User talk:Greg L/Archive 2

About toxic environments
My position, which I have held for quite some time, is that when we are excessively tolerant of toxic behaviors, we poison the environment and push good people to join in the bad behaviors - they end up with no other choice. This is one of the theoretical underpinnings of the wiki model, in fact. In unmoderated usenet groups, for example, the worst elements tended to dominate because users with behavioral problems could not be excluded, which meant that the only tool left for others was to yell at them. It's an unfortunate and all too common dynamic.

I stand by this theoretical analysis, and I think it is an apt description - even under Bishonen's own description of the events - of what happened. A good user - Bishonen - end up at the end of her rope and did something quite unseemly - and this is a direct consequence of our being too tolerant, for too long, of bad behaviors.

I regret very much that I didn't explain this all in a single breath when I first said it. I assumed - incorrectly - that people would know my general position and interpret my words correctly. I was wrong, and that's my fault. However, the block was a good block, 100% within policy, and it was not a symbolic block. It was exactly what we should be doing more of, more often.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. Your words were too easily misinterpreted and that’s not the fault of the readers of your words. If we have a situation where there is an administrator who has a consistently good track record and does a rare slip-up, I should think that would be better described as “toxic behavior to others which is borne of an overly permissive culture of this sort of thing on Wikipedia”; describing a rare slip-up as a “toxic personality” didn’t fit the circumstances at all. I also agree 100% that the block was a good one. It was only a three-hour-long one. That an admin was on the receiving end seems to elicit shock in some quarters. Thank you very much for taking a bit of your valuable time to come to a lowly regular contributor in response to my post on the ARC. Greg L (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wth? "Thank you very much for taking a bit of your valuable time to come to a lowly regular contributor"? Uh, no offense Greg, but I don't recall ever seeing such effusive praise for responding to an Arb request. Really. That's kindof silly. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the basis for your concern. Writing "Thank you very much for taking a bit of your valuable time to come to a lowly regular contributor" is not *praising* anyone. Greg L (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * you're right; what is a polite euphemism for "kissing ass"? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, when we have all finished puking - Jimbo actually did refer to at least one person (who exactly is unclear) as a toxic personality, that he has rephrased to suit the current political climate and get himself off the hook - says more definitively about him than his comments do about others. Giano (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (after EC) No, I was right. KA = "fawn over someone; to flatter and curry favor with someone" so effusive praise would work. I could have perhaps said effusive flattery instead. I really don't know how to address that you referred to yourself as a "lowly" contributor. That's rather disturbing. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that’s you two’s take on the matter. I felt humbled and wrote what I felt. Jimbo is the founder of Wikipedia and I am just a regular editor. Yet he felt obliged to come here and explain himself. I felt honored he would do so. You call that “kissing ass.” I call it “speaking from the heart and writing what I felt.” Please also try to keep such feelings as you need to “finish puking” to yourself; just because the World Wide Web affords you a fabulous venue to express your sentiments via typing rather than an actual face-to-face interaction, is no excuse to interject such feelings just because you have them. It’s called “being polite” and “assuming good faith.” You two assumed too much. Greg L (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. Oh, and KillerChihuahua, I couldn’t possibly have been clearer, at both the ARC and here, that Jimbo’s words regarding “toxic personality” was an big error, was hurtful, was wrong, and was not in the least bit factual as far as the words could reasonably be interpreted. Hardly a way to “curry favor with someone”. Exhibiting sincerely felt humility while taking someone to task for an error is a polite and appropriate gesture to make when the individual is busy and is much higher—at the very top in this case—in a hierarchy. A lesson you two would do well to learn sometime in your lives. Greg L (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are right. If that's how you feel, I should not have come to your "house" and said that. I apologise. Giano (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well. Thank you; I appreciate the apology. That was big of you. Greg L (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, all I said I stand by; I tried to be civil and express myself without hurting your feelings, but you seemed a bit confused so I was more blunt. I think you are putting yourself down when you call yourself a "lowly" editor, and you are basically inflating his worth and undervaluing yourself. If I err, I err; but I do so without malice. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well. That is much much clearer. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, Greg L.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Something to do?
Hello Greg,

Since you're a physics guy, I thought you might like to have a go at making something better out of a couple of probably fairly inaccurate stubs I just created - spinion and holon (physics). There's also an associated brief mention of them at Electron.

Cheers. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   23:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm… I feel an interest developing on this. Thanks; you may have “hooked” me. Greg L (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion
A request to amend the dates delinking arbitration case (filed 19 July 2009) has resulted in a motion (filed 2 August 2009) that proposes to change the restrictions imposed on you as a result of the case. The proposed amendment would affect the restrictions pertaining to 16 editors, all of whom are now being notified of the proposed amendment. Given that the proposed amendment affects your restrictions, and further that the proposed amendment will restrict the filing of further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, your input is invited at the amendments page. You may view an unofficial table of the proposed changes here. Comments from affected parties are currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee. If you would like the arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider their votes in light of your comments, please indicate that in your comments.

For the Arbitration Committee

Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 03:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

your comment to Tennis expert
Many people will occasionally put their trust in an untrustworthy person, but I am really quite surprised that vdb even bothered to write TE an email, let alone be so frank about his views in same, including referring to Tony as "obnoxious". I am sure John Mark Vandenberg must be regretting it. It amazed me that Vdb went out of the way to praise TE's efforts, tells him how he tried to shield him in the Arbcom case, as well as offer him some sensible/well-thought suggestions of an afterlife on Wikisource after a en:WP ban.

It was mildly embarrassing to note TE dump vdb's email into public view because of The Rambling Man is a sworn enemy, but it was nothing new for him to criticise RP as 'arrogant'. Of course, we know that TE does not accept advice, let alone friendly criticism, so I think you are wasting your time teaching TE to get wise. At best, he will ignore you or delete your post; at worst, he will lash out at you. He seems to be filled with negative emotions, and looks to me to be caught in a negative spiral. I don't hate him, anymore. I even posted a 'Welcome back' message on his talk page, which he swiftly removed. I wish him well, though. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting you: “…so I think you are wasting your time teaching TE to get wise.” I may have addressed the post to TE, however, the intended audience is wider than just him. Admins and ’crats need to stomp on orneriness faster and more consistently. I think this could come about if blocks dropped off users’ records after a period of time instead of the current situation, where they go onto a permanent record. Then, 1) being blocked won’t be an end-of-the-world deal many editors currently perceive it, so… 2) admins can feel more at liberty to dish them out, 3) then the blocked editor can just employ extra-good behavior for a while to get a blemish off their record; ergo, 4) more Wikipedians will have more fun at this hobby. TE’s smart; he knows how to play games and (often) get away with it. Better ‘programming instructions’ (one or two-day blocks consistently dished out where warranted) will yield better ‘output’ (nicer behavior out of the guy). I guarantee it. This garbage of letting protracted flame-wars fester for months with no one being blocked, and then having ArbCom use a 50-power retrospectoscope trying to figure out “who’s naughty and who’s nice” is for the birds.  Greg L (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your ideas for blocks. In relation to the secondary points you raised, I agree that there is quite enough toxic behaviour to go around; intelligence and psychological damage are not mutually exclusive. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
Per a motion at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:


 * (1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";
 * (2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";
 * (3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;
 * (4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

MOSNUM edits
I notice you've recently reverted some edits to WP:MOSNUM, returning them to older versions. I can't help but notice that the versions you're reverting to seem to have been authored primarily by you (and in fairness, the reverted edits that I took notice of were rephrased by me over the last couple of months). You haven't said a thing on the talk page after making the edits (though there is active discussion on that point), and you didn't participate in the discussions relating to the changes. (One appeared to be consensually approved after discussion and without controversy about a month ago, and the other served to modify the tone of an aggressive section, is uncontroversial, and has an active discussion on the talk page.) Please address your rationale for reverting these changes—I'm firmly of the opinion that my edits improved the clarity of the sections, and are consistent with the long-term consensus already discussed. TheFeds 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I explained myself just now on Talk:MOSNUM. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ending with a preposition
By the way, this is one of the notorious rules, like kibibyte, which were proposed and didn't catch on. Some schoolteachers marked down for it, but style guides either warn that some people object to it for no good reason, or permit it. MOS does too.

When it is natural to place the preposition at the end, avoiding it can produce contorted syntax. Churchill had a secretary who "corrected" his drafts that way, and after the second time wrote in the margin: "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put!" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. I avoid ending sentences with a preposition up to a point. Typically, sentences that are constructed to avoid doing so simply look more scholarly. Other times, work arounds look awkward and just don’t read smoothly. At all times, my objective is to ensure the article reads smoothly with the fewest unconscious (!) interrupts in the train of thought. Greg L (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes this takes writing (rebuilding) the whole sentence from scratch but I've found there's always a way to do it whilst keeping smooth readability and flow. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Transitional flying motion
After admiring your transitional motion picture I had occasion to move to the Talk:Gnat article and pose a question concerning their flying colony motion that I am interested in and I hope you too. Do you think their system of motion is programmable? PS A long time ago I was helping unloading produce from California and I learned that they considered a representative sample of something was the square root of the number involved. I see you more or less agre with that.WFPM (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish I could live up to your expectations, but my level of expertise with computers ends with fairly complicated Excel files. If I could program, I would have long ago made myself some cool little utility-type applications. As for the group-flying behavior of gnats, I have absolutely zero doubt that a computer program could be made to very accurately simulate their flying behavior. As for sampling fruit, I am quite the novice in statistics. But I do have a handy little iPhone app and routinely use standard deviation all the time in Excel. Drawing out a sample size from a bin of fruit that is the square root of the contents seems reasonable to me—on first-blush, anyway. A quick calculation of an example scenario reveals this:




 * Sampling the square root meets my *grin test*. Thanks; I hadn’t pondered this before. Greg L (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I Don't know if you've ever seen a bunch of gnats in a shaft of sunlight where they look stationary until you get up close and chase them away. And I don't even know the path of a single gnat. But you wouldn't have reason for any particular path, or any incidence of contact where you could transfer guidance and/or momentum, so it sounds pretty complicated to me. And you've got to admit that a sophisticated guidance system in a gnat is an interesting concept. I once was asked to try to help design a smart 22 caliber rifle bullet that could measure its proximity to the target, but this is beyond my imagination's capabilities.WFPM (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re application of guidance in proposed deletion of band article
Hi. Just a friendly notice to alert you to the discussion at. It concerns the proposed deletion of the article on the band The Shells, for purported lack of notability, and follows up on a discussion that you took part in this week. While I have no idea what your view will be on this issue (if any), and have never had contact with you before, I recognize that you may be interested in joining or following the indicated ongoing discussion.--VMAsNYC (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

mosnum: dates
Thanks for letting me know. I take it you think we have dealt adequately with User:TheFeds's concerns of today's date. The debate has got very confusing as the talk page does not proceed in chronological order. Anyway, long story short, I'm not allowed to edit the project page, not being an admin. I don't know whether you have that honour or, if not, who else can do it.

The next thing will have to be to communicate this to people who need to know, and I am thinking particularly of the people who run citation templates. How do we do that? Alarics (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Greg, I have to be away for 48 hours, so I hope you can keep a close eye, and nip any further nonsense in the bud. -- Alarics (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting you: …and nip any further nonsense in the bud. To which I will respond with the world-record shortest-possible Wikipedia response:


 * Greg L (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change the display of xt, and to create a template for bad examples.
I've made a proposal to change the behaviour of xt so that it uses underline and a tick mark instead of the different font, and to create a new template to mark incorrect examples. They'll look like this:
 * Write or, not.

Here's a sandbox showing how it will look like. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, if you're interested. -- _ _ _ A. di M. 17:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhm… Yeah… As you can see on WT:MOS, I’d like to see you make this, but only as a new template (or via piped extensions in functionality to the existing one). But certainly not as a “change” in existing behavior. As a new template, I truly like your suggestion and fully stand behind it. Good idea. Greg L (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC on YYYY-MM-DD date format in footnotes
Hello again, an RfC is now open for your succinct comments on this issue at Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I undid your edit to WP:AC/N, you'll want to repost it on the talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Arbcom Motion re date delinking
As a potentially interested party, your attention is brought to a motion currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee:  Arbitration/Requests/Motions.

At the time this notice was posted the text of the motion read: Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot, and Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their contructive work and consensus building.

This wording may have since changed; please see the above link for the current wording.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion redux
Hi. Just a friendly notice to alert you to the discussion here. It concerns the proposed deletion – again - of the article on the band The Shells, for purported lack of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Turkish butt-stabbing
You may want to be more careful in messages like this. I don't care about it and I'm not interested enough in you to make a big deal over it, but there are other editors who get upset over these things; one guy was the subject of a big ugly ANI thread a while back because his user page referred to some editors gangraping him or whatever. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I renamed this thread, which you thoughtfully titled to something I didn’t write (“Buttrape”), to what I actually did write, which was as follows:

Given that Rjanag has employed every quasi-permissible Turkish butt-stabbing on the editor responsible for this article, I am assuming that facts such as the MTV award are A) true, B) sufficiently cited, and C) quadruple checked.


 * Now… given that pretty much everyone who inhabits Wikipedia is old enough to play video games where they mow down hundreds of humans with machine guns, carjack people on the street, shoot pawn shop owners, and chop the heads off of gladiators with swords, I figure they’re old enough to handle the *shock* of me writing about your efforts to make another editor’s life hard with the Wikipedia-equivalent of Turkish butt-stabbings. If you think Wikipedia needs to be protected from offensive conduct, I suggest you look in the mirror. M’kay? Greg L (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sincerest apologies for confusing butt-stabbing and butt-rape. They are super-totally-different things. Oops. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 04:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood. A goof. No problem then. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Watts
Jc3s5h (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

MikeVanVoorhis (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (Consider this:)
 * 1. When a force of 1 newton is applied to a mass of 1 kilogram for a duration of 1 second it will accelerate at a rate of 1 meter/s/s (or 1 m/s^2) during that period of time. If initially at rest, its velocity will change from a speed of 0 meters / second to an instantaneous speed of 1.0 m/s.  Calculus shows that the velocity is the integral of the acceleration * time step over the time period, velocity = integral(acceleration * delta-time) = acceleration * time.
 * 2. The position of the mass at any point in time during the 1 second acceleration period is the integral of the velocity curve. After 1 second of constant acceleration at 1 m/s^2, the mass has moved 0.5 meters.  s = 1/2 * acceleration * time^2
 * 3. The cumulative energy expended through this period is 0.50 newton * meter = 0.50 Joules = integral(force * distance). The mass has kinetic energy at the end of the period = 1/2 * mass * velocity^2 = 0.5 Joules.  :4. The rate at which this energy is applied is not constant during the period however.  It increases during the period as the mass increases in velocity.
 * 5. ... IF the acceleration is constant during the time period.
 * 6. 1 watt = 1 J/s. The instantaneous power required to accelerate a 1.0 kg mass at a constant rate of 1.0 meter / second / second after 1.0 second of duration is 1.0 watt.  The cumulative energy applied during this time period is 0.50 Joules.  Power is the rate of energy application.
 * 7. If the acceleration was 1.0 g = 9.8 m/s^2, the velocity after 1.0 second would be 9.8 m/s and it would have travelled a distnace of 4.9 meters. It's kinetic energy would be 48 J and it would have an instantaneous power of 96 W.
 * The calculus is needed to derive the relationship between velocity, position, energy and power. Power is the rate of change of energy and position is the integral of velocity which is the integral of acceleration during the time period.  Your analysis did not consider these rates.
 * 1 W = J / s, 1 J = N * m, 1 N = Kg * m/s^2 = Kg * m^2/s^3
 * The power consumed is not constant during the duration so using it to understand constant acceleration is confusing. The kinetic energy contained by the mass at its intantaneous velocity (its inertia = mass * velocity) is the cumulative energy acquired as it accelerated from rest.  Equating this to a power requires that the specific time duration be known because the energy and rate of energy acquired (power) is changing during the time period.
 * I hope this helps! See also which is an Excel spreadsheet that performs these calculations.
 * MikeVanVoorhis (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Mike. I had to study how you made an Excel file download like that. As to the meat & potatoes of your conclusion, yes. You are quite right. Over the years, I had made my own falling-body calculators in Excel and over the last week, I hacked them a bit to analyze this “weight” issue. I reached the same conclusion.


 * I’ve been exchanging lots of e-mails with the Ph.D. physicist at the NIST working on the watt balance regarding this. The watt balance is truly comparing the mechanical force of the weight of a kilogram to electrical power, but it is a “virtual power” they are measuring. Even he has actually had to sit back and ponder what it is they are truly measuring while responding to my e-mails. Apparently, the “real” power being consumed in the watt balance is trivial. But there truly is an electrical change that is proportional to the weight of the kilogram. If the kilogram test mass is off by 30 ppb, he gets a 30 ppb difference in a certain voltage reading. Indeed, while there really is no electrical “power” being consumed by the watt balance to oppose the weight of a kilogram, there is really and truly a current and there is really and truly a voltage to that current, and that voltage is proportional to the weight where the resulting product of that current and voltage is a virtual power.


 * The explanations from the Ph.D. still aren’t making sense to me. In part, this is because he still hasn’t fully fleshed out the ‘virtual power’ concept in his own head (rather like spending thousands of hours to measure the electricity coming out of your wall socket to one part-per-billion accuracy without considering the details of the generator at the dam that made the electricity).


 * I heard once that when an A-10 Warthog fires its gatling gun, the thrust of the gun equals the thrust of its engines and the plane starts slowing. Just for kicks, I’m going to calculate the kinetic energy (joules) per cannon shell, and the rate of fire (watts) and see what the relationship is between that power and the resultant thrust (force). I got a hunch that if I go through the permutations of this sort of kinetic equation, I’ll find that there is no fixed association between gun power and thrust; that smaller bullets going faster produce the same counter-thrust with less power. This line of reasoning is predicated on the observation that ion engines are so darn efficient (low-mass ions accelerated to freaky-fast velocities).


 * When I have time, I’ll look at some schematic diagrams of the watt balance’s inner workings and keep throwing proposals to the Ph.D as to what I think is truly being measured in a virtual power measurement. I’m trying to produce clear, encyclopedic prose that is understandable by the type of audience that would still be reading the Kilogram article at that point. This “virtual power” stuff will probably best be in the form of a refnote. When I (finally) achieve wording that seems clear enough to me, and fully satisfies the Ph.D. physicist’s as far as scientific rigor, I’ll run it by you for a final sanity check. Greg L (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI for Rjanag
I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Epeefleche/Shells affair. You should know that I cited some of your comments. Regards - Draeco (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going over this case (just from an arbcom clerk perspective), and noticed you made a curious comment: "...the remedy Epeefleche is asking for (de-sysoping Rjanag) just doesn’t ever seem to come about on Wikipedia." There actually have been numerous desysops this year and in previous years. See User:NoSeptember/Desysop for a list. Manning (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
It's probably a little too late for this to mean much to you anymore, but I have left a message with my apologies at Arbitration/Requests/Case. Thank you, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree: a little late. My latest views are encapsulated in the postscript added at the bottom here. Greg L (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi Greg L, just a clarification about some points in your latest post. (Both are relatively peripheral points anyway, so it won't change your main message; just wanted to clarify some things about the history of the dispute.) Like I said, those are just minor details so it's nothing to be concerned about. But I just figured you might like to know. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the NFCR thread that first brought The Shells to my attention, it's not quite accurate that "Epeefleche lipped off to [me]". Actually, he and J Milburn were the ones fighting; I just showed up and 'ed their discussion and suggested they both calm down. Epeefleche never really said anything to me in particular there.
 * Also, about "Rjanag was the admin there dealing with Epeefleche on the subject of copyright issues" at The Shells... actually, I never really dealt with any copyright issues, nor was I chosen to have that responsibility... I noticed the article through NFCR, but never dealt with the image copyright stuff. My first edit to the article (00:32, 12 September 2009 ... if you would like to see the diff I can temporarily restore some revisions in userspace) was to fix a malformed table, and a day and a half later I realized how non-notable the band seemed and nominated it for deletion; I never dealt with copyright issues and never worked on the article in an administrative or mediating capacity.


 * Very well. Thank you for clarifying that. I’ll be sure not to repeat that misinformation if I make any future posts. And, to what you just alluded, there is no point to my striking and correcting in my latest post since those nuances were beside the main points I was making.


 * As to the subject of “future posts”: I would hope to not have to make any more of them. My suggestion to you—unless you actually enjoy the sport of wikidrama—would be to re-title The Shells to The Shells (doo wop band), to restore the other as The Shells (folk song band), and to post a message on Epeefleche’s talk page explaining that you undertook those actions to undo damage and that you apologize (again) for the hassle you’ve caused him. I can guarantee that you will look like a big man for having done so.


 * Perhaps the next move after that would be to seek the counsel of a truly respected Bureaucrat to see if a third AfD is indicated and wise. If a third AfD is started, I suggest that it be *properly conducted,* where admins stay out of it and only rank & file editors weigh in. I see no point to you two staying at each others’ throats over this. Greg L (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said at the Arb page, DRV is certainly open to you (and I've already said that if you open a DRV I will not get in the way). The one thing I will not do is restore the article. There are two reasons:
 * I didn't delete the article. Restoring it would be wheel-warring.
 * The whole reason I started the AfD was because I thought the subject was not notable. It was not to 'get back' at Epeefleche (indeed, like I already said, Epeefleche hadn't done anything to me yet at this point). Everything else was just peripheral. I still believe the subject is not notable, and my beliefs about the subject will not change just because I've apologized to a user. This was never about the user, it was always about the article. And I didn't apologize because I want to "look like a big man", I did so because I'm hoping the drama can end.
 * r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Side note... I don't know what you mean by "properly conducted, whre admins stay out of it and only rank & file editors weigh in". There is not, and never has been, a rule or even a guideline that admins shouldn't comment in AfDs. Admins do all the time&mdash;since they are presumably experienced and trusted editors, their input is valued. Becoming an admin doesn't make someone cease to be a "rank & file editor"; admins still have the same rights and responsibilities as regular editors. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (*sigh*) Have it your way. I know full well that admins normally weigh in on RfCs and AfDs and what not. If you don’t even understand why I made that suggestion, then never mind. Greg L (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag RFAR statement length
Hi Greg. Your statement at the Rjanag request for arbitration is of excessive length. Please make enough deletions from your text to ensure that you are within the 500-word maximum limit. (Prolixity is typically not suitable or helpful on arbitration pages.) If you need assistance or have a query, please contact me (or another clerk). Many thanks, AGK 21:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The length of your statement as it currently stands is much more reasonable. Thank you for your co-operation. AGK 12:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)  You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Signature status and Easter egg links
I posted a reply at the RFC to your "status" indicator comment. I'm also here to ask you what you think an Easter egg link is, as I remember discussing this with you before. See here. Technically, it might not be an easter egg link, but I do think that the change I made improved the wording there. I get particularly annoyed when long phrases within sentences, phrases you don't expect to be a link, are piped as a link like that, and you have to hover over the link to get the name (pedantically, the film is not exactly the same name as the book). Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit was spot-on. An Easter egg, by my definition, is a link that is named or piped in such a way that it is unobvious to the typical reader as to what they will go to if they click on it, or which takes them to an article different from what would normally be expected. Easter eggs are a violation of the principle of least astonishment and waste readers’ time. They are not to be used in articlespace for that reason. In WP-space, they may be used for self-referential or comedic effect (like I once did here) as they can lighten the mood when dealing with editors who fell on their heads and damaged the “humor” portion of their brains. And very little reader time is devoted to clicking on such a link to get a to brighten their day. Too often, editors will not be nearly so conscientious, and will write posts in WP-space that only make a glancing reference to what is really on the editor’s mind—leaving the recipient only guessing as to what is the real meaning and causing them to waste untold minutes responding to a red herring. I wish such editors would just use plain-speak, say what’s on their mind, and get to the point—it saves a lot of time and guesswork. For such overly serious editors, a little humor can go a long way towards brightening their day and getting them to realize that nothing that goes on in the back rooms of Wikipedia is at all serious in the grand scheme of things; they just need to lighten up and not take themselves so seriously. Humor helps, I think. Greg L (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I also see your point at the RfC about arb and admin stuff in signatures (and talk pages - most people do remember to list what they are round here - just drop someone a note if you think they should update their user or talk pages). But it works both ways as well. I can't be bothered to go back to that article and argue the point, because it would be unseemly for an arb to do that (some would say), let alone get into a sequence of back-and-forth edits and partial reverts. Of course, I would be arguing the point as an editor, not an admin or an arb, but I would hate to think that anyone listens to what I say about articles because I'm an arb. I'd be the first to trout anyone who did that, but it can happen. Some people see an ostentatious badge as a form of intimidation in itself. It's a difficult one to resolve. Carcharoth (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahhh… very good. I’ve long thought that Easter eggs can be used to good effect when dealing with those who tend to take Wikipedia too seriously. When I was a young engineer, I walked around like the rod up my ass had a rod up it’s ass. One’s place of employment is, after all, where one obtains the resources one brings home so one’s children aren’t raised in poverty. I’ve lightened up a bit since. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On quite a few occasions I've brought a word or two from the adjacent text into a link-pipe to avoid giving readers the impression that its, say, a common-term link, when really it's to a quite specific contextual link. Like Carcharoth, however, I think it can be irritating when a chunky phrase is blued out unnecessarily; often it's possible to trim in the other direction (although occasionally not). It can require case-by-case editorial judgment. Tony   (talk)  09:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In articlespace, me too, Tony. I take great care to make links so readers can properly anticipate what sort of article they will be taken to. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC, and discussed Rjanag's conduct at the prior RfA and one of the prior AN/Is.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
 * (a) posting their own view; and/or
 * (b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:


 * RfC Conduct
 * RfC Guide
 * RfC Guide 2
 * RfC Rules

--Epeefleche (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, though...
It might be worth it to look up the difference between Nidal Malik Hassan and Anwar al-Awlaki, since you based so much of your argument against Firefly322's block on Awlaki's character. Hassan is the shooter, Awlaki is a tangentially connected imam. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, my mistake. That doesn’t subvert the point of my message point whatsoever though. But you knew that, didn’t you? Greg L (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is worth looking at it. I've done so.  Awlaki, as the article you refer to reflects:
 * suggested that Israeli intelligence agents might have been responsible for the attacks, and that the FBI "went into the roster of the airplanes and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default.
 * praised the Palestinian suicide bombers' fervor.
 * is associated with Iman University headed by Zindani (who was designated a terrorist in 2004 by both the US and the UN).
 * Served as VP for the Charitable Society for Social Welfare (CSSW); during a 2004 terrorism trial in New York, FBI agent Brian Murphy testified that CSSW was a “front organization to funnel money to terrorists.”
 * His name came up in nearly a dozen terrorism cases recently in the US, England, and Canada; in each case suspects (including convicted radical Islamic terrorists in the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, and individuals charged as being radical Islamic terrorists in the 2006 Toronto terrorism case) were devoted to al-Awlaki's message, listened to on laptops, audio clips, and CDs.
 * In October 2008, Charles Allen, U.S. Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, said al-Awlaki "targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen."
 * Fort Hood shootings suspect Nidal Malik Hasan was investigated by the FBI after intelligence agencies intercepted at least 18 emails between him and al-Awlaki between December 2008 and June 2009.
 * Author Jarret Brachman said al-Awlaki is a major influence on radical English-speaking jihadis internationally.
 * After the Fort Hood shooting, al-Awlaki praised Nidal Malik Hasan's actions.
 * Al-Awlaki's sermons were extremely pro-jihad.
 * Terrorism consultant Evan Kohlmann calls al-Awlaki "one of the principal jihadi luminaries for would-be homegrown terrorists."
 * Much of the above acts could legitmately be viewed as heinous or evil, don't you think?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Any person like Anwar al-Awlaki, who would praise the killing of innocent people, is a very bad man. I see no need to append “IMHO” to that; it’s a simple thing. Western intelligence agencies are worried about this guy because he incites others to kill. Our Wikipedia article on this guy needs to be realistic. Western governments are busy trying to preserve your freedom from fear so you don’t go to bed at night worrying that you will be killed while you sleep during an attack with a weapon of mass destruction. This fear is something that keeps members of our Executive Branch awake at night while you and I have the luxury of clueless bliss as we go about our daily lives. It’s also the reason my own son joined the Navy to be a SEAL. Perhaps someone would point me to the Imam who gave official blessing to Osama bin Laden that any attack on U.S. soil with weapons of mass destruction was officially sanctified so long as it didn’t kill more than ten million people. He’s bad too. Accordingly, our article on that kind gentleman needn’t give air time to the fact that he’s kind to dogs and also exhales carbon dioxide, which is good for plants. I rather like all-things “common sense”; it needn’t be more complex than that. Greg L (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Firefly
After reading most of your rant on Firefly's page and taking away "Help! help! He's being oppressed", I thought you would be interested in Free speech. It appears directly relevant. Toddst1 (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting you: “…most of your rant”. Well, I can see from your above inane post that you unfortunately didn’t read nor comprehend all of my post. My post was calmly written in a civil tone. Nevertheless, I can’t help but note first your quick tendency to backhand my post as a “rant”; that is a tired Wikipedia ploy employed by bullies whose arguments don’t hold water. Admins are supposed to set a high example of proper conduct on Wikipedia and you come up far short when you resort to such a well-worn tactic, which you had to know was innately inflammatory and would automatically put an editor on the defensive and make them less inclined to understand your point. I take it that you received your adminship early on when Wikipedia was more lax as to who was entrusted with that responsibility?


 * I knew someone like you would come along and spout about “free speech” and how Wikipedia is a private Web site where there are clear limits on free speech. Go back and read my post again. You will see that I was exceedingly careful when I wrote it because every single time I mentioned Firefly’s right to express his view, I included caveats that amounted to “when done so when debating the content of a germane and topical article and while being civil to other Wikipedians.” It would help immeasurably if you actually read and comprehend another’s posts before demonstrating the shortcomings of your understanding of Wikipedia’s policies.


 * In case you didn’t notice, we’re all here to expand and improve Wikipedia’s articles while being civil to others in a collaborative writing environment. Wikipedia does not exist for volunteer admins—some of whom are still in school and many of whom are full of themselves over their understanding of legal principals and Wikipedia policy—so they can try to show off their keen insight into nuances such as whether or not it is appropriate for a Wikipedian to state an opinion that a notable living person of infamy is “evil” when discussing a Wikipedia article on that infamous individual . If I was editing an article about Osama bin Laden and some editor was trying to balance the article by expanding it beyond all reason with text about how his naughty deeds should be offset with an equal amount of text over how he is such a splendid fellow, I might—in the discussion pages—opine that “Osama is a thoroughly evil monster who killed thousands of innocent lives.” It’s an opinion about the infamous individual who is subject of that article; anyone who can’t understand or handle that can get out of Wikipedia.


 * If I did happen to share this thought on the Osama bin Laden discussion page while debating germane article content, that is my right to do so because civil, frank, vigorous debate is central to obtaining balance and truth in Wikipedia’s articles. If you don’t understand that much, I simply can’t help you. And if you were tempted to try to tell me otherwise, I would thank you to not presume to dictate to me how I may think or express my thoughts when debating article content. Now…


 * If you want to actually debate me here, I’ll thank you to actually read what I wrote before presuming to criticize it; that’s not too much to ask. And even then, unless you have something really, really thoughtful to write, I’ll thank you to not come here to my talk page anymore. You can spew what you think on Firefly’s talk page, which I am ignoring. If I follow another orange tag saying ‘I’ve got messages’ and find another bit of nonsense here, or find that you are doing a poor job of setting a high example of proper conduct on Wikipedia, or perceive that you are badgering me, I’ll delete this entire thread from my own talk page, which is another right I have on Wikipedia. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Postscript:
 * Question: What’s white and flies across the sand? Answer: Anwar al-Awlaki’s turban. This whole issue of someone calling the guy “evil” on a Wikipedia talk page while discussing editorial content for an article on the character appears to be moot now. It appears that the U.S. dropped a cruise missile on the guy around Christmas time. Seems, the U.S. government thought him to be exceedingly naughty. Greg L (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * PPS
 * Shucky darn. Looks like he wasn’t there to be blown up with the other terrorists who were targeted. Seems, he was a few blocks away. So he is free to incite the feeble minded to kill innocent Americans. Nice joe. Greg L (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax  07:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Boink!
Happy new year. :) --Fnagaton 22:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Been busy and sick (bad combination). Happy new year to you! Greg L (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Greg,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship    proposal was  started  on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the  existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working   compromise, so CDA is still largely being  floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the  RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and  Neutral, with Comments  underneath), this RfC is still essentially a  'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cobalt (CAD program), Gallery of ray tracings
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cobalt (CAD program), Gallery of ray tracings, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 22:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems clear enough to me, wjemather. As stated at the top of the gallery, it is for “ ‘Topical and germane‘ additions … [that] … should be of interest to readers interested in Cobalt’s solid-modeling and image-rendering capabilities.” I think you presume nefarious motives where none exist. Greg L (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility
Only so much incivility can be tolerated. The threshold has now been reached. Please desist. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 22:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I posted this on Talk:Cobalt (CAD program)?

I won’t be baited by your characterizing another’s posts as 40-minute-long “rants.” I explicitly asked whether you will conform to Wikipedia’s requirement that editors abide by the consensus view and not edit against consensus. You refused to pledge to do so and exhibit only keen interest in further engaging in protracted debate on issues the rest of us consider to be satisfactorily addressed. I don’t know of anyone here who is interested in further entertaining you with your wikidrama, but I have no stomach for it. The consensus here is that the article is clearly notable and sufficiently cited. If you persist to disrupt Wikipedia by slapping your {Discuss-DISPUTE-I DON'T LIKE IT}-tags on an article to force debate in defiance of consensus, you will be held accountable. I understand you might not agree with the consensus here that the article is sufficiently cited and is notable; in the military, that’s called “So sad–too bad.” You will have to live with that and move on. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who are you trying to kid? Please don’t attempt to sweep your misbehavior under the rug by throwing about unfounded charges of “incivility”. Horse hooey. And please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.


 * I have about 40 hours devoted to creating Cobalt (CAD program), which includes the time making those fine, exceedingly compact animations that very effectively communicate something that would be difficult to convey with words. I am so disappointed that the sum of my labors has failed to impress Wjemather. Compared to the minding-numbingly boring brochure-like feature lists one finds at Wikipedia’s articles on other CAD programs (like Pro/ENGINEER), I find the Cobalt article to be interesting and attractive, myself. Your contribution to the article—the whole 20 seconds it took for you to slap tags on the article to signal that the article (a 70-hour-old work in progress) didn’t meet with your approval—certainly forced a great deal of discussion over there. Bravo. The trouble is: no one else there agrees with you. At all. So just drop it please. Greg L (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd R. Woodson
I generally ignore user boxes as a rule as some users have so many of them I find them not to be that helpful in general. As it happens I find both your comments on this page fine and wasn't intending to have a go or be 'a stain on your existence' (not sure that was aimed at me but still...), I was merely pointing out that in my opinion (and I am but one man), as someone reasonably independent, you had very slightly overstepped the mark in this instance, something we all do from time to time (I know I have and people have commented about it to me). Feel free to remove this as well if you feel it will avoid drama, I just wanted to reply to your comments. Dpmuk (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite all right. You-know-who had put in his 2¢ after you did and I had tired of getting dragged into the “neener-neener” childishness of it all. It’s about as much fun as stepping into an elevator and one’s nose quickly discovers that a drunk had whizzed somewhere. Time for a change of scenery. Thanks and happy editing. You are, of course, quite right. Greg L (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Time for a break?
My raising of the problems with the Cobalt article must really have got under your skin. Tough. If you are taking things that personally, it is time to put away the keyboard and take an extended break. Others, including your friends, have noted your combustible personality and general disregard for civility when dealing with anyone who happens to disagree with you. I thought that you might have got it out of your system with your raising of a frivolous and baseless ANI, but now you have blatantly joined the Woodson AfD with the sole purpose of continuing to harass and provoke me. I suggest you take a step back now and think about what it is you are trying to achieve here. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 18:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh! I see… Because I just posted this (see the last posts) at an AfD you and your friend started. It is quite clear there that it is you who is the one who has let something (the simple facts of the matter) get under his skin. I find your above post to be self-serving posturing (and pure crap) in preparation for the inevitable ANIs you will be the subject of if you persist at hounding Epeefleche. And stop pestering me here on my talk page. I “blatantly” joined in on the AfD not for “ the sole purpose of continuing to harass and provoke [you],” but for the sole purpose of exercising my right to participate in discussions—like everyone else there—and speak what I believe to be the simple truth of the matter. If you have something to say, please keep it on the proper discussion pages where the wikidrama you start is meticulously (*sigh*) addressed by the rest of the Wikipedian community. Greg L (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the proper place (in the first instance) to try and address these issues which, in case it is not clear, is your incivility and pursuance of a grudge. You cannot hide behind the PC-0 tag and pretend that the same rules do not apply to you. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 19:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators can judge for themselves whether these posts were for the sole purpose of “continuing to harass and provoke” you. You have a right to your opinion. I find your frequent and protracted battles with Epeefleche—a long-running Hatfields & McCoys feud—has been allowed to get out of hand and is now treading perilously close to Harassment; it’s just that simple. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To be exceedingly clear for those who come across this rant from Wjemather, here is the total text from my two posts that clearly upset him just now:


 * Keep I slept on this last night to let my mind sort out the issues. When I first read the Woodson article, it struck me as perfectly notable enough. As I studied and studied it and further picked it apart with a critical eye, I started perceiving weaknesses in its notability. So I withdrew an earlier Keep vote, slept on it, and was coming here to vote regardless of how others voted. Here is my reason for voting Keep: As much as the nominator and his friend would like everyone here to focus only on the article and judge it on its merits (seems reasonable enough on the surface), the reall reason we are all here wasting our time on another bit of wikidrama is because a long running feud between three editors that continually results in edit battles, tags slapped on articles, and other things we don’t need on Wikipedia. For whatever reason, Epeefleche’s work keeps on being subjected to the critical eyes of this other editor and his friend (the nominator of this AfD). They somehow materialize to give Epeefleche’s work an exceedingly critical once-over (and twice over, and thrice over). I’ve seen the battles and and arguments and find much of it to be truly absurd. The simple fact is that this is all over a long-running feud and it is all needless. In my view, these three editors should be required—via ArbCom or an ANI—to stay away from each other and all will be much better. The Woodson article has 54 citations and is clearly the product of a great deal of work by Epeefleche. We shouldn’t have the hard labors of another Wikipedian be routinely assailed by the same pair of editors. If there are shortcomings in Epeefleche’s work, let the rest of the community weigh in and naturally resolve things in due course. To WJE and the nominator: I suggest you take Epeefleche off your watch list (or whatever else it is you do). With articles on Wikipedia, it seems exceedingly unlikely that you two just randomly stumble across his work. If your answer is “I just look at New Article lists and call ‘em like I see ‘em,” then the simple solution is check the edit history and if it magically happens to be Epeefleche, just stay away. Wikipedia will be better off without all this needless wikidrama. Greg L (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, in short, you have come here to support your friend, throw some more dirt at me because you are still upset that I raised issues with an article you started, and have no policy reason for your keep vote. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 17:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone once asked Abraham Lincoln what religion he adhered to. He replied “When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.” Same for me; I come to the defense of those who need defending—always. I suggest two things to you, Wjemather: 1) Please stop wrapping yourself in the banner of righteous indignation every single time someone criticizes your behavior on Wikipedia, and 2) Just stay away from Epeefleche and I’m sure peace will break out upon the land, crops will flourish, midwives will sing, etcetera. Greg L (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. As for your suggesting that I have no “policy” based reasons to vote Keep&thinsp;: 1) I second what brewcrewer wrote, and 2) I am mindful of Harassment, which seems to be increasingly applicable with you and Epeefleche’s articles. Greg L (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat this advise: I suggest you take Epeefleche off your watch list (or whatever else it is you do) so the community no longer has to deal with you two’s continual feuds. If there are shortcomings in Epeefleche’s work, let the rest of the community weigh in and naturally resolve things in due course. That is not too much to ask of you. Greg L (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD notice
Removal of the notice prior to closure of the discussion is not appropriate. In fact the notice states specifically that. I have reverted your edit. Regards. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 16:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Then we’ll drag out the inevitable. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Please avoid a lack of civility as you have displayed, referring to other editors as "thoroughly brain-damaged". This is highly inappropriate. It is not conducive to a positive, polite, and amiable editing atmosphere, and not constructive or fostering of increase in collaboration. Please avoid this highly inappropriate behavior pattern in the future. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s not an attack on you personally. You are sorely mistaken when you wrote above that I stated another *editor* (you) was brain damaged. I wrote that a resulting “compromise” you and another editor arrived at was brain-damaged.” Don’t try to shield legitimate criticism of improper editing conduct behind the apron strings of violations of civility. You were the recipient of simple plain-talk about what I see is improper conduct by you on Wikipedia and profound WP:OWN issues with that article. You have no special privileges there on that article, no special entitlement to have your way, and better start listening to what other editors are trying to say. Don’t bother me again here on my talk page. Your post amounts to wikiposturing and I find it to be pure crap. And your last e-mail was silly and childish. So stop sending me those too. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope that we can both move past this, and shift back towards a more positive, polite, and perhaps even kind and amiable tone and demeanor, in future communications. I certainly would appreciate that very much. -- Cirt (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. If you start listening to people like Martin H., who was totally correct but couldn’t get past you (someone who fancies himself the gatekeeper of the article) things will work better for you and the rest of the wikipedian community, and Wikipedia itself. Now, what part of “Don’t bother me again here on my talk page” didn’t you understand the first time? Greg L (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, goodbye. :( -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)