User talk:GTBacchus/Archive 6

straw poll
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for taking it upon yourself to create a straw poll that people wouldn't delete. If I had put it up, it woulda been gone again. But it was a very good idea to have the support and opposition to a bunch of general statements - its a very insightful poll now. The only think I would have added if I thought about it before, is a 'neutral' section for each. But anyways, the poll has basically turned out as I expected - with no consensus for either non-notability or notability guidelines. I hope it has opened some other people's eyes, tho I think Radiants are sewn shut (pardon the blatant "personal attack"). Thanks again. Fresheneesz 19:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the revert on my user page. Who knew that tagging one article for deletion would piss someone off so much they would not only vandalize my page twice, but vandalize it so extremely. I mean, he came up with a whole story there... He should be out writing for a tv show, instead of wasting his time here. Seriously, I appreciate the revert. ---Charles 03:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinions about Senuti
What is your opinion on this article? Sr13 06:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank you very much for your opinion. Sr13 06:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your link from wikiwiki on Process
I think that the essay on process is very good. I like it a great deal.

I also think that your link about the 3 levels was also very good. I understood it. It is a truth. But it can be offensive to some. Some truths are hard to accept.

So, to put it in a way that does not immediately suggest a hierarchy of competence (which I note was a basis of the article anyway) I would think of the three differences in neutral terms. It sounds silly but it could be something like there are three cups to drink from. One cup is the cup of perfect form where people seek to understand exactly the nature of the process, how it operates and when it should be applied. Drinking this cup contains the risk of mediocrity. Another is the cup of perfect freedom, where the people do not consider process generally invalid but they skip upon them fly above them and seek the spirit behind the process rather than by the letter of the process. Drinking from this cup contains the risk of heresy. The third is the cup of perfect harmony where individuals follow the guidelines and honor those who do, but they also seek at times to fly in perfect freedom and are trying to understand the rules for flying. Drinking from this cup contains the risk of falling and self doubt. Or maybe its colors.

(that was just a spur of the moment example of a different scheme for presentation. It does not seem very good so I do not intend for you to use it).

There should also be some statement about what to do when the people of the first cup are in disagreement with people of the second cup. Whose cup has stronger medicine?--Blue Tie 03:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigma Tauri Source
The data for the article (and others) are extracted from Simbad and the catalogues stored by the CDS, most notably the Bright Star Catalogue (for star names an spectra), the Hipparcos and Tycho catalogues (for parallaxes) the the CCDM (for double stars) and the GCVS (for variable stars). -- Ketil Trout 17:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion
You might be right about square. I was trying to decide if it was square, factorial, combinatorial or exponential. I did not spend a great deal of time trying to think it though but here is how I saw it:


 * 1 person... no intereactions
 * 2 people ..1 interaction possible
 * 3 people ... 6 intereactions as follows


 * A to B
 * A to C
 * B to C
 * A&B to C
 * A&C to B
 * B&C to A

which is a factorial relationship. I tried it with four and confirmed factorial.

But still not sure that is the best way to model. However, I am very busy and very tired and I have thought about it enough for now. maybe more this weekend.

--Blue Tie 03:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

- If you want to count every possible unordered pair of non-empty subsets as a "potential interaction", then it's not quite factorial either. I wrote down a recurrence relation for that, and solved it to obtain that the number of "potential interactions" with n participants is (3n+1)/2 - 2n. That gives us 0 when n=1, 1 when n=2, 6 when n=3, 25 when n=4 (you must have missed one), 90 when n=5, etc. If you want to see the details, just let me know. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC) -
 * You are right, I missed one that makes it 25. However, I started to work on this in some seriousness this weekend and as a result, I suspect your equation is also not right.  Your base of 3 is particularly unlikely.   I have tons of notes and formulas I have worked on but in essence, here is the gist:

1. If we look simply at binary problems, (i.e. "Agree / Disagree" or "Yes/ No", "Green/Purple") the potential problem space is strictly linear and is:



Integer\left (\frac {n+1}{2}	\right ) $$


 * for all n > 1

2. But this is a bit simplistic. With 1 person there is no potential for conflict (Well assuming sanity). With 2 there is potential for conflict. With 3, there is potential for conflict between all three (A vs B vs C), as well as 2 on 1 (A&B vs C or A&C vs B or B&C vs A). There are also potential conflicts of (A vs B, A vs C, B vs C). It may well be that these are specialized versions of 2 on 1 with a person abstaining from the debate, but this is not clear.

3. The potential conflict space is ultimately contrained by the "potential problem" space. For example (we must suspend issues relating to WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:VER and perhaps WP:NPOV for this example):


 * Mary had a little Lamb

If we deconstruct this into a statement with 5 variables:


 * Variable "NAME" Contents = "Mary"
 * Variable "VERB" Contents = "had"
 * Variable "NUMBER" Contents = "a"
 * Variable "DESCRP" Contents = "little"
 * Variable "OBJECT" Contents = "lamb"

Suppose that we have various editors who disagree:


 * The NAME might be "Mary" or "John" or "Marv"
 * The VERB might be "had", "sold", "bought", "roasted" or "ate"
 * The NUMBER might be "a" or "three"
 * The DESCRIP might be "little" or "big" or "white" or "tasty"
 * The OBJECT might be "lamb(s)" or "chicken(s)" or "cups of rice"

The theoretical problem space might be NAME (3) X VERB (5) X NUMBER (3) X DESCRIP (4) X OBJECT (3) = 720.

And for a larger item, such as a whole article, the potential conflicts can be quite large, even after the elimination of factual, reliably sourced items. For policies, which are not "fact" based, limits to "facts" are harder and less likely.

4. However the problem space is reasonably limited by the number of actual proposals:


 * a. Mary had a little lamb
 * b. John ate three tasty cups of rice
 * c. Mary roasted a big lamb
 * d. John bought three white lambs
 * e. Marv sold three big chickens

5. The number of actual proposals will somehow be a function of the number of participants. As a limit, the number of proposals is the number of participants (assuming consistency).

6. With all of these considerations, the normal limit (assuming consistency in participants) to the potential conflict interaction space is best described as by this formula:



\sum_{k=2}^n \frac {n!}{k!(n-k)!} $$


 * for all n>1
 * where:
 * n = number of participants
 * k represents the number of potential types of conflict interactions (I think thats the right way to say it)

I can explain this in detail later, but in essence, this formula rejects the notion that a conflict of A&B vs C is functionally different than a conflict of A vs B&C. In other words, it is still essentially a two on one conflict, regardless of who the various participants are. However, this formula also recognizes that it is possible that every person involved may also disagree with every other person involved. As I recall, it does not view "A vs B" as a subset version of, say "A&C vs B", but rather as a separate case. This may be an inappropriate assumption. Of course this formula recognizes the personnel as limiting the problem space.

7. Although this is a somewhat larger space than would be typically encountered, it does not represent the limit of the conflicts on one article but only on one issue within an article, subject to the number of conflict participants.

8. I want to work on this some more, but the bottom line is that linear growth in editor density per page, does not translate to linear growth in the conflict space or the conflict potential. The space and potential escalate in exponential fashion and even if these do not translate directly into fights, they produce a sort of editor-conflict pressure, something akin to hydrostatic pressure increases on a membrane of fixed dimensions as pressure is increased. --Blue Tie 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

--Blue Tie 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA

 * Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA

A bot on RfA. I'd appreciate your thoughts. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 23:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicely said.
Your response to being accused of 'shouting people down' at the Donkey Punch AFD was enormously classy, and as such made me smile. I think that was undeserved, and you handled it with style. --Masamage 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I did find your responses slightly patronising and somewhat glib- particularly this edit summary. Having said that, I do admit that "shouting down" was probably an inappropriate choice of words (I rarely pay as much attention as I should to edit summaries, which is foolish). A better choice might have been "vitiate" or "counteract", which are more direct synonyms for what I was a actually trying to say. If you choose to use the word "recommendation" for a formal statement of opinion then that's up to you as a matter of personal preference (as you yourself recognise). But whatever we call it, it's still a vote, a fact which I think everyone actually recognises, however much we may try to obfuscate it. Equally, my personal preference is to describe it as such, but it's obviously down to a simple matter of expression (which was why I was somewhat surprised by your initial response, which I feel mischaracterised my statement anyway). On a more general point, I've genuinely never even considered the possibility that anyone might find it confusing or counter-intuitive that a vote might be decided against a simple majority - elections or polls of that nature are actually extremely common. Badgerpatrol 03:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Heeh. I think I agree with you about what to call them. And I don't necessarily think you were out-of-line in your protestation; he just resisted the temptation to get offended, which is enormously refreshing to watch. People freak out about less all the time. ^^ --Masamage 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do try to freak out as little as possible, thought I'm not always successful at that. Thanks for your kind words, Massamage. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to apologise, because I think you are overreacting. However, I reiterate that I wish I had made a more appropriate choice of words- a useful lesson here is that edit summaries (which I usually add completely as an afterthought and pay no heed to whatsoever) are in fact just as important as the edits themselves. I also think there may be a wee element of crossed-wires here- you seem to be offended by the word "naughty", which where I come from is almost exclusively used in a lighthearted and completely non-adversarial context and is very unlikely to ever cause offence. Perhaps this is not the case elsewhere in the world? As described above, "shouting down" was a poor and ill-thought choice of words which did not accurately convey my intended meaning- that one was down solely to my own poor use of language. I certainly did not mean to cause offence (in fact, the edit that you principally object to was designed to be conciliatory- "I basically agree"...) although I confess that from my perspective, given that you seemed to have reversed your position within the space of two edits, it did seem that you were perhaps being deliberately contrarian, for no obvious purpose. If editors wish to refer to AfD as a "vote" and especially if they wish to refer to individual contributions as "votes" (as I was doing), I think it's perfectly reasonable and, frankly, pragmatic. "Majority vote" and "vote" are emphatically not the same, although if you say that many editors mistakenly transpose these terms then I cede to your greater experience (all the more reason to ensure that we strive to employ precise langauage, rather than simply repeating "the usual mantra", well meant though it undoubtedly may be). Since you don't seem to agree, you might at least consider stating your opinion (and it is only a matter of opinion, or expression) in a more subtle way, rather than bluntly stating "AfD is not a vote". Just a thought for the future. All the best, Badgerpatrol 00:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask you to apologize. I think you were totally within your rights, I accept that everyone misspeaks sometimes, and I have no problem with you at all. ^^ Thanks for your thoughts. --Masamage 00:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have made clear- the above was in response to this. Thanks nonetheless for the kindly message! ;-) Badgerpatrol 01:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am British, although I'm not English. Don't worry at all, crossed wires happen and debate does get too robust on here at times- no harm done whatsoever, I'm quite certain no offence was meant on either side. Now, let's wait and see how the substantive debate ends up...a Wikipedia without Donkey punch would be unthinkable...its loss would tarnish the credibility of the entire project...(or, perhaps, !) ;-) Badgerpatrol 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

hai 2 u
im in ur wiki, leavin u messages. <3 --Zionistacat 08:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm thinkin' u don't love me anymore, snuggums. Ur not leavin' any love on my talk page. I'm in bed with the laptop and no panties and I'm oh so lonely. *heartiez* --Zionistacat 13:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I got ur msg sweet thang! I just wanted you to know, in that pic the only thing I'm wearing is that sheet... sweet dreams, GT! };) <3 <3 <3 --Zionistacat 09:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple user accounts
I have a question. Are there any concerns with how multiple user accounts (aren't these sock puppets?) and threats User talk:The Transhumanist are being employed by User:The Transhumanist? Rfrisbietalk 17:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. Rfrisbietalk 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Discordianism article
Hello, I've read wikipedia for a while, rarely editing, for various reasons that aren't here or there. After looking over the Discordianism article, I was thinking "Self, Wikipedia has become too damn stuck up lately, this article is a refeshing change, and it's pretty damn good! The grayfaces who run this place can learn a thing or two from this." So my question is, do you think that there's any way that, with some editing, Discordianism could be a featured article? I figured you would be the best person to ask since you are an admin and you edit the article. Can we do this, or do you think it's a lost cause? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icestryke (talk • contribs) 11:35, October 17, 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... I like the idea. I suspect the article has a lot of content that would be difficult to cite, but it's definitely worth a try!  I'm away from home just now, checking in from a friend's computer, but when I get some more time, I'll have a closer look. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

tink ya better dan meh
wots with the abuse? --Demessiah 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Titanic and other uses tag
Hello. There's no need for that other uses tag on the Titanic articles because the titles of the articles make it fairly obvious how to get to the page to which you link. If someone lands on Titanic (musical), for example, it's fairly obvious how to get to a more general article. We would, however, use that tag if the Titanic was an article, and we used Titanic (disambiguation): a casual visitor would not be expected to know the existance of the latter without guidance, but a bit of common sense would guide them away from the likes of Titanic (1997 film). The JPS talk to me  20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because if they want a more general page about Titanic, all they need to do is type Titanic into the search box, and they get the list of other articles. If it were difficult, then they would need the otheruses tag to hold their hand. The JPS talk to me  20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've replied on my talk page too but I'm not sure if you're watching that... should we just keep the discussion here rather than having it fragmented?
 * I won't revert you. I think the otheruses tags are just fine, but it's not worth arguing over. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not worth arguing over, so I hope we both leave this discussion happy. The JPS talk to me  20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, an example of when it is useful: S.O.S. Titanic! The JPS talk to me  20:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be applying a criterion that makes sense to you, so yeah, I'm happy. I confess to not understanding why an otheruses link is helpful on S.O.S. Titanic but not on Titanic (1997 film), but I'm happy to take your word for it.  I've never learned any particular rules for dab links, and just go by instinct in each case and try not to worry about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That video clips purpose
I am trying to find evidence to show people the suffering of the feutos in the uterus in the most direct way.

Most scientific evidences that exist do not give a graphic and direct enough method to show such things.

I really could do with some help to achieve this goal.

It can have encyclopedic values, but still needs to meet this need to.

Any suggestions please?

FRANK

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.87.109 (talk • contribs) 07:49, October 19, 2006 (UTC)

Page moves
As I'm sure this is a fairly thankless task, you might want to know that it's appreciated. Thanks!&mdash; Chidom  talk   20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; thanks for the comment! Actually, I find page moves kind of meditative and pleasant.  Sometimes low profile is a good thing.  In fact, I think I'll do a few now... -GTBacchus(talk) 01:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
While I know you support bdj's view of the dispute and not mine, I am grateful for your attempts to constructively resolve the current dispute regarding the ArbCom decision on ED. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the list of problems. Fred Bauder 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If there was a problem, yo, I solved it. It seems &lt;nowiki&gt; tags work wonders. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A vanilla ice reference? Are you trying to cause nausea? :) :) Be well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As an aside, please assume good faith (as I am). I'm not 'baiting' anyone, I'm making a clear, strong and dispassionate argument to protect WP users (like MONGO and others) from real-life abuse and harassment from ED and its' users, by complying with the decisions of ArbCom. I'd appreciate it if you assumed good faith - as I have done. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very sincerely for your comment just now on my talk page. I'm gratified that you hold the viewpoint that you do and I wish you well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A DRV Needs an alternative closer
It's been a while. Hi again. The usual closer of deletion reviews, Xoloz has opined in a review that began on October 11. Per the undeletion policy, this is ripe now for closure. But as we really only have one closer, and they opined, we need an alternative closer. Could you come do it? The review requester has also made comments at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, which you may also wish to read, though I don't think the comments there should affect the close. GRBerry 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope I did that correctly:, , ; I've never closed a DRV before, I don't think. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for closing it. Looks like standard formatting to me.  It seems like Xoloz closes more than 90% of deletion reviews, so everyone else is out of practice, and we sometimes need to solicit alternative closers.  I'm just glad the DRV volume is low enough that we don't need more than one regular closer.  That says something about the quality of our AfD closes though... something good.  GRBerry 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So...
Now what? Any tips? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * E-mailed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfect T
whats up son? signed, Perfect T 19:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not much, pops. How's it going? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

are you down with ten of the trades? why dont you comment at my editor review please? thanks in advance boyo.Perfect T 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm down with ten devils, up on the downstroke, and pretty much over the rest of it. But that's all nonsense.  There's not much to reivew at this point.  See if you can add some sourced material to some articles - that's the best. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Finland-Swedish
Thanks for the page move for Finland Swedish; how does one fix the category's spelling? --Espoo 22:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at User_talk:Espoo? Thanks! --Espoo 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Art in ancient Greece
Thanks for the speedy move. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy from Portland
Hey Tony, I emailed you about a WikiMeetup here in Portland, but haven't received an answer from you. Are you still thinking it over? -- llywrch 00:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to do here
Currently there is a discussion about the main image in the Iraq war page, here, where Timeshifter accused me of having "a lot" of 3RR violations and warnings on my talk page. After reviewing my talk page, I could only find one occasion in May when Anoranzo accused me of breaking 3RR, and I probably did at that point in time, however this didnt strike me as "a lot" so I brought it to his talk page and asked him what was up. He proceeded to delete the comment and move it to the Iraq War talk page. I restored the comment on his and added a further comment that this discussion didnt belong in the Iraq War talk page due to it being a personal issue and not dealing with the images. He once again deleted it, and moved it to the Iraq war talk page responding that he did a search for the word Revert on my page and got lots of results. I now left a new comment on his page asking him not to clutter the Iraq War discussion with what was indeed a personal issue, in what was basically a last shot at settling it there. He once again deleted it. I have been around long enough to know that there are outlets for settling personal issues, but I dont really want to go through it as it is lengthy and wont necessarilly benefit anyone. These sorts of people come along frequently enough to make it feel like cutting your nails to deal with them, even when one problem is fixed there is another one waiting in the wings to take their place. I am sure as an admin here you understand that feeling, so I suppose what I am asking you is if there is a simple solution to the problem, like restoring the comments to his page and removing them from the talk page, a place where I atleast see them as not belonging. Or if some sort of request for comment has to be opened to deal with this. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 14:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose I will just let it slip, as you said you have to pick your battles in an environment like this. Since there seems to be an agreement reached over the real issue of the image, hopefully the side issue will sort of die off. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 00:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced Nicknames for Portland
GTB: I did join the discussion specifically

Mike: That was an invitation to join the Discussion page, which as far as I can tell did not happen. Since you didn't reply in the manner asked, I assumed you didn't intend to reply to me at all.

If you believe "that paragraph wasn't referenced, and didn't belong in the lead. We don't need, in the intro to be talking about MySpacers and how they like to call it "Portland Fucking Oregon". " was a reply, I don't see how this references the Discussion page's statement that none of the other nicknames are referenced.

If you replied to me in  some other way, my apologies. The Wikipedia interface didn't make it obvious and I have missed it.

Why are you looking for references for all the other nicknames except 'Portland Fucking Oregon'?--220.253.40.193 07:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mike again: As the discussion page history shows, I'd put the comments about the addition of the nickname along with other additions in the Youth Culture section of Discussion, and was expecting the reply to be in the same section. Hence I was under the impression that you'd reverted my change without discussion, not vice-versa.

Am glad you're looking for references for all the nicknames, was under thhe impressions 'the other nicknames' meant all except this particular one.

I know the original research concept, and am aware that things need to be from a verifiable third party source. As my original discussion shows, I was just slightly annoyed that that these standards were seemingly only applied to one nickname, and that many others trying to describe cultural aspects of Portland have apparently had similar issues - yes, I know references need to be made, but surely it's less destructive to attempt to find a reference for a contribution than to delete the contribution entirely, as has happened repeatedly with similar topics in the past. Anyone who has been to this city, and many folks in this section of the dicussion page, are aware of the counter cultural aspects of the city. It's the reason I travelled around the world to get there - like many others in the Wikipedia page, I find lack of Wikipedia coverage of this aspect of the town odd.

Comment
Nice work, reverting my edit (ten_commandments). I'm surprised at how quick you guys are! Keep up the good work.

(Please note: I'm not being sarcastic.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.66.82 (talk • contribs) 07:49, November 1, 2006 (UTC).

WIKIBREAK
'''Hi. I'm going to attempt a Wikibreak for the next 3 days (1-3 November, Seattle time for a late sleeper - more like Hawaii or Japan time), while I finish writing my MS Thesis. This really has to get done, so if you see me online in the next 3 days, please yell at me. If you need my attention, you can have it (within reason) on or after November 4. (BDJ, I haven't forgotten our email conversation.)'''

-GTBacchus(talk) 10:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (I'm still awake, so it's still Halloween to me...)
 * Good luck. (And don't reply to this, or I'll yell at you!) AnnH ♫ 11:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is your thesis done, or should you extend this break? I see a bunch of contribs from you.  GRBerry 13:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. It's largely done, and I'm travelling to Portland on Wednesday to meet with my advisor in person.  (Moving to a new city before finishing a degree in the old city was... not a bad idea, but a complicating one.)  I used that Wikibreak to finish up a first draft, and between now and Wednesday I'd just like to show that, if $$a_2=2$$ and $$a_{n+1}=a_n+\frac{1}{a_n}$$ for $$n\geq 2$$, then $$a_n < \sqrt{2n + \frac{1}{2}\ln n}$$ for all $$n$$.
 * I'll probably take another Wikibreak when it's time to whip the final draft in shape, which had better be sometime this month. For now, I'm safe to spend a few hours on the wiki. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With regards to the "leaving town" issue, I'd say that leaving town (or actually, leaving the country) tacked another 2 years on to my PhD...and while I wish it hadn't, I don't regret the move. Guettarda 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

AGF
Good luck on the thesis. Re the last post from this series -- yes, I suppose that now that Wiki has grown from the equivalent of a small Greek noupolis (city of thinkers) to a megalopolis that has absorbed the surrounding demos, laws are indeed what people want. I agree with you that that is a sad indictment of the state of Wiki, but it is in keeping with human experience: as the population grows, as new members of the group begin to act according to their own guidelines, often holding in contempt the community's pre-existing guidelines, and as people learn to misapply or freely interpret these guidelines, they become laws out of necessity, and what was once descriptive becomes prescriptive. I suppose those are the growing pains this noble experiment must endure. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 12:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Free Webhost and Such
As to you comment on Centrx's talkpage: No, even if the vocal majority would want to make Wikipedia to be their free webhost it would not become one since a Free Webhost is not what Wikipedia is. But we are not talking about that. What we are talking about is to which point Wikipedians are allowed to display their own opinions, especially with the use of userboxes. I agree with you that blatant adverting userboxes "VOTE X" or attack userboxes "Y should be killed" have no place here on Wikipedia. At the same time I believe that showing support something should be permitted. Also it worries me that the deletions of political userboxes might be only the start. Take the Anime-Otaku userbox on my page for an example. An admin might argue that it is not helping building an encyclopedia and delete it. I feel it is both - an expression of personality and helping build an encylopedia - it tells other users that about this intrest of mine and they know that I might be willing to help out improving anime related articles. Alas, I'm slowly growing weary of this constant tug of war - all I want is peace and a satifying compromise for both side, and yet it seems at every corner the compromise we tried to build is attacked; if its not an inclusionist hardliner who wants to go back to the old status quo, its a deletionist admin that seems to try to inflame that old wound - the voice inside me that says "its not worth it - just delete your userpage and leave" has grown stronger lately. Maybe I should heed its call. CharonX /talk 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if we're talking about what should be, I would most prefer that all kinds of expression be permitted, but that people exercising their individual judgement decide that using userboxes to identify one's political views does more harm than good, and just choose not to do it. I don't think that's likely to happen.
 * Back in reality, if we poll users regarding what they would like to be able to do with their userpages, the majority will end up asking for free webhosting. I don't have a proof of this fact, but I'm certain it's true.  They wouldn't call it that; it would be more like "we want this... and this... and don't take this away... and don't say we can't have this... and oh, no, Wikipedia's not a free webhost, but I demand that I be allowed to do whatever I want with my userpage, which I for some reason think is "mine"."
 * I haven't seen any deletionist, no matter how hard-line, say that it's inappropriate to categorize Wikipedians by area of expertise, whether or not these categories are made visible with userboxes. There is a huge difference between having an expertise in some area, and having a political view.  It's quite clear to me that putting up stickers indicating political support creates a politicized atmosphere, encourages others to "represent" for their political views, and suggests to political rabble-rousers that Wikipedia welcomes that sort of activity.  We should be taking pains to present ourselves as apolitically as possible, and to make activists feel unwelcome.  You may not agree, but I hope you can at least understand where I'm coming from.
 * As for the tug-of-war, I suspect I'm on your side. Despite my personal feelings about POV userboxes, I voted to overturn that deletion, and would do it again, for the sake of ending the pointless drama. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You know I've always had the greatest of respect for you, mate. I now also start to agree why it might be better without political boxes - if it is the price to keep "rabble-rousers" and blatant political advertiser at bay, it might be necessary to pay it. And still, the sordid actions of few during the "userbox wars" have left me scarred, have destroyed my faith in the administrative community of Wikipedia. I know in my mind that (almost) all admins are actually good guys and gals, but the way many of the admins merely looked away and did not intervene, in addition to the (best-faith-fueled) brashness of a handful have take away faith that, should again a handful of administrators decide "all userboxes must be gone, this time in userpace too" that they would meet strong enough oppositon to avoid another userbox war. I fear that if we allow the removal of those political ones this would be the wedge other - less userbox friendly and more brash - administrators might try to use to archive what they believe is best for Wikipedia. And they would not face strong enough opposition to deter them, and thus the wars would be ignited again, only even more vicious this time as users would feel attacked at "their" home-turf, in userspace. In this tug of war, I feel our objective is that neither side lands face-down in the mud. CharonX /talk 02:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Useless redirects
Thanks for going through and deleting the useless redirects. In trying to revert the editor who moved the article 9 times, all those pages got created :\ Feel free to look through mine and that editors logs to see if anymore redirects need to be deleted. semper fi — Moe  01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they're all gone now... :) -GTBacchus(talk) 01:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Big thanks :) semper fi — Moe  02:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WIKIBREAK II
'''Ok, now I'm heading down to Portland for the next two and a half days to talk about fractional colorings with my advisor. I'm unlikely to log on very much if at all until Friday afternoon. I'm confident the Wiki will still be here when I get back. Thanks to everyone who's offered messages of support.'''

 -GTBacchus(talk) 15:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have fun! (looks up Fractional coloring)... er, and there was I thinking this was something about innovative home-improvement. In that case... good luck :) CharonX /talk 12:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Finland-Swedish
Hi! Could you please take a look at User_talk:Kbdank71? It's no longer only a discussion about a lousy hyphen :-) Thanks! --Espoo 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Holiday at Old Navy
Hello, GT. I appreciate the inquiry. I got that graphic directly from the main Old Navy home page just about a week ago. The graphic is still there now, but I'm not sure if that particular slogan is mentioned anywhere else such as in their stores or TV ads or anything. But it is prominently displayed on their home page. From when I contacted them via phone, they claimed it is a direct "replacement" of the word Christmas so as not to endorse the Christian holiday&mdash;even though it's a very awkward sentence.&mdash; OLP 1999 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Gyromagnetic ratio
We need to talk about this gyromagnetic ratio thing. I have never personally heard of the magnetogyric ratio until I had the unpleasant experience of looking at the Lande g factor page today. To say the least, this is disturbing. Please give me more justification for the change than simply some international chemistry reference. Physicists refer to this as gyromagnetic ratio, it appears that chemists think it is the magnetogyric ratio. I can list dozens of physics references that call this the gyromagnetic ratio....please explain to me why they are all wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillen (talk • contribs) 05:13, November 12, 2006 (UTC)


 * Replying at Talk:Magnetogyric ratio. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Centerburg, Ohio
Thanks for moving the article Village99999999 back into Centerburg, Ohio so quickly. It's times like this that administrative powers can come in handy. ... disco <font color="DarkOliveGreen">spinster <font color="DarkGray">talk  03:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

aggressive admin
Hi

Could you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kbdank71&diff=88059736&oldid=88058525 This admin has the nerve to bully me and then to delete my defense against his bullying behavior. He claims that i threatened him, which is not true, and he insists on leaving that lie publicly displayed. Thanks for any help. --Espoo 21:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gyromagnetic ratio
Thank you for the kind and responsive note concerning gyromagnetic ratio. There are literally thousands of papers that clearly and unambiguously indicate that Lande g-factor/g factor/ gyromagnetic ratio are all synonyms for the same thing. I am including a reference from an old paper that will clearly indicate this.

Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 102–109 (1962) [Issue 1 – January 1962 ]

It is also clearly illustrated in Griffiths "Quantum Mechanics", as well as in Claude Cohen-Tannoudji's "Quantum Mechanics". FYI - Tannoudji is a Nobel Laureate and Griffiths is the most used undergraduate text that I know of.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.248.124 (talk • contribs) 23:20, November 15, 2006 (UTC)

Sec. of Christmas issue
(original response posted at Talk:Christmas controversies) I understand your question and it's a difficult one to answer. I hope you can follow me here. Essentially, this is the issue: the current controversy concerning the media's use of the term "holiday" instead of "Christmas" is not a direct secularization of Christmas per se, because in essence, they are saying "holiday", not Christmas, thus are not actually acknowledging that they are referencing Christmas in particular or at all. Although elements and aspects of the Christmas holiday are often prominently displayed in the TV ads (or other advertising) of the retailers in question, they use the term "holiday" to avoid association with Christmas, not necessarily to secularize it directly. Perhaps a clearer term than "avoidance" in this case would be "disacknowledgement" or "non-recognition"&mdash;personally, I'd like to throw in "hypocrisy" but that's POV. In conclusion, since in past centuries people have secularized Christmas while directly referring to Christmas itself with terms such as "Xmas", these past instances can be verified as a direct "secularization of Christmas". Not that I don't agree that the current trend is indeed a secularization of Christmas; but that's OR. Hope you were able to follow that explanation, it was confusing even to me. I'd like your response and opinion on the issue. Thanks for the question.&mdash; OLP 1999 03:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Who Writes Wikipedia
Regarding your edit here, in case you missed my reply, see Who Writes Wikipedia. Carcharoth 15:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -GTBacchus(talk) 18:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing the mess at EnergySolutions Arena &mdash; Zaui (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there! Long time...
Hey there GTBacchus. I saw you input at Doug’s RfA. Wow, it has been a long time since I have seen you participate on the same thing I have. I have learned quite a bit about this project and the goings on here since we last spoke. I don’t have a FA to my credit, but I have a GA! Hopefully things are going good for you, and I look forward to seeing you around more. Cheers! JungleCat   Shiny! / Oohhh!  01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: reverted why?
My mistake then, I didn't know he was your friend. Please feel free to add it back. --WinHunter (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
I left no nonsense on the Reagan page, if you could point out the so-called nonsense, that would be great. The only changes I made was the fact that he was born above a bank NOT a bakery and the book Noonan wrote entitled "When Character Was King: The Story of Ronald Reagan." None of these constitutes nonsense and your knee-reaction was completely unnecessary 69.92.59.9 19:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * whoa, I never changed the latin name thing. My apologies for my own knee-jerk reaction.  I'm on a shared network with my nextdoor neighbors, so I'll see that they get the message.  Happy Thanksgiving —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.59.9 (talk • contribs) 21:31, November 23, 2006 (UTC)

bone thugs
i need you to fix the infobox.i can't because for some reason they blocked my ip saying i was vandalising the site but i was actually repairing it from ANOTHER vandal.i asked for them to put a lock on the page but they didn't.so i guess its up to you to fix that infobox,back to what it was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackdragon6 (talk • contribs) 20:42, November 23, 2006 (UTC).


 * How is it you're blocked if you can post to my talk page? Your block log is empty.  Huh... Oh well, I'll have a look at the BTNH article. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

copyedit portal
Hi!

I find it very disturbing and depressing that huge amounts of WP editing time are wasted on unnecessary and clearly amateur discussions of naming and spelling issues. You of course realise that almost all discussions on language use by normal people (i.e. not professional copyeditors or linguists) make fools of almost all participants and that they waste a very large part of editing efforts on WP. I'm getting so fed up with this nonsense that i'd like to ask you what you think about the idea of setting up a copyedit portal or copyedit emergency squad to get some sanity and professionalism into this completely amateur aspect of WP. I've asked a few linguists to join my project, but it would be good to also have members with more traditional approaches to copyedit issues. As you know, almost all modern linguists have a purely scientific approach to language and consider anything OK as long as it's used by more than a few people, and even then they don't label it wrong in anything not communal like a wiki. See Talk:Académie française and Talk:Genealogy for more details... --Espoo 09:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review
GTBacchus, would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from Redmond
I just noticed that you live in Seattle, share an interest in math and, best of all, that you wrote "Jesus just wasn't about consumerism, at all." I couldn't agree more with you. For this season, I would therefore like to draw your attention to the article alternative giving, which could use a second editor. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dem Attic
Little discussion on sexism on wikien-l. Fred Bauder 21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Horseshoe Theory
When you have a moment, can you take a look at this article [] and give me your opinion? I tagged it as original research, and placed a warning on the author's talk page about Wikipedia policy on OR (this is his first, and so far only, contribution), but I am wondering if there is more I should do. Is there a speedy category that would fit? Or, should I just take it to AfD? I do not believe a prod is the way to go, because I find nothing salvagable in the article. Thanks, as always, for your time. ---Charles 20:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply. Off I go...  ---Charles 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done and done... ---Charles 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering...
I was wondering whether it'd be possible to get Pedobear redirected to 4chan? At the moment it doesn't really serve a purpose, but as a redirect it would help keep the tubes unclogged. Thankyou!-K37 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, scrap that. Sorry-K37 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok.... I was just gonna say that if there's any way to mention a particular meme in the 4chan article (need a dubya-pee-are-ess for that), then it would be legit to redirect... Anyway, I'll see ya around. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

John Nicholls (disambiguation)
Hi, thanks for moving the page and correcting the links to it, however the latter would not have been necessary at the two dab-links. According to Disambiguation we don't shall link directly to disambiguation pages, but to the redirects (also the pages that include the text "disambiguation") - except of course the cases where a primary topic exists. Best wishes and thanks again. Phoe talk 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Brabham
Thanks for moving the Brabham article. Cheers. 4u1e 17:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise
Hi

You wrote these wise words: Part of the downside of how Wikipedia works is that a lot of decisions are based on the reasonableness of the three or four people who happen to be standing around when shit goes down, and that doesn't always work out in the direction of common sense. Could you please take a look at Talk:Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise where i seem to be the only one defending WP policy and observance of accepted usage in other encyclopedias. --Espoo 09:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Query on possible RFA
I've been mulling accepting a possible nomination for an RfA. See diff for the initial question. I asked Xoloz, who has responded at User talk:GRBerry, and Tony Sidaway, who has gone on a long duration wikibreak. My question to Tony is here, and was about dispute handling. I picked him because the heated debate in the formation of T1 and T2 debates is one of the top three debates that I have been involved in. Since he hasn't returned to answer, and you were also involved in that debate, could you opine on whether I would be a good RfA candidate, particularly in the area of dispute handling? At the time I asked him, the most recent significant dispute was the one about the article Kyra Phillips, where the records on my talk (a portion of all of them) are archived at User talk:GRBerry/Archive 2 and the immediately following section of that page (see also the article's talk page and the other primary disputant's talk page). Since then, I've also been involved in one about the article B. H. Carroll Theological Institute, see User:GRBerry, Talk:B. H. Carroll Theological Institute, User talk:JChap2007, and User talk:Alansohn. Thanks. GRBerry 19:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)