because in response to a posting by User:LaVidaLoca, Skag stated "it won't make a bit of differance in how bullying editors like Livie, Vidor, and LaVida operate in Wikipedia." That is naming a group of editors you characterize as bullies, thus naming a "conspiracy of bullies" who you claim "Secondly, in the Ted Bundy article, please be honest and admit that you, Chronie, and now Vidor, have been doing what you can to stick it to me". That is claiming a conspiracy. We were characterized as a group of bullying editors and Crohnie had a right to know she was being discussed. Since Equazcion had posted on the WQA and was mentioned, it seemed prudent to inform him as well. This was done before a "truce" was reached and I notified two other editors that there was an issue. And your "tattle tale" post was done well after anything was posted anywhere, although you did manage to rollback the post I left for Crohnie that was reverted in the midst of your stalking of my edits. Stop stalking my talk page postings, Skag and your world won't seem so burdened. Stop tattling and claiming that we purposely try to "intimidate the complaintant". Yes, I replied to Vidor's comment about your being a drama queen with "at least". Agreeing with that statement was not speaking against you, per se, as much as agreeing with it. You should be aware that there are plenty of emails flying back and forth and it doesn't take anything from me to encourage a dim view of all your antics the last 10 or so days with others. It's already there. But I promise, if this sort of wikistalking keeps up and my posts end up on a "very serious injury list" like the page that was deleted, a WP:RfC/U will be filed and it will cover far more than this dispute. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize... most of this is meaningless to me. I don't buy 1/3 of the complaints I get about other editors; I look into it. You needn't worry that I'll get the wrong idea, because I'm not an idiot. I can read time stamps, for example.

SkagitRiverQueen, it appears that the posts you're talking about occurred before our agreements on WQA earlier. Let's let bygones be bygones now. Pursuing this further is disruptive. Focus on edits; stop talking about each other. Both of you. Blocks will follow, soon. The first one to drop it wins. Win, now. So far, you're both losing, because you're continuing to talk about the other.

SkagitRiverQueen, you are not injured by these posts of Wildharlivie. Wildhartlivie, you are not injured by these posts of SkagitRiverQueen. What is so hard about dropping it? Race each other to be first. Drop it for good, and leave it dropped. Get good at ignoring crap. Do it now. Neither of you will be happy if this escalates, so get good at turning the other cheek. Start now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you are tired of this garbage, however, what I don't get is why I am now being chastised for doing what *you* told me to do. Regardless of what happened when ...oh, never mind. Just color me completely confused while simultaneously "drop[ping] it". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that the water you're talking about was already under the bridge. I've made that kind of mistake, too; it happens. Let's get past it now. You're not in trouble, and you're not being blamed for anything. Just let's move on. Wildhartlivie seems to be willing to let it go, so let's meet him halfway on that, and let it go. Okay? Shouldn't we be talking about Ted Bundy by now? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Isn't he dead?  ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GTBacchus. Happy new year. If you're not sleeping or taking a break, could you delete my five sandbox pages and one page tagged for CSD 6[8]? Thanks.--Caspian blue 07:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to you too. :) I've deleted those pages; let me know if I missed anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you did the job nicely. :-) --Caspian blue 07:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about your posting WP:WQA where you say that you never use those warning templates with registered accounts. I don't have any idea about their effectiveness but how else can a non-admin get a vandal blocked? I do not follow WP:AIV very closely as I'm not running too often into persistent vandals, but I've got the impression that without using these templates you just get a "user was insufficiently warned" response. --Jaellee (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are quite a few of us who are willing to block for as few as 1 or 2 vandalistic edits, when their nature is extremely clear and the user has no productive history. This user has been around for a while, but the warnings on their talk page now are certainly sufficient for us to issue a block at the next "nazi" or otherwise clearly disruptive edit.

When I said that I rarely use those templates with registered users, I just meant that I type out a warning instead. The templates, I use for IP's, but for people with names, I think the human touch makes a huge difference. What Floquenbeam wrote counts as a level-4 warning.

I'd say a fine way, as a non-admin, to deal with this kind of situation is something like: (A) One note on their talk page, preferably not a template, (B) notify admins.

The latter can be done various ways, with different possible outcomes. If you post to AN/I, you may get an instant positive response, or you may be crushed under boulders before you know what happened. Posting to WQA is often helpful, although you'll sometimes draw the kind of response where they ignore the information you're bringing and attack you. I don't know anything about AIV; I've never used that board.

Keeping an admin or two on your speed-dial is a pretty good way - you're certainly welcome to tug on my sleeve - because it can be someone you already know. The trouble is that we're not each always online.

One more idea, and then I'll stop typing: The talk page of the article where the vandalism occurred is likely to be populated by editors who don't like seeing that article vandalized, and one or more of them might be admins. I hope these suggestions are helpful; thank you for helping to protect the Wiki! -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inputs on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Wikiquette request on User:WeisheitSuchen and for putting your points of view. Best. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. Take care. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings came from "admin" and I asked him not to visit to my talk page. I can not get away from Badagnani since his and my interests are too much overlapped , while I've effectively avoided Ronz by not editing some overlapped articles ever since the incident. Whether I like or not, I have to make a way to work with Badagnani, but I don't feel the need or leeway for Ronz's aggressive behavior. I've suggested him "Let's avoid each other", so I want to continue the method for us. --Caspian blue 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I guess I misunderstood about the warning. I'll go back and see if I should refactor that comment. I agree that you and Ronz avoiding each other is a fine idea. I would suggest that you'll get there faster if you refrain from repeating accusations against him, because those tend to prolong, rather than end, our interactions with those we wish to avoid. Pretend he doesn't exist, perhaps? When someone talks about me and my "aggressive behavior," I'm almost certain to reply in my own defense, and I'm unlikely to go away until I know they've stopped talking about me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticaeo (talk · contribs)

Spoke with them on their talk page, everything's been sorted out. I screwed up, apparently they weren't try to spam at all. I showed them how to do it correctly. Can you unblock them so I can get some sleep? Sorry, I just need an online admin and you were there. :) Sorry. Thanks. ALI ^{nom nom} 03:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU SO MUCH! :D Sorry about that, good night. ALI ^{nom nom} 03:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I feel like a wholesale campaign to go about removing the country of birth, or in some cases, the country of death, from the infobox is unproductive and borders on overt vandalism. I left edit summaries regarding that on the pages where other edits had occurred. There is no content dispute of which I am aware. I've seen such sorts of edits rollbacked in other cases. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		The Barnstar of Diplomacy is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia. This barnstar is awarded to GTBacchus for his efforts in helping resolve disputes, always keeping a cool head, and making wikipedia a better community. You probably don't get thanked enough for your valiant efforts. Thank you. Ikip 03:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ikip. I'm all too aware of my bungled attempts at diplomacy, so I'm glad I come across right some percentage of the time. I guess I.... I dunno, love this project or something. Pain in the neck, isn't it, caring about stuff? ;) -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this award. Thank you for your valuable input at Talk:Black Dahlia and WP:WQA. You have the enviable ability to defuse tense situations. Kudos! momoricks 02:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-mailed you. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 05:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit in which SkagitRiverQueen made an overt accusation of vote canvassing. This is an untenable situation here that must be stopped. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to sleep, and tomorrow I'm taking a Ph.D. qualifying exam for 8 hours. After that, I might have a chance to log on and look at this situation, or I might not. After the next two days, I'll be made of free time.

If you haven't been canvassing, then overt accusations of canvassing are pretty harmless. They're not going to get in the way of your editing; so I'd ignore them if you can. If you must respond, just respond in context, note that you haven't been canvassing, and try not to hit back with any kind of accusation at all.

The idea is not to be right, not to have the last word, not to let the truth be said. The idea is to end the dispute, and the first one to stop entirely wins. Try winning. If she's out of line, eventually there will be people enough to file an RfC, etc. Otherwise, we all just move on. If you knew the insults I've refrained from replying to on this website... The winner is the one who ignores, rises above, and edits the encyclopedia. I speak from experience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My best wishes for your success in the exam. Congratulations on persevering through to this point :) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on your exams. I hope you do well. I filed a WP:WQA report on it and other editors are speaking up about this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to ask you to look at this report. I can ignore a lot of things here at Wikipedia but I can not ignore someone looking for someone outside the project to find out who they are and SkagitRiverQueen admits to looking for Wildhartlivie on the net. I'm sorry but this I will not ignore because it's a safety issue. Even though SRQ was wrong about it being Wildhartlivie, she didn't know it. This behavior has to stop. I've heard stories about this kind of behavior and it's not good. Just think User New York Brad and User:Durova just to name two that had this problem. Thanks for listening and good luck in school. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off to school now... thanks for the kind wishes! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Luck GTB, and for later ... Hope it went very well.(olive (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you, Olive. I think it did go well. I should find out within a week :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, in what field is the PhD? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in mathematics. This particular qualifying exam covered algebra - abstract and linear. My specialization is going to be number theory, but first there's a core curriculm to work through. Gettin' there :).

As for now... I've got a little bit of free time to put in some Wikipedia work. There's an article I'd like to write before classes resume, so we'll see about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I responded to you at the WikiAlert. I saw what you wrote to User:SkagitRiverQueen and at the alert. I liked what you said and I am willing to watch and learn. See you there. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...why not take full advantage of that fact? Why undermine yourself? Wouldn't it be better not to do that? Come on, make it easy for me to support you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wasn't kidding about the monograph On Bullshit. Two prestigious publications have tied the subject author to that and a related philosophical essay. I explain that further on the article talk page. I am not attacking any individual WP editor. I am taking a stand against the history of giving the author (Horowitz) free advertising space in this and numerous articles on Wikipedia and free rein to attack his personal/political enemies while crushing those who disagree or who fight back against his frequent attacks that are often based on falsehoods. Skywriter (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're kidding, but I don't think you're helping yourself as well as you can, either. If you're serious about that monograph, your smartest strategy is to not mention it. That's if you want things to be easy, not hard. Your call. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really dealt with this, but I'm about to file a request for comments on user behavior on SkagitRiverQueen regarding her wikistalking my edits. She popped up at Black Dahlia, an article upon which she had never previously edited, to revert something I removed and has maintained a overly long, ridiculously drawn out discussion with editors there. Next she popped up at Charles Manson, also an article upon which she had not previously edited, to throw herself into an issue I was involved in and making unsupported statements, which she proceeded to edit war over. She then joined WP:CRIME, a project in which I'm active. Just slightly over an hour after her block expired, at yet another article where she had not previously edited and which is not heavily edited or followed, Robert Hansen, she reverted an edit I made, which appeared to be vandalism to me since the alias was not mentioned in the article or was accompanied by a reference, intimating her opinion that it wasn't vandalism [9], and posted to me her personal affirmation that "He is referred to as such in at least one documentary about him, several websites refer to him as such, and he is even referenced in Wikipedia's article on human hunting as a human hunter. Will you now change it back?" I declined, saying "If you want it back, do so and add a proper reference supporting the name was in use when he was active. I don't plan to revert my edit because someone says they read it before or it is included on some websites or it was included in documentaries. Neither is it referenced on the page Human hunting. That is not properly citing the use, which is absent on that page. Please don't follow around on my editing and make cases that aren't supported by proper referencing." Note that I clearly asked her to stop following me around and judging my edits. She did not bother to find and add a reference to the alias she alleged is well documented. She then showed up on Charles Whitman, a focus of frequent vandalism and another article upon which she had not previously edited, to revert an edit, which appeared to me to vandalism (changing the word left to right, which I read to be referring to the image placement), continuing to drop edit summaries challenging the rollback, I removed the confusing wording and again stated to stop wiki-stalking me. All of this appears to me to be a campaign to get my rollback removed. Assuming good faith is one thing, but how else is someone supposed to interpret her sudden interest in edits I make? The next time this happens, I will open the WP:RfC/U. I am approaching you about this because you urged us to do so, but editors have privately been urging me to do the RfC/U. This is untenable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure what to tell you. I generally recommend dealing with edits on their own terms, and letting the personal stuff come out in the wash. What I'm hearing from you is that you don't feel that's working. My usual advice at that point is to go ahead and file the RfC, because carrying that stuff around doesn't help anyone.

If you're willing to accept informal mediation, I can do that, but otherwise, I can't really tell you anything I haven't already said. If you want the mediation, I've got conditions that have to be acceptable to all parties, but I won't start that conversation unless someone asks me to.

Potentially, having someone challenge your edits is a blessing, because it makes everything better, but if the chemistry isn't there, that never really comes to be. I don't know; what would you like to hear from me? What do you seek, posting here? In other words: I hear what you're saying; how can I help you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't help carrying things around. I have a heatlh problem that involves heavy bleeds inside my eyes, which impair my vision. If I have anything to blame for errors I make when I read something, that would be the culprit. I had extensive laser surgery in September and my vision was clearing up, and when this entire thing arose the week of Christmas, I ended up having a severe bleed in one eye - blowing $1500 worth of laser surgery out with the trash. It's not a nice feeling, seeing a username that has never ever been somewhere before pop up in new places and question your edits and do so in a way that makes me feel like that wascally wabbit, Bugs Bunny, being followed around by Elmer Fudd. I guess what I was hoping by posting here was that you had some sort of influence with this editor and could persuade her to back off and stop making her presence so painfully obvious by popping up in my "Wiki-world" as she has been. I don't relish battles, and this feels like one to me. I have not approached her or touched her edits or challenged her in any way since this was supposedly settled last week. I don't care where she is or what is going on, until it effects me. My ex-husband didn't stalk me this much and he was ordered to stop. What really seems to make it stalking is questioning the removal of the Robert Hansen addition and when I told her how to fix it, it wasn't worth her time. I hate to file a RfC/U, because I know what that will bring, but geez, I want it to stop. I'm not trying to whine, but somewhere deep inside me is a little girl's voice saying "but... she won't stop bothering me!" If you look at her contributions, I'd venture to say that 95% of them in the last month have been related to either me or an article on which she jumped after seeing me there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say she's watching here. Let's see what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astute observation. The next time this happens, the WP:RfC/U goes up. I'm aware that other editors have content to add to one. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too think it's time to file. I don't know if it will help but I would say it's worth the trouble. I've been on Wildhartlivie's articles, but only a few, either by invitation or because I asked for help on an article. That being said, if you compare our edit histories to one another you will see our watchlists are quite different. With my health issues sometimes I have trouble finding the words or making the edit correctly which is when I go to a trusted friend and ask for help. I have multiple editors that help me out, Wildhartlivie and another editor involved in the crime articles are the ones I go to for help in that area because they are knowledgable about the crime articles and proper formatting and information. To have an editor follow you around has to be very stressful. The one with the edit summary saying that SkagitRiverQueen didn't think it was vandalism even caught me by surprise. First off it's not assuming good faith at all and second you could actually look at what happened that shows why Wildhartlivie made that error. That edit was started by vandalism which was reverted. There was absolutely no reason for it to be considered vandalism by Wildhartlivie if one actually looked at what Wildhartlivie was reverting. It's an easy mistake to make and something the vandals do on purpose. That little comment made an anon IP's day. In closing, it's obvious that SRQ is following Wildhartlivie around and it needs to stop. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie, I'm not sure which episode you're referring to, about an IP and an edit that might or might not have been vandalism. There was an IP messing around on Talk:Black Dahlia last night, and if I hadn't gone to sleep when I did, they would have been blocked a lot sooner than they were. That was a bunch of nonsense, but I didn't see any relation to SkagitRiverQueen. I'm sure I haven't seen the whole story.

I'm in touch with SkagitRiverQueen, and we'll see what happens. If enough people think it's time to file an RfC/U, then there will be an RfC/U. Personally, I think it's possible for everyone to back away from this conflict, but we'll see what everyone does. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Charles Whitman Article. I really do hope for a quiet resolution to all of this. I think it can easily be solved by asking User:SkagitRiverQueen to stop following User:Wildhartlivie from article to article. I think that's the first step. I would also prefer that the conversations be done here so all can see what is being discussed but obviously I have no control over that. It just seems it would be more beneficial for all concerned though to see what she has to say. I just think this has gone on for way too long and it all needs to stop which I am sure everyone will agree. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm just not sure that SRQ is actually following WHL from article to article. I think their areas of interest overlap in crime biographies, and there's no rule against that. There's a possibility of confirmation bias, because any edit that SRQ makes to one of WHL's watchlisted articles is going to appear to WHL as stalking - that doesn't mean it is. Ultimately, these two are going to have to work alongside each other, and that means no restraining orders. Wildhartlivie is going to have to tolerate SkagitRiverQueen's presence, and vice-versa.

As for all conversations happening on-wiki, both of these parties have emailed me, and I'm willing to be an off-wiki sounding board if either of them needs it. Venting one's frustration is not always best done publicly.

The fact is, SRQ is going to edit articles that WHL edits. WHL is going to edit articles that SRQ edits. Any disputes that arise on these articles are ultimately about content, and not about people. If both parties can keep a razor-focus on edits, then the conflict is already over. If Wildhartlivie sees SkagitRiverQueen revert something, the real question is, "was it a good edit or not?" That question has nothing to do with "WP:HOUND" or any other behavior policy.

Do you see my position here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what your saying. I wish you luck on this. I just know what I've seen. The poking also needs to be stopped which is part of this problem. If things can get civil I don't think there would be a problem. Anyways, I'll bow out, for now at least, and see if you can get things better than they have been. Good luck to all, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The poking also needs to be stopped". Aaaaaa-men. It helps a little to remember that button-pushing tends to be a response to feeling persecuted and powerless. That feeling exists on both sides; we're all made of the same stuff. The Catholics and Protestants managed to stop shooting each other in Ireland; surely a few Wikipedia editors can stop poking each other. We're all on the same team, and our common opponent is ignorance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. If it makes you feel better, you put a smile on my face today! :) Have a good one, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was raising some AfDs on redirect pages that contained the acronym IIPM. However, by mistake I raised an AfD on the above link. Can you help me undo it? Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've cleared up all the spurious pages. Let me know if I missed anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will check. Best ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if and how WP:AMDB might be used to get other admins to look at the Badagnani ANI. Do you think it's appropriate to just contact a few listed admins who have been active this month? Since you're on the list, I thought you might have some insight. --Ronz (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated IIPM advertising controversy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIPM advertising controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Per my mention at User_talk:Badagnani#1RR_and_other_comments, I wanted to briefly raise the issue of your comments at User talk:Ronz#Badagnani. I had only given it a skimming read, as I was in the midst of trying to compose a concise reply to Badagnani, and hence the remarks "I think he should be banned permanently" and "I want Badagnani gone" and "I think he should get the hell out" jumped out at me as particularly undiplomatic.

However, near the end, I now see that you said, "Eventually, we're in agreement regarding Badagnani. If he starts communicating with others in a productive way, it would be great to have him on board. Otherwise, he'll have to go." I'm in complete agreement with that statement. I had forgotten how little response I got from him after all the attempts to explain I made in July. I haven't seen any signs of his understanding how some of his edits directly fail the RS and EL guidelines, nor any sign of acknowledging the legitimacy and pertinence of conflicting viewpoints.

If he makes an effort to adapt, then I'll probably continue to try to help him. Otherwise, his conflict-resolution avoidance makes mediation impossible. (no reply needed, but ramble if you want to. (the words of the day are flâneur and peripatetic)) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Flâneur", wow. That's cool, and I like any connotation or shade of meaning that Baudelaire is personally responsible for. That guy possessed a roommate of mine when I was an undergrad - creepy! I'm glad I wrote on Hume; he can inhabit your soul and you're still functional...

Anyway. I understand why you would react to that post I made. I prefer not to post to Wikipedia when I'm feeling strongly enough to talk that way, and I advise others not to post when they're feeling that way. However, I'm not always able to follow all my own advice (nor Hume's). My "wanting him gone" is an expression of my pessimism that he'll understand and adapt, and my anger with myself for screwing up when I tried to mediate the situation. I find myself wanting the whole situation to go away, in the form of Badagnani leaving, so that's how it comes out when I'm venting. It's not the best side of me, but I'm not going to deny anything I've expressed. That's how I was feeling, right then, and I still feel a good chunk of that way. It's not right or wrong; it is what it is.

My being wrong in this case would be really cool, and I'm ready to eat as much pride as would be called for in that event. I have no idea what could make it happen, though.

I thank you, Quiddity, for the invitation to ramble; I'll stop now. Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but for the record, when someone keeps shoving "I'm making improvements" to something with which you do not agree, I don't think saying to stop do that is extreme, not in the realm of what all has been said. JohnBonaccorsi, myself and another editor worked for days and weeks to come up with agreeable wording, and this seems assaultive to me, especially since I do not agree with the "improvements". I've mostly stayed out of the fray, simply because of the history with that editor. However, for the record, I can't see that I would disagree with John on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was extreme. I think you can appreciate what I'm trying to do though, yes? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate what you're trying to do. I'd have to comment though, that dropping the thought that other editors or administrators might be contacted to determine if an AN/I report was necessary was fairly inflammatory. The response to the protest about it was even worse. Those sorts of things are not at all progressive and invite conflict. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's truth in what you say. I try to give uniform advice all around, and you can be sure that I'll notice and reply to any content that seems not to be focused on improving the article. People need to vent when they're frustrated; a big part of the trick is separating that from the work. The cycle of remark, followed by protest, followed by response to protest... etc. — that cycle's got to be broken, eventually, or at least moved to somewhere else. However, until it's actually time to file an AN/I or WQA or RFC/U, there's really not much to say that's going to help.

If we can't find a path to peaceful editing, then it's gonna have to escalate somewhere, but I'm not close to that point yet. I've seen worse problems worked out on this wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty frustrating when someone new comes in and starts tearing everything apart. Editors don't seem to realize that to get an article to the shape the Manson article is in takes a huge degree of discussion and consensus. When someone comes in and starts rewriting it en masse, not only does it invite disagreement, it is insulting to the regular editors there. It gets worse when the regular editors are disparaged for objecting. John is the primary editor there, followed by myself, I guess. He's the main authority around here on what sources say what. It's taken a lot of work to protect it from marauding POV editors and sometimes it is hard to tell who that is at first. Some of us actually vent via email. Some of us do a lot. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the note you left on my talk page. When I saw it, I was in the midst of posting once again on the Manson talk page. I decided to proceed with the Manson talk-page post. It's in the section headed "Revision of 00:56, 14 January" and is timed 04:52, 14 January.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. I do see what you're trying to do, but I have sincere doubts that SkagitRiverQueen will go along with that. There was a lot of work done previously to that article, most of which I watched and didn't join, but it was hard work. I find her writing to not be grammatical or interesting in anyway. What I saw was bland and frequently incorrect. Thanks for contacting me. LaVidaLoca (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question: Could I ask why you contacted Wildhartlivie, JohnBonaccorsi and myself about this but I didn't see a posting to SkagitRiverQueen? LaVidaLoca (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a totally fair question. SRQ and I are in touch via email, but I could post something to her talk page here, if that display of uniformity would be helpful. I figure I've addressed her pretty directly right on the talk page, too. I get the feeling that she feels rather persecuted on that page, and it's good for her to see that I'm looking at everyone's participation.

I understand that you've already gone through a lot of your patience in this situation, but to do what I do, I've got to make a good-faith attempt to work it out without escalating to any formal DR. If nothing works, then I'll be there to give a neutral account of how it all went wrong. I don't assume we'll go south, though. (If I did, I'd be a pretty bad mediator!) -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to post to her page just to satisfy me. I trust that you have talked to her. I have to support what Wildhartlivie said about new editors on pages that are fairly stable. New editors don't appreciate bulldozer editing on established, high-profile pages like the Manson one. I hope this can be resolved. Forgive me if I'm skeptical. :) LaVidaLoca (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, SkagitRiverQueen posted a put down of the efforts fo all the other editors on this page, characterizing them as "drawing childish lines in the sand or are polarized and rigid" and said her life was too full to mess with the Manson article. I posted a reply, with only a small comment that could be considered "rude and incivil" as she claimed at WP:AN/I. John posted a short and terse reply as well. This was her response. There is nothing in that post but personal attacks, rudeness and incivility. When is this insanity and pissy comments to and about so many other editors going to end? LaVidaLoca reverted it as a "overt and hostile personal attack", which she reverted, saying "No, leave it there - if everyone else's personal attacks stay, then my comment should also stay", and reverted the NPA warnign with "Please - *do* get over yourself and stop being such a hypocrite.", whereupon LaVidaLoca left her another NPA warning. Someone needs to stop this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are still trying to mediate or not. These edits were disputed which you are aware since you asked questions that were left unanswered. If you will take a look and give an opinion or if you are not involving yourself anymore just let me know. At this point I just don't care. I find it offensive a bit to have a discussion at length just to be ignored because a few days have passed. I am considering just removing the article from my watchlist but I hesitate since I've been watching this article for awhile. But I am exhausted with all the controversary and ignoring of editors. We are supposed to work on a consensus when editing is disputed. I do not do edit wars or any of that so if it is better for me to go somewhere else to avoid a bad situation that won't be helped then please tell me so. I just feel that we should use the talk to discuss major editing and find a consensus before implementing any changes like has just been done. I've seen this work on multiple articles like Chiropractor. No big edits are allowed there without a discussion for a few days or even longer, when a consensus is reached then the article gets changed. The way it's going at Charles Manson, bold, revert, discuss should not be used at this point. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been offline for the last couple of days; I'm sorry to have missed so much. I'm very, very tired right now, but I'll be back tomorrow, and look in on what's going on. I hope everyone has the best evening they're able to, and I'll see you all soon. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, I'm leaving it for awhile. It's too rude and stressed out for me right now. There is a lot going on since you were last here. That being said, not everything seems to be like it looks though. Not going into that right now though. Anyways, like I said, take your time. I hope you enjoyed your time away. I also hope school is going well for you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GTBacchus! I have two questions about "archiving" talk pages that I hope you can help me with. 1.) I set up MizaBot III on my talk page as per instructions provided, but it still hasn't bothered to archive anything! Could you check my userpage for the script and hopefully tell me what I did wrong? 2.) Could we have the Charles Manson talk page archived? It's like a novel! I'm glad to see that things are cooling down a little bit, but the verbosity is astounding. I encourage all the debate concerning the content wholeheartedly - I was just wondering if maybe we could archive the older stuff so as to not make this talk page quite so cumbersome. Thanks for your time! :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with that talk page being archived, but I know nothing about archive bots and their settings. Sorry I can't help with that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have commented here that I posted to Doc's page about the archiving. No problem, it should be ok now. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, both of you!  :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bacchus Hi :) Whenever you have time, do drop in here and call a spade a spade :) Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments, as an administrator, directed at me are surprising and also heated. [10] where you wrote--What is stopping you, and keeping you arguing on this page instead of fixing everything NOW?

It is my understanding that editors try to work things out on the talk page, that articles evolve over time. Why don't I fix everything now? Wow. I thought Wikipedia was collaborative. I work a full-time job and have other responsibilities. I thought Wikipedia was a volunteer endeavor, not a topdown company where workers take orders. I've contributed for five years to Wikipedia and have never before had an administrator demand "What is stopping you, and keeping you arguing on this page instead of fixing everything NOW?"

I want to add that this feels like bullying. I ask that you stop. Skywriter (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out why you've been yelling at me, honestly. You've seemed hostile from the start, and I don't understand where you're coming from. I'm completely ready to work together with you, but so far you've avoided answering questions I've asked. What's up?

I'm not trying to tell you what to do. I'm trying to understand why you, who clearly have other things to do in your life, are doing something the extremely hard, time-intensive way, instead of the sensible, quick way.

If you think a topic is non-notable, then nominating the article for deletion is the sensible way to react. Not nominating it for deletion means you want to spend enormously more time arguing about it. That makes no sense.

If you think an article needs fixing, you have many options -- many that are legal, in terms of any policy you care to cite. One option is to make the edit that needs to be made, and then work from there. Another option is to simply yell at people (like myself) arriving at the talk page who try to ask what's going on. You seem to have chosen the latter, and I don't know why.

My ears are wide open, and I want to fix the article that you want to fix. Do you want to argue with me more, or do you want to accept the support I'm offering you? Do you want to waste time, or get something done? Why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to improve the article, or to use its talk page as a forum to argue? If you're trying to improve the article, can you show me what edit you'd like to see made? So far, I've seen you accuse and IP of being a sock, I've seen you edit war, and I've seen you ask a completely irrelevant question about whether reliable sources "recommend" the book, when that has no connection to any policy that I know of. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My activity through the month of January on this article shows I have worked to improve it by adding text. I don't think the book is notable. Do you? Do you also think the argument against notability can be won? Skywriter (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been offline for some time. I think I took an entirely inappropriate tone on the talk page there, and I apologize for going off on you.

I don't know whether the book is notable or not. I think that the proper way to test that question is by running an AfD, which is a perfectly legitimate and good-faith thing to do. It's how we question notability, if simply asking the question on the talk page doesn't work.

There is a clear and objective criterion to meet - if you're asserting the non-notability of the book, then you're saying it doesn't meet that criterion. That's what you're saying, right? In that case, I can see no reason to delay the article's deletion. We're not trying to keep articles on non-notable topics so people can argue about them. Flush it out, and get on with something notable.

If, on the other hand, the book does meet our notability criterion, then there's no sense continuing to claim that it's non-notable. It's not really a matter of opinion; the criterion is objective. Thus, there's no sense arguing about it. We just answer the question: yes or no? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think talking on the talk page did some good in that it forced out links to reliable sources who reviewed the book. I reviewed the links and added them to the article. I don't know whether they've been reverted. Ronz said the objective criterion for notability is two RS. When that criterion was met, I agreed that it met that standard. (I haven't had time to check if that is indeed the standard.) The issue now on that page is whether that long list of 100 people can be re-added to the page. I have argued that running it alone without responses from each person called "dangerous" violates BLP. Some people agreed and others say there is no consensus for that claim. What do you think? Skywriter (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why adding the list without also including responses is even on the table. Why not just add the list and critical responses?

Whether mentioning someone's presence on the list alone violates BLP is a question I'd like to see asked before a larger audience. I haven't personally seen how we handle any similar cases. I'd be curious what people at WT:BLP would say, or the people at WikiProject Biography. In the meantime, since there is a a potential BLP issue, it seems that we should err on the side of not including the full list until we've obtained more input and seen a consensus emerge.

That said, any documented replies by professors on the list indicate that those professors have publicly acknowledged their being in the book. Documenting their response necessarily reveals that they are, in fact, in the book. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors who edited WP:Incubator the most, I was thinking you maybe interested in the proposal inspired by several editors, my question isn't whether you like it, (although that opinion is important) my question is:

In your opinion, will the community as a whole support it?

The name of this suggested solution: Projectification is someone else's idea.

As an alternative there is this proposal, which does not involve "projectification" at all: Notifying wikiprojects

Again, do you think that this is viable, will the community as a whole support either proposal, if not why, and what would you change? Your welcome to boldly change any of the proposals as it stands.

I am messaging three other editors who are the most involved in creating WP:Incubator: Fritzpoll, Fences and Windows and ThaddeusB for their opinion on whether these two options are viable.

Thanks in advance for your opinion! you are welcome to email me too.

Please comment on that user page if possible... Ikip 03:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but will you please look in on Charles Manson and the reverts SkagitRiverQueen has made to a sentence and her rationale for doing so. It's bad enough the article keeps getting "dumbed down" but to reinsert an insulting phrase because I didn't complain about it before is simply over the line. What? She has to have the last word, whether it talks down to readers or not? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user created an account and immediately went to SRQ's talk page to deliver snarky comments. Seems like a vandal/sock. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:03, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(1) What's "extremely uncool" is pretty much all of what you left on my talk page.

(2) Don't ever come to my talk page and intentionally place profanity on it again. Ever.

(3) You're a day late and a dollar short, Tony. Lar has already addressed both of us. It's over with.

(4)I did not then, nor did I ever, attempt to "game" the system. Your accusation is not only way off base, but as far as I'm concerned it's insulting accusation without any basis in fact.

(5) I've asked you for advice and help on a few things a while back and you blew me off without ever getting back to me. Now you're issuing me warnings? Give me a break. While I appreciate the advice you've given in the past, I find it beyond insulting for you to blow me off and then blast onto my talk page with ultimatums and demands.

A while back you laid into me unjustly for doing something you told me to do. Now this. FYI: consistency and follow-through are both good character traits that mean a lot. In fact, they both go a lot further than the bull-in-the-china-shop approach you left on my talk page. (and I know you didn't ask for my advice - just consider it a freebie)

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the freebie. :)

There is no reason to edit war, ever. I tried my damndest to help with the Manson situation, and when we finally wrangled the discussion back on topic, you vanished. I was really disappointed. From where I'm sitting, it was you who blew me off. You wiped your ass with my advice.

Regarding your point (2), I don't take orders. Thanks for understanding. Regarding point (4), there is no excuse to revert ONE time, much less to play someone right to the edge, and then say "3RR is now in effect". "Don't ever edit war" is always in effect, and edit summaries like that should never be made. Edit summaries are not for talking about the other person (which you still foolishly do); they are for explaining constructive article edits. Reverts are nonsense, and you'd be very smart to NEVER REVERT ANY ARTICLE. Ever. (See, I can do the cute "Ever." thing, too! :p )

I didn't blow you off. You walked away after I took hours and hours out of my life to help you. You bitched and moaned about everyone reverting you, and when we finally got the talk page to a place where we could talk about the goddamned edits already, you evaporated. That disappoints me. Yes this is repetition. I was very disappointed.

I trust neither of you will ask me for help again, because you can be sure I've said my bit. You (just like your best friend WHL) have the solution to all disputes in your hands, but you refuse to use it. I don't give a shit. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally showing who you *really* are. At least this time you were honest. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was honest the whole time; don't flatter yourself that I have any reason to lie to you. I became upset because after I went out of my way for you, you blew me off, wiped your ass with my advice, and kept editing foolishly. Therefore, I wash my hands. I'll refrain from saying "I told you so" when it catches up with you. You can just consider it already said, now. Bye. I'm off to watchlist your RFC, and these other cats' RFCs.

Who I *really* am is both the person who's willing to go out of his way to help, and also the person who becomes hurt and upset when his assistance is shit upon. (That's what you did.) You pissed me off, because I'm imperfect and prone to being pissed off by some things. I don't like it.

I consider this discussion over. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who he really is, SRQ, is yet another person who was neutral, tried to help you, and is now fed up with you. One day I hope you wake up from this denial you're in about everyone else being at fault, and try taking a little advice from others occasionally. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:41, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, her criticism of my "bull-in-a-china-shop" post to her talk page is perfectly fair and correct. That posting was both intemperate and extremely unlikely to be helpful. I sometimes stop myself before posting that kind of shit, but today I failed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of her criticisms are merely excuses to not listen to you. She does that, finds "problems" or "inaccuracies" with the things people say when she doesn't want to listen to them. Once "discredited" she feels justified in avoiding the main points a person brought. I find it noble of you to respond apologetically, but she uses that against you. I'm not sure if it's premeditated or if it's a subconscious defense mechanism, but either way it's a farce. I used to respond in the same sort of way, apologize but try to reiterate the point, but she then does the same thing all over again, nitpicking so-called inaccuracies and taking "offense" at things in order to avoid the point. Ie. "Since you got this wrong I'm not listening to you." She doesn't want to listen to anyone and always finds an excuse. I'm now through saying "you're right, I shouldn't have said it that way," because that kind of response is her goal. And yes I'm aware this response might not be all that helpful to the situation, but I wanted you to understand that this is basically a repeat of what I went through with her, in case it helps clarify the situation at all for you. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:28, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)

And here you are, going on and on with the ad hominems. None of you wants this shit to end, do you? Fighting is so much more fun than collaborating. ALL remarks about other editors are worthless shit, always. From me, from you, from anyone: worthless shit. This is an encyclopedia, and when we talk about things other than edits, we're fucking wrong. End of story.

Go forth and edit. People don't exist. Articles exist.

That is what clarifies the situation for me. I'm not confused, just done with it. Again, her criticisms of me were fully valid and appropriate. Her behavior continues to be ridiculous. Whatever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants it to end more than I, but, as you just did in response to me, I was angry and vented. Whether I respond or not has nothing to do with whether or not this fight continues. I'm not really part of it anymore. I poke my head in once in a while when I think I have something useful to say, but it goes on quite diligently without my participation. If I could end it by shutting up, trust me, I would -- and have tried it. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:27, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we're understanding each other. The parties who continue to think it's fruitful to talk about each other, report each other, etc., etc.... these people have it in their power to just stop. Will they choose that? Experience says no.

I've been burned by enough of these situations that I've become quicker to burn out on it. If someone asks me for help and advice, and then doesn't even attempt to do what I suggest, I invest less of myself in that situation than I used to. I got tired of feeling like a chump for people who don't seem to give a shit. Now I beat them to the not-giving-a-shit punch. Is this progress? It's fucking depressing, is what it is. I'm going to log off and play Facebook games now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break then. At least a break from drama. I've cleared out all drama-infested pages from my watchlist on more than one occasion, when people who enjoy the fight so much that they're not interested in a resolution made things unpleasant. It can be refreshing to start over with some good old article editing. You can always return to try and help with the problematic editors later when you've got your cool head and perspective back. I'm of the firm belief that Wikipedia should not be so high a priority for anyone that it adds significant stress to their lives. It's just not that important. On the stress scale, Wikipedia should rank somewhere between mowing your lawn and deciding what color to paint your attic; any more than that, and it's break time, IMO. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:07, 11 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I drift away all the time. When I'm particularly annoyed, I don't even log in, but I still edit as an IP. :) It's not Wikipedia that bugs me, but the messes GTBacchus gets himself involved it. This particular episode can be viewed as part of a larger story that stretches back to '05, the first time I tried to get feuding Wikipedians to talk to each other. I live, I sometimes wipe out spectacularly, and I slowly learn. I'll still drink to that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been very helpful for you to have replied to the emails I sent you, or replied to the posts I left here to say you didn't want to be involved anymore. Noting here that you don't expect us to come to you anymore seems to be the goal, why couldn't that just have been said? "Um, don't bother me, folks. I don't wanna deal with you." would have been better stated quite some time ago. As it is, the snarky "just like your best friend WHL" was unhelpful and more than a little sarcastic. Thanks so much for your lack of help, which I've come to expect from administrators regarding this situation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that not expecting to hear from you was the "goal", no. I was pissed off, and the goal was venting those feelings. It's not a very worthwhile goal, is it?

At this point, yeah, I'm done with the situation. You have complete power to cure and fix the situation once and forever, by simply sticking to some basic rules of Wikipedia Chess. You and SRQ have shown yourselves unwilling or unable to do that, and at that point, I can't help. If I try, I fuck things up instead. Admins are not cops: expecting cop-like behavior is misguided, and when we act cop-like, we suck at everything.

If you won't do what it takes to solve your problems, then leave other people out of it. None of us can help you to help yourself. You have to be willing to do it. So far, you haven't been. I threw you a line, and you ignored it, so you're on your own. I don't get paid enough to deal with this bullshit.

Expect things from admins; you'll end up sad. Take the solution into your own hands and do what's right; you'll end up happy. I don't care which one you choose. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that your entry was commented out. I have moved it to the "Reconfirmation" section.

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're welcome to remove my name; I'm not actively coaching, nor available to do so in the foreseeable future. Thanks for the note. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[11] Someone moved it to an even more cumbersome title without discussion. Can you move it back? See here thanks Enigma^msg 17:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. :) Enigma^msg 23:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTBacchus, just tried editing same, said you deleted, then restored it. Wondering what's up? --G-41614 (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a little bit more than 3 years ago. I repaired a cut-and-paste move that someone had done, probably when I was working in requested moves. See the page logs. Are you having any problem editing it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. Weird thing is, I got the message about you deleting, then restoring it while I edited on April 12th, 2010. Three years later - either there's something I don't get, or maybe we should check for ektoplasma? Anyhow, no probs now. Thnx, --G-41614 (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is David Sheffield Bell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sheffield Bell. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I said that before you did the page move. Someone else created a page with the same exact stuff as this page aleady had and made the move request. I took it to a Admin who merged the two pages history's. The album has been said as The Darkside in most places and it was called The Dark Side on Twitter. So the move was not needed. STAT- Verse 22:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The logs indicate that this article has been deleted and then re-created three or four times, and most recently deleted by you an hour ago. FYI. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. I only noticed the previous deletions after I deleted it. Is there something I should be doing, because of this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...on this would be appreciated. Do you think I'm right in thinking an RM is necessary there? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there in context. I hope that's helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, looks to me like Theirrulez has taken to understanding that this is some kind of a contest? "The one who expands the article most wins." Is this the case? This weird "RM" is becoming a little too surreal. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just worked hard until now, following exactly the closing admin instructions. Thanks to the method GTB imposed (suggested) we are going to reach two goals in the same time: to finally develop the article and to give it back to the right title. There's two way we can approach it, I think: being an editor, trying to be good editor, or being a reviewer, a critic, spreading comments on others' work. - Theirrulez (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think of it as a contest. I think that, with the article being expanded, it will simply become clear which title is correct. Otherwise, it's just one of these stagnant disagreements that doesn't help anyone, and results in a long, slow move war. That's what I'm trying to avoid. DIREKTOR, what would you like to see different? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: It would contribute significantly to good will all around, and take away the "contest" feeling, if Theirrulez were to find and add some sources using the Croatian name, and vice-versa. Surely, Theirrulez, in your searching, you find some sources that don't use your preferred name? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I even already added one in the "Neither primary/unclear cases" section and one in "Vrancic primary". The "Veranzio primary" I added were the ones I used just because they were more often useful, they seem to be a bit more reliable and overall a bit higher level. Even there isn't "primary sources" belonging to that age using Vrancic, and this is also evident.

I now trying to search more sources using Vrancic, no problem. This enormous effort and its until now good effect on article's improvement hadn't provide any evidence yet? It quite seems we are not able to catch it.. as if we all live in a yellow submarine. Theirrulez (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GTB, Theirrulez is not assembling these sources alone. He is being assisted from itwiki. Here he thanks his 'colleague' for the "incomparable" sources. Theirrulez is the front man on a POV operation to demonstrate the entirely Italian nature/origins of FV. It's undoubtedly an ARBMAC 1 issue, as the objective being pursued is not to improve the encyclopedia, but to pursue that which is expressly prohibited, namely, that "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited". Due to his edits elsewhere, I drew his attention to WP:ARBMAC on 5 May [12]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaa, oh my!!! No comment.. - Theirrulez (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have a comment: Bacchus, I've cautioned you earlier against User:Theirrulez being a single-purpose POV-pushing account from itWiki. Having been blocked there, this account was essentially used by a clique of highly biased Italian nationalist ("irredentist") editors banned from enWiki. There are over a dozen such accounts, not counting the 40 or 50 socks over the years (you remember User:Kanalesi, the most recent one?). ALL the edits of this account include the translation of Slavic or Greek names to Italian - places, toponyms, people, anything. I invite you to check and verify my statements at your leisure through his contribs or by other means, I will not bore you with this stuff but I'd be happy to provide further details should you ask. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just came from RM to close Talk:Faust Vrančić#Requested move, and I must say I'm impressed. The discussion was all nationalistic nonsense and attacks (with a few exceptions), until you came along to get people on the right track. I hope your efforts will help turn Mr. V.'s article into something great. Ucucha 16:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]