User talk:Father Goose/Archive 4

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you the Barnstar of Diligence for your close watch on the Generations articles and for being there to keep things grounded. I really appreciate the things you have done and contributions you have made and feel that you should be thanked for your work on these articles %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 02:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!--Father Goose (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal & stuff

Simple, yet you tore the argument apart and derailed everything for a day or so. [1] It has now gone on a new track based on your comment, as if nothing happened. Well played, sir, well played. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

*evil laugh* Well, it is a portal page.--Father Goose (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That was exactly the problem! The argument was logical, then you make an argument that was more logical that completely negated the original argument (at least the WP namespace part). Like a freakin surgeon. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

*smiles* OK, OK, you had a point...so, to be perfectly clear, you don't oppose moving the main page to Portal:Wikipedia? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on that. I couldn't care less about consistency for its own sake, and I'm not convinced the negatives to hosting the main page in article namespace are all that bad. (I don't know how bad the negatives for moving it, either -- server load? User confusion? "What the fuck is 'Portal:Wikipedia'?" etc.) From a software magic point of view, I think the best place to host it at is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ and to include that page in the portal namespace. As it is, it redirects to main page anyway.

Oh no I've been followed! I swear I didn't tell 'em nuttin'. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we're currently using a JavaScript trick to make Portal:Wikipedia show up as simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". It's a small change, and if the JavaScript fails no harm done, but it should make it easier and more intuitive to bookmark Wikipedia should we switch over to Portal:Wikipedia.

Server load shouldn't really be impacted, in fact the Wikimedia developers have explicitly told us that we can move the main page wherever we like. So, does this help mitigate your concerns? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Still neutral. I'm in the group that is not convinced it needs fixing -- though I only actively oppose moving it into the Wikipedia namespace, which is no longer being suggested. I suppose you want me to strike my earlier "oppose", though. Have you asked the devs if it can be hosted directly at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ? That, I would actively support.--Father Goose (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But then, would you be able to wikilink it? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha. I think I've just received some surgery myself. Suggestion withdrawn.--Father Goose (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

It took me a long time to come around say thanks for the shiny thing you delivered to my nest. Thanks. You already had become an inspiration (oh, yes, I've been watching you in action on all those talk pages), now you're doubly so (oh, yes, I'm easy to bribe, LOL). Thanks again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've put in plenty of hard work to improve these articles, so it was well-deserved. Incidentally, I have to clean out my garage... want another barnstar? :-P --Father Goose (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What's a sutler?

Thanks for your edit to John J. Pershing. That was the first question I had when I saw the edit. Having had my vocabulary improved for today, I move on, greatful that WP has expanded my mind. :) — MrDolomite • Talk 14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know the word either, so when I found out that it was legit and that we had an article on the subject, I linked it to spare everyone else the head-scratching. :-) --Father Goose (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD doesn't live here any more

Edit summary of the week, for my money. Thanks for the chortle. David in DC (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I've been cracking a lot of jokes on Wikipedia this week. Clearly a sign that I've been editing too much.--Father Goose (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah, that was great!

This made my morning. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 14:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection of Wikipedia:Civility

Regardless of who participated, there was clearly an edit war on WP:CIVIL. If I see some evidence (or if you show me some) that demonstrates some sort of compromise between the editors, then I will unprotect the page. I'm not expecting a full compromise regarding every single contentious detail, but if you show me some evidence of developing progress, then the page will be unprotected. Regards, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Three reverts across three days by one user does not an edit war make. There was discussion of changes on the talk page, followed by trial changes, followed by reverts because one user still had reservations (this is all perfectly acceptable and constructive), followed by your block. There's no way to show further evidence of developing progress because the page is now uneditable.--Father Goose (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There's been edit warring between a number of different editors (presumably over different issues) for days now. People need to hammer out some sort of consensus on the talk page, instead of continuing to revert each other on the policy page. If I see evidence on the talk page that progress has been made, then I will unprotect the page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have reverted to that version as well, sooner or later, I think. The new material on offer needs workshopping, but doing that on the page invites stray editing to get quite out of hand, given that there is an appearence that some form of edit-warring conflict or other has been going on for a month. This last episode seems unconnected, however. Working out drafts on the talk page is rather hard to keep track of, not to mention lame, but what else can be done. /NewbyG (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Working out drafts on both the talk page and the project page is what else can be done. There's nothing like WP:BRD to keep things moving along, provided the people involved are engaging in all three steps, which they were.--Father Goose (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that can happen (BRD) once the protection is lifted. Actually, I dont see any overall improvement in the lead section taking into account all changes made since this version Revision as of 02:12, 8 April 2008. In the meantime, see #Version 2. /NewbyG (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean protection was needed or should have been applied.--Father Goose (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Intermediary user group

The current proposal aside, what user-rights would you suggest for such a group? - jc37 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Offhand, I don't know -- but given we already have the autoconfirmed and rollbacker groups, I feel that any kind of "elevated rights" we might be discussing in the future (sighting, maybe?) could probably be bundled into one of those two groups, just like admins get a bundle of their own. The autoconfirmed group seems like a reasonable match for "view (non-harmful) deleted"; the opportunity for abuse seems about equivalent to being able to create new articles, an existing autoconfirmed right.--Father Goose (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Personally, I'm torn between 2 or 3 ways to bundle an "intermediary" group.

My first idea was to remove block/unblock/ipblockexempt from the admin package, to be applied for separately. This was with the idea of reinforcing the "no big deal" sense to adminship. (For example, I can think of several desysopped admins who would be more likely to be restored adminship if the ability to block was removed from the "package".)

After several thoughts and discussions since then, I've started to create a list of "intermediary" rights.

I still think that the "big three" (block/delete/protect) are the ones which are concerning to most. (Though there are other abilities of an admin that could have more far-reaching potential problems.) But the ability to, for example, edit a protected page, should be available for granting. Especially for those whom is trusted in general as an editor, but who may not be someone who should be trusted with the "big 3". (I can think of more than a few instances of excellent coders who "needed" access to protected templates, but really had no want or need for the rest of adminship. And the same goes for various bots. )

Thoughts? - jc37 02:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection is actually one of the touchiest issues for me. Deletion decisions are reviewable, and ostensibly reflect consensus (though the "consensus view" is often short-sighted, and once a page is deleted, the principle that consensus can change is given short shrift). Blocks are very dramatic, but you also have to be an idiot to get blocked, and our blocking timespans are very short and allow for a million appeals as well. A block is very personal and chastising, which is why people get so up in arms about it, but aside from damage to egos, blocking is really kind of ho-hum issue to me. That's not to say that it isn't misused by admins who have their own egos wrapped up in some battle, and use it to simply "win" against someone who's no more right or wrong than they.

Protection turns off the wiki, however -- for everyone. That is dramatic. Further, it's embraced as a standard way to combat edit-warring. I consider this incredibly misguided. If a handful of people are fighting over a page, don't punish the page, and don't punish the people who would constructively edit the page and had nothing to do with the fight. Further, page protection always benefits one side of the fight, who ceases to have any incentive to compromise with the other party while the page remains locked.

I think the right approach to those cases would be Wikipedia:Per-article blocking, which unfortunately, nobody has ever bothered to code. If someone's edit-warring over a page, ban them from the page, let them do constructive stuff elsewhere, and keep the page open to everyone else. I suppose if per-page blocking were implemented, per-page whitelisting could be implemented as well -- and that could address your "trusted coder" issue at the same time.--Father Goose (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting proposal. The main negative I see would be we'd probably have a mad dash for new rules for applicability, for users to edit war over. (Block a user from an article for X, and in general for Z. - "You should've only blocked him from the article, not in general". etc.)

Whereever 2 editors are gathered, there's often a policy page, 3 guidelines, and 12 essays waiting in the wings : )

And whitelisting wouldn't help the "trusted coders". There's been a push of late for much of template-space to be at least semi-protected, but most generally used templates are fully-protected. I actually understand that. But that doesn't help the trusted coders.

And bots which deal with the results of XfDs (TFD in particular), sometimes need access to protected pages too.

But anyway, that's just one example.

The other proposal I had was that I thought being able to "block" user-rights might be a nice ability to have for admins and bureaucrats. (Be able to "block" whatever you can grant.") This way, they aren't "removing" the right, but this expedites the whole "emergency desysop" concept. It's removing the problem, without all (or most anyway) of the social drama. - jc37 04:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

a problem with per-article blocking will be the same as with topic restrictions--wikilawyering to evade by choosing a new or different article. Bit I agree its worth a try. DGG (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the beautiful shiny thing. But, there's still work to do. Is it possible to hold a decision for a couple of days more? Today I'm heading for a conference and won't be back before tomorrow afternoon. I hope I'll still get a chance to participate in the action. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going on vacation myself this weekend, so there's not much more I can do. The barnstar is deserved no matter the outcome, however; the article is much improved thanks to your work.--Father Goose (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Seymour Reit

On 23 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Seymour Reit, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Arguments to avoid

I may need some help in sustaining my revert there of an attempt to reverse the trivia policy. 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Seymour Reit

Seymour Reit is on hold at GA. Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• This article is still on hold at GA! Awadewit (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein

Hi,

This looks like a violation of BLP to me, saying he's a pseudoscience promoter in the first sentence and sourcing it to his own website. But this isn't my area. If you're around and have time, could you look at it? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Good stuff

Your edit here has some good stuff that I've been quoting and applying at MfD. See, for example this. Any chance of copying

Essays that are in the Wikipedia project space (prefixed by "Wikipedia:" or "WP:") should ideally represent a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors. Those that reflect the beliefs of a limited number of editors should be edited to present a view more representative of the community; those that are poor candidates for broadening should be relocated to a subpage of the user that authored them.

into a guideline some where? It is very good. In one sentence, it lists the standard against which to measure an essay. If the essay doesn't meet that standard, it can only go two directions and the language makes it clear as to what needs to be done to either fix the essay or where it should go if it can't be fixed. -- Suntag ☼ 08:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Essays doesn't quite tell the whole story, as far as current Wikipedia practice goes. In this conversation with Kim Bruning and others, other characteristics of essays came to light, namely that ones in Wikipedia space should generally be tolerated by a majority, even if disagreed with. That is something less than the "consensus among the broad community" I described in WP:ESSAYS -- which is an ideal, not a requirement. Conversely, "those that are poor candidates for broadening" is a euphemism for outright rants, which are unlikely to be tolerated by the majority. I don't quite see WP:ANAL as a rant; it's too pointy in its current form, but on the balance, its advice is pretty good. (It is thus a good candidate for broadening.)

As for whether the passages you champion should be in a guideline, perhaps the most important distinction between essays and guidelines/policy is enforceability. The ideals and practicalities WP:Essays outlines are not good fodder for the hard-line enforcement people try to employ once something becomes a "rule". Many times it's better to outline a general idea in a sensible way and hope that people can be sensible in applying it.--Father Goose (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with portals

Hi again Father Goose,

The discussion about where the main page should be located has dragged on and on (see latest incarnation). Article space is not good for a variety of reasons, including potential naming conflicts. But if we moved it to Portal space, we would still have potential naming conflicts. For example, we might want to use Portal:Wikipedia as an entry point to articles about Wikipedia, which could well happen as Wikipedia continues to grow.

It's becoming more and more apparent that the main page really doesn't fit anywhere. Given this, using Wikipedia:Main Page may not be such a bad idea after all. Yes, I know that we try to keep readers away from the project space, but because of the Portal space naming issues, and because the main page already contains a lot of information about the project, the project space may not be entirely inappropriate.

It would really be good if we could have your support in one way or another going forward. It would definitely help us from a technical and accessibility aspect to get the main page out of article space. What are your thoughts? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Help to Restore a Page

I haven't been here in so long that I can't remember how to properly do this... Hello Father Goose, I hope enough time has elapsed that now I can restore my page either as a 'Biography' or as an 'American author'. Would you be willing to help me polish the 'Suzanne Olsson' sandbox page up to Wiki standards? It is located here: [2]

I am starting to update it over next day or two..and cannot figure out how to insert a photo..:-( please can you help me and advise me? Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can provide copies of the "reviews of her research... in Times of India and Greater Kashmir Times", you're still sunk. It's not a question of "enough time passing". If you can't provide those sources -- in a format that anyone can check, and that specifically discuss you, Suzanne Olson -- then Wikipedia will continue to "decline" your article.

If you can actually provide those sources, the situation will be entirely different. But if you don't provide those sources, you simply will never get an article on Wikipedia. Please comprehend this.--Father Goose (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and I do understand. Wev went through this before and I made sincere efforts to request copies or links from India. I never got a reply from them. Should I delete mention of these references from the article and just rely on the film appearance and book publications? The Fortean Times article? It goes into some depth about the research. Would a link to that be acceptable? The film appearance plus the Fortean Times review? Plus the three books already in print? Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The book publications won't help in this case because you wrote them yourself -- they are not "independent sources". Reviews of those books in independent sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) would count, although you'll have to demonstrate that the sources exist, by providing a link, or a scan, or by pointing us to a specific article in a specific periodical that is actually accessible to somebody on Wikipedia. At the present time, all you have that qualifies is the Fortean Times article. If you could add a couple more sources of similar quality, you'd probably be in the clear. The film appearance doesn't qualify: being interviewed in a film which received limited distribution doesn't establish your notability, in the Wikipedia parlance.

So, my advice to you is to wait until those new reviews show up. You won't be able to make any progress with this until then.--Father Goose (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Father Goose. I shall make renewed effort to gather interviews all in one place. I was scrolling through some Wiki inof and found this regarding self-published material:

[3]

Using the subject as a self-published source Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources. These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. What that means is that you can use biographical information published in your books to fill out details in the article. (In moderation.) But to have an article at all, you have to meet Wikipedia's threshold of "notability", which could be accomplished by providing those reviews, as I mentioned.--Father Goose (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Father (makes me want to burst into ten Hail Marys when I say that) Here's a page outside Wikipedia . Do you want similar info? I don't have all the links.. still trying: http://www.jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/PressReleaseInfo.htmlSuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't want similar info. That's your own website. You must provide sources published by people who have no ties to you. Not your friends, not your own website, not fellow Roza Bal believers. You must provide independent reviews of your work -- where you are mentioned by name -- or else your quest to have an article on Wikipedia will continue to be a waste of time. Not just your time; mine as well. Please don't expend my patience by failing to understand this.--Father Goose (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer to your question

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Proof_and_pudding

Father Goose, the vast majority of the episode and character pages will be deleted or merged. I would estimate that 90% of the characters of List of characters from The Sopranos will be deleted or merged with the 3 prong (hurdles) being proposed. Right now, four prominent editors who supported WP:FICT are voting to merge Logan Family. The same thing will happen to the Sopranos character pages, unless contributors jump over the 3 prong (hurdles) that these same support editors will force them to jump over.

See:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters,

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters 2 for what has happened in the past with many of the above editors. Ikip (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Any conclusion on this RfC? Your question sparked a heated debate. Ikip (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Using image File:Hand desinfection test with blood agar plate.jpg on the Semmelweis page etc

Hi Father Goose, sorry but I had to undo two of your edits where you removed the image above - you misunderstand, it is not the plate that is cracked, it is only the agar layer of nutrients - it has no practical purpose. And it is certainly not misleading to claim that soap and water is no disinfectant, because it isn't. regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing policy

Please be warned that any further page moves will be considered edit warring and will result in a block. Tiptoety ^talk 07:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very passive language. I prefer a warning better that uses active voice, like: "In the event that you are blocked I will be arguing very strongly for an immediate unblock and an apology and I would think that it displayed very bad judgement on the part of the blocking admin." brenneman 12:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As the community has drawn it to my attention, this warning may have been a bit harsh. As such I would like to apologize. Please understand my intentions were good, and I was only trying to extinguish the fire (not write you a ticket :-P ) Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology happily accepted.--Father Goose (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please answer the questions I have put to you on the talk page of editing policy. --PBS (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think what I have to do at this point is to proceed with the rewrite I've been advocating, not just talk about it. It's a fairly big job, though, and other things are competing for my attention. Please give me a few days to try to get it started, and understand that I'm not trying to stonewall you on this issue. It's my hope that the page can be refocused in a way that preserves its purpose while addressing your concerns.--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Father Goose, as much I understand WP:NPA, I have to say that your actions in reverting the moves and retagging on EG is blatent opposition of consensus and labeled here. The consensus was to demote and you refused to accept that. I will revert your changes (but not your move) unless you can change the decision with another discussion. This is my first revert and if you undo me it would be your second, please discuss this, instead of editwaring.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dycedarg's post on your talk page is the same explanation I would offer to you. At this stage, I'm hoping that the conflict can be resolved through changes to the policy, as I described to PBS, above. In either case I'd expect much broader community participation over sweeping changes to policy, so I will solicit that if the rewrite fails to resolve our differences.--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC against pixelface

I thought you may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pixelface Ikip (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new section in WP:NOR : Proofs and calculations

I started a discussion at WT:NOR that you might be interested in. It's in the new discussion section Proposed new section in WP:NOR : Proofs and calculations . Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Rules to consider" and "RulesToConsider"

If you still have those two pages on your watchlist, you might be wondering what on Earth I just did to them, with all those page moves, deletions, and other contortions. I was checking out the history of "RulesToConsider" and "Rules to consider", and discovered that it had been mixed up. The page "RulesToConsider" was just a normal CamelCase] redirect, as can be seen on the Nostalgia Wikipedia entry. However the history at Wikipedia:Rules to consider was merged with the history from that CamelCase redirect at RulesToConsider, instead of the history from "Rules to consider". That is probably the reason you thought there were two versions of the page, when in reality, that was never the case. I've merged all the history for the title "Rules to consider" to Wikipedia:Historical archive/Rules to consider, and all the history that was originally at the title "RulesToConsider" to Wikipedia:Historical archive/RulesToConsider. See this diff; before my history merging, the first edit was at Wikipedia:Historical archive/Rules to consider and the second one was at Wikipedia:Historical archive/RulesToConsider. I've also added a hatnote to the rules to consider page, that links to the modern policies and guidelines. I've hopefully addressed your concern about people landing on the page not knowing what it is. I've therefore redirected Wikipedia:Rules to consider to Wikipedia:Historical archive/Rules to consider.

I hope at least some of this makes sense. It's not appropriate for the talk page, because old page history problems from August 2007 don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Graham87 00:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll just take your word for it. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cows and photons

What do you get if you add cows and photons?       answer

Argh.--Father Goose (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And, rewritten

Hi. At WT:NOR, I responded to your last message there in the section And, written. I'm not sure if you saw it. Could you say over there whether or not it is OK with you to just replace the first sentence for now, as I suggested? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Common Misconceptions - About Wikipedia

I learned more in a few minutes reading your Afd on this that I changed my mind, and just wanted to thank you for your wisdom and generosity of insight. Sounds cheesy I know, but I learned more there what Wikipedia is about in a few minutes than the endless carping policy wonkery of acronyms and notabilities. Thanks--Moloch09 (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad. Ignore all rules is always a good starting point: if there's a good reason for doing something, it doesn't matter if there's a rule for it or against it. Understanding IAR is an especially good primer for understanding Wikipedia's rules (if I say so myself, seeing as I wrote it).--Father Goose (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I just saw Talk:List of common misconceptions#Uncited entries, which unfortunately includes some of the most worthy entries for a list of common misconceptions. I tried to source the platypus entry and failed. Now I understand, and in part share, your frustration. Please understand that my attempt to get rid of entries that are not actually misconceptions is unrelated to this. I still think that Wikibooks' policies, while similar to those of Wikipedia, and its scope, would in practice be more permissive for this kind of list. The obvious problem, of course, would be less exposure and consequently less cooperation by other editors. Perhaps this can be addressed creatively, e.g. by maintaining the list on WP as long as it survives, and in parallel also a Wikibook with more liberal criteria. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to find reliable sources backing up the platypus entry and was also unable to do so. So it won't be on the list -- but I don't have a problem with that. It's not backed by sources as a "common misconception", so we can't verifiably claim it's a common misconception.

I posted to WP:NORN#Partial solution something that will hopefully resolve our tea-is-not-tea dispute. It still doesn't help us with the "mirrors don't reverse" dispute, but I'll follow up on that one on the talk page of the article.--Father Goose (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wee response

Thanks for that. I'm new at this so I'm a bit hesitant. I'll gather my far-flung thoughts together and try to insert something cogent. One problem though, is that my remarks might be difficult to cite, and opinions don't count for much in an encyclopedia (especially in mathematics).Aliotra (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but in this case you're pretty much just suggesting a wording change, and the line in question is more of an overview of a subject than a discrete "fact", so don't sweat the sourcing.--Father Goose (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for the comment and the tip on how to communicate between users.  Aliotra (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing policy draft

So what do you think of my draft (User:Rd232/EPmock)? Pls comment at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 17:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

MHP

Hi - And, if you're really interested, showing that the overall probability of winning is 2/3 (regardless of p!) is an interesting exercise as well. Whatever the host's preference, the probability of winning by switching is 1/(1+p) for one door and 1/(1+(1-p)) = 1/(2-p) for the other door. These are both 2/3 if p=1/2 and as one goes up (to 1) the other goes down (to 1/2), and vice versa. The probability that the host opens these doors depends on p as well. For example, if we're talking about the player having picked door 1 and the 1/(1+p) door being door 3, the chance of the host opening this door is 1/3 (when the car is behind door 2) plus (1/3)(p) (when the car is behind door 1). The chance of the host opening door 2 is similarly 1/3 + (1/3)(1-p). Putting this all together, the total chances of winning by switching are:

P(opening door 3)P(winning|host opens door 3) + P(opening door 2)P(winning|host opens door 2)

This equals

(1/3 + (1/3)p)/(1+p)  +  (1/3 + (1/3)(1-p))/(2-p)

And simplifies down to . . . . . 2/3!

If you look at the diagram in the "conditional" section, p corresponds to where the vertical line is drawn underneath the case where the player's initial pick is the car. If p=1/2 this line is smack in the middle. If p is 0 (the host opens door 3 only if forced) the line is all the way on the right (i.e. the host always opens door 2 if the player picks the car). If p is 1, the line is all the way on the left (the host always open door 3 if the player picks the car). If the problem statement doesn't specify what p is you can move this line right or left as much as you'd like so long as it's within the column corresponding to the player's pick of door. One could write a little java applet that lets the user drag this line right or left and shows the probabilities and how they change depending on where the line is (if one were so inclined - I'm fond of this problem, but not THAT fond of it). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cute bunny! Thanks.--Father Goose (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

2012 Election Need Your Feedback

I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republicans.3F

David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Merging WP:UIAR into WP:IAR?

Since you're a major contributor to one or the other of these documents, I'm writing to let you know about a proposed merger which I wrote about at: Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means#Understanding IAR and Wikipedia_talk:Understanding_IAR#Merge. Any input on this would be appreciated.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Father Goose (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember me?

Please check out Wikipedia:Editors have pride, which I just created. I wanted to get your take on it and see if you had any ideas, as you've demonstrated a keen gift for words in the past. I think it's an important issue that could use some attention. Equazcion (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What, you again? ;-) Good to see you.

I have some ideas on what kind of essay might best address a case like this. For the time being, I'm just going to see if a bit of direct intervention will do any good: [4].--Father Goose (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Although that's what inspired the essay, it might not have ended up actually applying to Robert's case as much as I originally thought. But in general I still think it's a prominent issue, especially in unblock cases. Equazcion (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be something that hinges on subtleties of expression (and perception), which is very hard to address. I can see how Alison (and others who have evaluated the case) would be wary of restoring rollback rights to a person who does not fully grasp when rollback should and shouldn't be used. When does it become condescending to require that the person understand the principles involved? Is it the way in which the requirement is expressed? Is it the mere fact that admins have the ability to deny or allow other editors their rights that is demeaning? I'm not saying there isn't an issue here, but it seems very thorny to me. Are a user's rights revocable because of an attitude they project? Are an administrator's rights?--Father Goose (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The essay again doesn't seem to apply in Robert's case. When there's a specific intent stated that conflicts with the rules, I can see further discussion being necessary to determine if the intent has changed, or to clear up any misunderstandings regarding the rules. Robert not only disagrees with the rule but seems intent on acting according to his opinion of what the rule should be (as is my assessment of his statements), and so in that case I would agree keeping rollback revoked in this case seems warranted. The essay is meant to address the more general "do you agree to edit constructively" tendency, which I see pretty often in response to unblock requests. If the aim of that request is to gain a perspective on an editor's attitude, it could (should) be expressed in different words that don't make people feel small.

Many editors feel that they were being constructive, and disagree on what constitutes constructive behavior. So "do you agree to edit constructively" basically means (or at least sounds like) "if you admit you were being unconstructive, I'll unblock you" -- or more simply, "either admit fault or stay blocked". The demand for such an admission is what I'm arguing against, because that can be exclusive someone's future intent. People can be angry about the rules but still agree to follow them in the future. Equazcion (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And, the converse, they can make a profession of agreement to the rules as a means to obtain privileges but then not follow them. Promises are irrelevant; statements of understanding, however, may at least be used to show in the future that there was no confusion or ambiguity about rules or expectations at the time of privilege granting. Robert K S (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I cover that in the essay too :) Equazcion (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a good essay, especially inasmuch as the psychological underpinnings are sound. I'd list it under a different title, though. It's kind of a turn-off. Besides, holding to one's convictions isn't necessarily a manifestation of pride (or, to use the more psychologically precise term, vanity). It could also be following one's authentic impulse in the face of banal conventionality. But this is probably too deep an observation. :-) Robert K S (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Proper use of rollback

Goose, thanks for the message. I cannot dispute that there seems to be, at least among the contributors to that ANI thread, a general perception that I misused rollback. (As I've said before, I don't feel that I did, and I feel that for most of those contributors, their lack of investigation has put their assignment of assumption of good faith on the wrong side, sheerly for purposes of argument rather than for the proper purposes of improvement of the encyclopedia.)

So, the first question is, does your proposed change to the rollback policy clarify the rollback policy? I think your edit to the rollback policy page [5] is a step in the right direction, but probably does not go far enough, if (as you say) what you propose is indeed the community consensus on the proper use of rollback. Given confirmation of this understanding--and I think discussion on this topic needs to go beyond just the few admins who piped up on the ANI thread--then I think the rollback policy page needs to make absolutely clear, in no uncertain terms that what I have referred to as "juvenile vandalism", and only juvenile vandalism, should be cause for rollback use: in other words, (1) the "such as" needs to be removed from the first sentence, as it creates a list that is merely exemplary rather than limiting, and (2) some other term than "vandalism" needs to be used in the rollback article, or the word "vandalism" needs to be modified or redefined in the rollback policy article, since the policy definition of vandalism at present is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". (E.g., in my case, it's absolutely clear that Monshuai is out to compromise the integrity of Bulgaria-related topics by biasing them towards pro-Bulgarian propaganda, and, as I've offered, this charge is amply proven and I'll get around to noticing all the facts when I can sit down and make a few hours' project out of it. The fact that he's gotten a little more suave at it over the years, and is somehow managing to fool admins into believing that he's a good-faith actor and is engaging them in debate, [6] doesn't change the situation.)

Now, the second question becomes, is this narrowed definition of proper rollback use a good one? Consensus will be consensus, and I'll of course defer to it. At present, however, I must say, no, it is not. Rollback is not "the ultimate repudiation of another editor's work", as Alison believes. [7] It is simply an expeditious undo granted to users who through their record have shown they can be trusted to observe policy, follow WP:BRD, make good-faith attempts to work toward consensus, and, perhaps most importantly, devote their time to spotting and combating vandalism. (The basic principle of entropy at work here is that it must be energetically easier to fight vandalism than to commit it, otherwise vandalism eventually wins, or at least consumes an undue amount of energy in its policing.) There is nothing per se reprobative or personal about a rollback edit; the untrained eye cannot identify a rollback edit (actually, even the trained eye cannot identify one [8]), and it is indistinguishable from the numerous autorevert-equipped scripts and bots employed to patrol the encyclopedia. I'm not even clear on whether there's anything that marks an edit as rollback at all, so if not, how could it be a "repudiation"? The auto-generated edit summary left by rollback is more than anyone should inclined to leave when in garbage reversion patrol mode, which would usually be nothing at all, or "rv", or generously, "rv, see talk". And this brings us to what rollback is really about, or ought to be about, as I see it.

What rollback really boils down to is the edit summary. Functionally, rollback is merely skipping the step of seeing the field to leave an edit summary. If we want a sensible rule for rollback usage, for those who have it and make use of it as responsible editors with long records of exemplary service which demonstrate clear good-faith motivations, it ought to be, "Use rollback only when the meaning of your reversion is absolutely clear even in absence of an edit summary." I would also propose a pragmatic addendum to this, so as to account for a behavior that constitutes a sizable percentage of the vandalism on Wikipedia: "When no edit summary is left on a reversion of a change of a numerical value made by an anonymous editor who has himself left no edit summary, the edit summary shall be presumed to be [to the effect of], 'rv unexplained numerical value change by anon'." (The change to the rollback policy you propose might rule out entirely the use of rollback to combat this sort of subtle vandalism, which I see every day: bad faith anonymous editors like to go around tweaking dates and numbers in the encyclopedia hoping no one will notice, and they rarely do, since only the author of the material or otherwise someone who has the material watchlisted would notice the change, and even then they might ignore it because it shows up as a 0-character alteration in their watchlist summary.) So let's take, for example, the following two edits of mine, both charged by Alison to be examples of my "rollback abuse": [9] [10] Both are unexplained numerical value changes by anonymous editors. No edit summary or discussion. The first alters numerical values even despite in-text explanations of the present values. This isn't "juvenile vandalism"; there's no "HI MOM" or obscenity here. But it's incorrect, and clearly and verifiably incorrect, and it's fully self-explanatory to anyone who cares to actually read the edit, or the surrounding edits, or the talk page. This is rollback abuse only if proper rollback use is defined so stringently as to strip it of its practical utility. The second is simply a random wrong value change by a joker. No, it's not "juvenile vandalism", it's a bit smarter. But it still needs to be combated, swiftly and with a minimum amount of energy, otherwise, edits like this riddle the encyclopedia because it's more effort to remedy them than to effect them.

Like a lot of heavy users of the encyclopedia, when RL boredom strikes, I occasionally go on patrol mode. I look down my (rather expansive) watchlist and check around for vandalism. When I'm done, I've hopefully done some good. If I've made a mistake, it's no biggie--the regular process of WP:BRD takes over. I haven't "ultimately repudiated" anybody; I've only made some reversions. I have to wonder about the chilling effect the types of changes you propose to limit rollback would have. I'd have to worry each and every time I used rollback: "Gosh, could there possibly be somebody out there that might not recognize how this is vandalism? Is some admin going to ding me for this?" Even the "HI MOM"s, if disguised in the slightest way, cleverly or not-so-cleverly, would give me pause. And at that point, it's not worth using ever rollback for worry that it's going to be taken away, which is paradoxical.

So my proposal is to make rollback something sensible, rather than paradoxical, and to do that, we need to recognize it for what it is, merely an expedient, not a "repudiation".

Thanks for listening, Robert K S (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to what the community consensus is on how rollback is to be used: Back when the rollback feature was to be made available to regular editors (originally it was only an admin tool), there was a huge discussion, with hundreds of editors, on if/how it should be implemented. The consensus was established there, that if added for regular editors, rollback should only be used for blatant (meaning immediately obvious to onlookers) vandalism. The reason rollback exists, and was made available to editors in the end, is that it makes quick reverts possible when dealing with vandalism across a volume of article. It wasn't implemented for articles an editor is heavily involved with, and in fact, that was one of the major concerns expressed at that original debate. That's why it was decided that, if implemented, it would need to be granted on a case-by-case basis, only to users who understand Wikipedia's definition of what constitutes vandalism (the dictionary definition notwithstanding).

As far as the chilling/limiting changes to rollback policy: Most people with rollback already understand that those limits are in place. Yes, when there is a question of whether an edit is blatant vandalism or just intention I can see based on my history with this user, it is better to err on the side of caution, and use the undo link with a descriptive edit summary. Most admins will be able to recognize "disguised" vandalism -- But, there's a difference between whether or not you need to be smart to recognize the vandalism, or be familiar with the situation. If it's the latter, then by Wikipedia's standards, it's just not vandalism. Equazcion (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"It wasn't implemented for articles an editor is heavily involved with"—This limitation is new to me. If that's the consensus and always has been, why doesn't it appear on the policy page? It seems to me that adding that in there would be one quick way of fixing things up. (In my case, it would be deathly to the use of rollback. I generally only vandalism-patrol articles that are already on my watchlist, i.e., articles which I have previously edited, and am therefore "involved with".) Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a limitation. I'm just trying to explain the intent behind the implementation of rollback, when the undo link already existed. It was meant more for volume work than anything else. Otherwise, saving a click over "undo" doesn't seem worth the extra feature.

It could be said that the reason the "blatancy" as defined by Wikipedia is so important is because of escalation. If you say "if you learn about the situation you'll see this is vandalism", then vandalism becomes more subjective, and a lot of other things could be labeled that, depending on the motives of the labeler. Equazcion (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me at first glance that what you rolled back was "juvenile vandalism", and apparently it wasn't obvious to anyone else who has evaluated this case either. So that's why your use of rollback was disputed here.

It all centers on whether a revert requires no explanation whatsoever. If the explanation is "if you just examine the issue, you'll see this is blatant boosterism", or "read the talk page", or "my judgment can be trusted", then an edit summary should be provided and thus, rollback should not be used.

Rollbacks must be self-explanatory. A totally uninvolved user who does not know you, the person you are reverting, or a single thing about the issue should be able to immediately recognize that whatever you reverted was not suitable for the encyclopedia.

It doesn't have to apply to vandalism only, either. I'm pretty sure I could rollback someone who changed the Bill Clinton lead sentence to "William Jefferson Clinton is a former President of the United States who was impeached for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky." That statement is true, and not necessarily vandalism, but it's such an imbalanced opening sentence that a reversion of it would require no explanation.

Your example of reverting unexplained number changes might or might not be an appropriate use of rollback. If the number in question is attributed to a source, then changing it back to what the source says should require no explanation. If neither the change nor the reversion are sourced, how would an uninvolved editor know which was correct? At that point, it could just be a battle between two people engaged in original research: rollback should not be used.

I'd be wary of having to include any or all of the above examples on the WP:ROLL page itself. If multiple users showed confusion regarding these points, then further changes would probably be necessary, but for the time being, I'm hoping the words "self-explanatory" capture the intent pretty roundly.--Father Goose (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"It's not obvious to me at first glance that what you rolled back was 'juvenile vandalism'". It wasn't. Regarding further changes to the rollback guideline page, see my (1) and (2) above. The page still indicates that rollback is to be used for reverted changes inclusive of more than just vandalism (and certainly much more than juvenile vandalism). Robert K S (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My point regarding the Bill Clinton article was to assert that rollback applies to more than just vandalism, so suggestion (1) is misguided. The only important criterion for "when to use rollback" is whether the need for the revert is obvious even when no explanation whatsoever is provided.

Let me ask you this: do you feel you could anticipate, with a reasonable degree of success, when other editors would understand why you reverted an edit, if no additional explanation were provided by you? (This would include "see the talk page" or "see the edit history". It would also require that the editors have a general familiarity with Wikipedia's principles, but none with the particular dispute.) If you feel you could anticipate when other editors would understand your actions in the complete absence of explanation, then ask to have your rollback rights restored, and I will petition on your behalf, and I think others would as well.

If not, further changes to the explanation of rollbacking might be helpful to you, but you will be tilting at windmills if you expect the community to change the rules regarding rollback to accommodate your inability to understand their intention regarding its use.--Father Goose (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of support, Goose. Under the conception of rollback asserted by (apparently) everybody else but me, however, rollback has little practical use, since with each instance there exists a possibility of misconstruction by another and thus the hassles associated with addressing allegations of rollback abuse. Any privileged power must have associated with it some amount of implicit trust that it is being used with right motivation. The convenience of a single click isn't worth the extra bother of fretting over whether a rollback will be challenged as abusive, and the dynamics of correct editing vs. proper use of authority greatly diminish the appeal of the latter, to wit: if an administrator makes a proper (or improper) edit in conflict with another, questions about the admin's use or abuse of authority can be raised to distract from the propriety of the edit, and vice-versa. Since I'd rather have my edits be the focus of my record, and not nonsense issues revolving around rollback and various interpretations of rollback guidelines (which are still far from clear-cut), I'm not interesting in re-acquiring the credential unless/until the community's consensus view of the appropriate use of the tool evolves to the position I've proposed. Faith, Robert K S (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, your Bill Clinton example is entirely analogous to the edits I made which resulted in the revocation of my rollback. The edits to include Atanasoff's ethnicity, counter to the clear guideline in WP:MOSBIO, and without the support of consensus of everybody involved in the article who isn't a Bulgarian ethnic booster, are exactly like your hypothetical swap of the Bill Clinton lead in that they inappropriately bias the article to a certain position and give a false impression of the notability-significance of the article subject. Robert K S (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your citation of MOSBIO is reasonable support for why you reverted the edit, but still fails the "self-explanatory" quality the community expects for a rollback -- since rollbacks lack a stated rationale in the form of an edit summary, and rationales are what underpins effective collaboration.

My Clinton example was flawed, in retrospect. I think it's more readily recogized as Not Right For Wikipedia than your ethnicity revert, but still not a great example. A better example would be somebody inserting a crackpot rant in the middle of an otherwise factual article. Such an edit is not strictly vandalism, but a revert of it would need no explanation. So again, "vandalism only" is not the distinguishing criterion for what can be rolled back; "self-explanatory" is. If you have to point to a rules page for your rationale (such as MOSBIO), you do yourself a favor to mention it in your edit summary to ensure that everyone else knows your rationale. Without it, you get the trouble you experienced here. ("Ethnic boosterism" is a phrase you should probably avoid too: it comes across as an ad hominem argument instead of a rationale. Citing MOSBIO, which offers a more detailed rationale on the subject, is a better bet.)

Anyhow. So it goes.--Father Goose (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, so it goes. But you tempt me to reply, so I will, just once more. There are levels of "self-explanatory". Even in the case of example of the crackpot rant inserted into the middle of an article, a critical third party would have to (a) read the edit being reverted, (b) be sufficiently versed in the subject to understand why it constitutes a crackpot rant rather than a good-faith contribution to the article, and (c) be sufficiently aware of the controlling policy or guideline, in order to establish that the reversion was proper. Ethnic boosterism in the lead of an article is not substantively different from a crackpot rant inserted into the middle of an article. It should be immediately evident to anyone even vaguely familiar with the article subject and the policy to understand the reversion; it should be more evident still for anyone who inspects the immediately preceding edits and the talk page. I dwelled extensively on the problem of unsourced unexplained numerical alterations by anonymous users, and why it should be entirely proper to use rollback to combat them, but how are such reverts ever self-explanatory? Now about your admonishment of the use of that phrase "ethnic boosterism": this position gives unwarranted good-faith credence to the actors on the other side of this dispute. It should be appreciated that there are good arguments for not calling a spade a spade, as it were, in order to promote true consensus building, but such a process can take place only amongst reasonable minds. The people involved in this article, and the edits I reverted, are only on Wikipedia for the purpose of aggrandizing a nationality/ethnicity, as evidenced by their edit records. To confuse accurate characterization of the opposition's evident motives with ad hominem responses is to again unfairly muddle the conversation. A real ad hominem would be something along the lines of remarks that generalize or denigrate the nationality/ethnicity in question, and nobody's doing that. Bias from boosterism (intentional and unwarranted exaltation of glorification--which in this case takes the form of unwarranted ethnic "claiming"), on the other hand, is a real and valid problem to be tackled in an encyclopedia, whether it involves ethnicity or otherwise, and to ban the naming of the operative concept is to mischaracterize or deny the problem. Robert K S (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mansard roof

Perhaps there is nothing to the idea that the Mansard roof had something to do with taxes, and not counting the floor of the Mansard roof? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was skeptical of that too. It took me a while to track down the likeliest explanation -- the Parisian "20 meter" height restriction. People have played a real game of telephone with it.--Father Goose (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Good God, a turducken. I'm glad at least it's not a gooducken!

Anyway, happy Thanksgiving to you as well.--Father Goose (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Monty Hall problem

You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Monty Hall problem#Changes suggested by JeffJor, Martin Hogbin, and Glkanter. Rick Block (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Editing 2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy

look what you started. the anti-event crowd is roused again. stuff happens, and if we can't knit together a pattern of behavior, then the divide and conquer will delete. i'm beginning to think articles must spring whole, autochthonic, and not evolve. Pohick2 (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What I started? What exactly are you accusing me of?--Father Goose (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to you. Often I become very passionate in the topics I become heavily involved and I let it get the best of me. As a result I said some things that I regretted and chose to withdraw the comment and step away from the AfD. I've always been a fan of debate as I've found its led change if its done properly. Anyway, just thought I'd drop by. Mkdw^talk 00:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's all right, AfD brings out the worst in me as well. You no doubt noted that I blunted some of my more passionate words at one point, and I noted your retraction as well. I happen to think this is due to AfD's inherent nature as a cattle chute; it's hard not to moo violently at times.--Father Goose (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt the way you expressed on JS's talk page. I have left an answer for you on Talk:Flash mob. I hope you will have an opportunity to read it. Mkdw^talk 20:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Father Goose (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-06/Monty Hall problem

You are listed as an involved/interested party in a request for mediation. This message is an invitation for you to participate in the discussion here. Please join us in the conversation at your earliest convenience.
--K10wnsta (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)