User talk:Mike Church~enwiki/archive2

Most recent posts
I liked your piece on contemporary class in the US very much. Concise but complete--a rare combination. I'll confess to ageism and admit I was surprised to find you're so young. I can't say I'm much interested in card games or severed penises, but I'll cheerfuly admit you are probably just as expert on them. RivGuySC 02:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your commentary. The severed penises thing was kind of a joke. Someone referenced List of severed penises on VfD (as a proposed idea, it was a null link at the time) and I ran with the idea. Dog years was sort of a joke page, too (note the date). I'm not an expert on severed penises, I just happen to know who Lorena Bobbit and Armin Meiwes are. :) Mike Church 03:47, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended you with my post on your ratings discussion page. I was of course trying to make a point, but you're correct in pointing out that that was not the best way to do it. It's just late, I guess. Jeeves 07:30, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * No prob. You made some good points, actually. I'm glad you brought them up. I don't want to do this if it's going to make a mess of Wikipedia. Mike Church 07:31, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well done! (Rating system, of course.) --Ruhrjung 11:18, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rating system was a bad idea, but it took guts to admit that. I have a lot of respect for people who are able to recognize a mistake when they're made aware of it.--Eloquence* 17:33, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It honestly wasn't something I was terribly passionate about. I was originally supportive of the idea, but not "in love with" it. I find that some peoples' tendencies fall in love with ideas (their own or someone else's) is what causes a lot of people to become unreasonable. I didn't want to become like that. The idea came up on VfD. It sounded, at first, like a good idea, so I decided to proceed cautiously. After further discussion, it was determined that the proposed system (or any such rating system) would be 1> riddled with unintended difficulties and side-effects, 2> not really necessary, and 3> quite unpopular. So, it was only responsible to can the idea before it caused a mess. Mike Church 19:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RDUO
Thanks for your edits at Responsible Drug User's Oath. They were very well written and expressed the statement of the oath very well. I commend you on your writing skills. DryGrain 20:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. By the way, I saved that page on my hard drive. If your page gets deleted (which looks possible) I still think this content needs to be preserved, so I'll create a page called Drug use and responsibility or Responsibility of drug use debate, attempting to examine both sides of the issue. The RDUO will be featured, but demoted to a mere mention rather than written in full, but I'll include an external link. I do think this content (the debate, which is quite nontrivial) ought to be featured in Wikipedia, even if RDUO itself is determined not to be worthy of its own article.


 * As for me and writing, Wikipedia is my practice. The trick to gaining and maintaining writing skills is to do it, and a lot of it (and read, which alas I don't have much time for). I'd love to read some more novels and possibly attempt one of my own, but right now I'm taking a full courseload, working as a course grader and tutor, heavily promoting a card game, and have a tendency to get sucked into the 'pedia for hours on end, so... alas, not much time.


 * At any rate, good luck with your future work at Wikipedia. Mike Church 21:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in complete agreement with you that there needs to be a page expressing the importance of this debate. I'm completely willing to help write or edit this article, should it get done. I realize that perhaps the RDUO didn't need to be quoted in full on the article, and perhaps it would not have been voted for deletion if it wasn't.

Your views on writing strongly resemble those of Stephen King. Did you happen to read 'On Writing'? DryGrain 10:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * On Writing I have. It's a great book, and I learned a lot from it. What I need to tackle, at some point, is Elements of Style, though. I have no excuse for not doing so, and it's only 90 pages. After all, I just spent half the night reading 140 pages of The Cheating Culture (which I'll write a page for if one doesn't exist). That book, by the way, is a must-read, because it gives such a great analysis of American society and how, ahem, farked it is.


 * My views on writing come mostly from personal endeavor, as well as my writing style itself. However, works like On Writing have certainly influenced it.


 * I'd like to read and write more, but I unfortunately am part of this hypercompetitive time-impoverished society we all have to deal with, and alas can't devote as much time and energy to those pursuits as I'd like. Wikipedia is a release for me, a chance for me to be productive in something huge and important without worrying about grades or appearances or preparing for a career. It also keeps my writing skills from atrophying amid the squalor and neglect of student life. Mike Church 11:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Welcoming you to edit the newly formed responsible drug use. DryGrain 08:34, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure thing, maybe later. As I'm about to explain on my User page, I'm going on temporary hiatus from Wikipedia, or at least writing to it.


 * I would have preferred the title to have been something along the lines of drug use and responsibility, since it's less POV. "Responsible drug use" seems to imply there is such a thing, which not everyone agrees upon, whereas "drug use and responsibility" leaves it an open question. Mike Church 13:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Archives
Archives:

/archive1- (December 27, 2003 through March 31, 2004)

/april04editwars- (Posts from the edit wars of April 25 and 26, 2004)

Comment by Tannin
Hi Mike. Please do not think that people are "out to get you". No-one here that I know of holds you any ill will. I've never played Ambition, but I always loved 500 and Hearts and Oh Hell - so I'll bet you London to a brick that if I ever get around to trying it out I'll love it. This, however, is not the point. It's a new game and very little known. Indeed, as you yourself say on your user page, it's a derivative of the major trick-taking card games. It's just not appropriate to thow in such an example from out of left field. Appropriate rules to quote in this context are (for example) the rules of Bridge, 500, and so on. If, by some bizarre chance, you're unable to lay your hands on a copy of those rules, then maybe you could justify quoting from the rules of your own game. A gentleman, however, would do so without trying to take advantage of the 'pedia - i,.e., just say something like "Here is an example set of revoke rules", and discreetly not mention that this is your own game you are quoting from. It would be much better to quote the rules of 500 or Bridge or something else that features prominently in the standard references, of course.

You say it's "not advertising". Well, you could pass it off as "self-promotion" instead, I suppose, but that is a distinction without a difference: it's still inappropriate behaviour. That's OK. We have all done things here that we later had cause to regret, or that other users objected to. I'm not out to crucify you or punish you, or anything else of that nature - just to restore that page to an appropriate and balanced state.

One of these days I'll get to try Ambition out, and I'm sure that at that stage I'll be very grateful to you - because there are very few things that beat a really good game of cards (and even fewer that I can mention in a family environment).

Best regards, Tannin 14:20, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Response

 * Thank you. If you try Ambition out, be sure to let me know your thoughts on it. I always welcome feedback.


 * I've decided, from here on out, instead of defending via revert Ambition links for reasons related to ego, to pursue a logical system of determining whether or not the link belongs, the formula is discussed in Talk:Carleton College.


 * I did, in a sense, get a bit ahead of myself in the April 25-26 edit/flame wars, though not entirely without cause. Making no claim relative to other users, many of whose contributions are equally valuable, I can confidently assert that, as the record testifies, over 90 percent of my contributions to Wikipedia have been of high quality and value. I would argue that very few-- less than 1 percent-- of my contributions have been to the detriment of Wikipedia, and they have not survived. When I'm personally attacked over a few measly links, then, it strikes me as ingratitude.


 * The personal attacks were what really brought my ego into it. Consider User:RickK's characterization of my card game as "unimportant", and similar statements from User:Isomorphic. This is an incendiary (albeit meaningless) claim. He could legimitately say that it's "not yet canonical" or "only marginally famous" but to categorize it as "unimportant" is merely flamebait. Nonetheless, I still made the conscious decision of entering the edit/flame wars, and have to take responsibility for that.


 * Mike Church 04:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have the context for the quote you provided, but someone calling your game "unimportant" isn't a personal attack (heck, it's not even an criticism of your game), and it's certainly not "incendiary." It's just a statement that the game isn't very widely known or commonly played. Andrewlevine 04:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think, though, calling something "unimportant" shows a pretty bold value judgement. To say the game isn't yet famous is just to state an obvious fact. Yet, lots of people/things/ideas that aren't famous are still important. In this case, it was a value judgment he lacked the knowledge or competent judgement to make. Still, it got under my skin. Mike Church 10:05, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush quotes
Please, be reasonable, there is already an article about Bushisms. Check it and refrain from partisan edits. Why don't you elaborate on important facts as the Bush administration's ties to Enron and the oil industry instead? Or the cost of and the international reaction to the star wars project. Let the facts speak for themselves. Get-back-world-respect 23:02, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Bushisms is actually a redirect to Damaging quotations.


 * While some of the quotes are just stupid, certainly the WMD joking belongs on the page, because it's not just a stupid quote, but quite tasteless and offensive. Mike Church 23:06, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Ever wondered why Bushisms is actually a redirect to Damaging quotation? Your attempts to smuggle the quotes into the article are tasteless. Get-back-world-respect 23:18, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You are a shame for wikipedia. I will list you as a vandal. Get-back-world-respect 12:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You know what? Go for it.


 * I listed a fact on George W. Bush. How is a fact POV? It's not. Facts are truthful... or they are not, in which case they ought to be deleted.


 * However, I listed a sourced fact, which I (and many others, most likely) judged to be important in judging the man's character. I don't think this qualifies as vandalism. Mike Church 14:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Hall of fame
Hehe, nice idea! i hope to make the next edit of the bitch list, maybe i should revert East Germany to the pre-Wik version&hellip; ;-) Anárion 17:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Good luck. You can always make repeated references to my card game ( Ambition) on his talk page. That'll piss him off. Or, better yet, promote something of your own on his talk page. That'll get you the coveted Wik "self-promoter" label presently only enjoyed by myself and User:Daniel C. Boyer. Mike Church 17:33, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Hall of fame is inflammatory and inappropriate for the Wikipedia namespace. I have listed it on VfD. Angela. 21:15, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

MathCounts
Thanks for your edits for MathCounts! I am not exactly sure if the examples of the problems are copyrighted. I removed them, just to be safe.

Also, you are doing really good work to Wikipedia. I would like to nominate you for adminship sometime soon. --Lst27 21:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you very kindly. I'm flattered. However, I warn you: For better or for worse, I've gotten on some peoples' bad sides. In many of these cases, I was not the instigator of the conflict, but that is irrelevant when feelings and opinions, not who-started-what, are what actually matter.


 * Therefore, you may risk some part of your own social standing by nominating me for adminship. I don't mean to discourage you from doing it, only to warn you about this for your own sake. If you still want to nominate me for adminship, by all means, go ahead.


 * Thank you for your comments, and keep making Wikipedia better, man. Mike Church 02:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you are right, but I've already nominated you for adminship. Do you mind if I remove your name from the page? --Lst27 00:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Wait about 12 hours, and if it looks like I won't get it, feel free to remove me. Go ahead and do it sooner (even now, if you wish) if you feel that it's directly causing you social harm. Mike Church 01:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Assassin
I rewrote the Assassin article to cover as many variations as I could find. If you're still interested, take a look and add anything I've left out. Isomorphic 05:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yeah, I've actually never played it, but I'm planning on doing it next year. It seems really cool. I added some info. on weaponry. More to come. Mike Church 17:21, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Wik
Hi I saw what you wrote on Wik's userpage and just want to let you know that there is no talk of a ban on Wik because of his user page and a few disagreements with others. Wik is a real problem. He get's into an enormous number of revert wars. Sometimes over trivial things. I've seen him in revert wars with lots (and I do mean lots) of different users. He reverts without discussion. He reverts maliciously. He has reverted people just because he didn't like them. He has reverted large chuncks of work because he didn't agree with one or two points. Now it is true, that most of the people he does this to are trolls, POV pushers, morons and troublemakers, but quite a few are not. Something has to be done about him. theresa knott 10:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * And just to add to that, he is generally incapable of coming up with a compromise when there is more than one valid way to do something, and incapable of talking before acting. For instance, if there is a troublesome user, Wik has 200+ admins to ask for help, but instead he opts to revert, which makes it into an edit war and then a fingerpointing session. I think if you were able to calculate the value of Wik's additions vs the time stolen by dragging dozens of people in to deal with the endless reverts and edit wars, you'd find his overall contribution to be negative rather than positive. Stan 16:23, 8 May 2004 (UTC)