User talk:Goodmorningworld/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2

Edit in Franz Liszt article

Then why don't you find a reference and add it, instead of just deleting it? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:08 29 July, 2008 (UTC)

I did not "just delete it", I explained why the deleted passage was wrong. The Liszt article is very long already and this particular ancestry is tangential at best. Hence my explanation goes into the edit summary but does not clutter up the article.--Number17 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI notification, and some questions

Hi there. First of all, I'd like to notify you of an ANI thread involving you here. Kimberley Cornish (talk · contribs) should have notified you about this right away, sorry.

I would also like to ask you about the relationship between you and Number17 (talk · contribs), since you use that as your sig. It is very confusing. You will see some comments from me about it at the ANI thread. It does not appear you are attempting to engage in sockpuppetry for purposes of disruption or evading a block, so I think it is all fine... I'm just wondering what gives :) Let me know if you could, either here, or on my talk page, or at the ANI thread. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will find my answer at ANI to be sufficient.--Number17 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Jew of Linz

Thanks for the note. When you say that outside opinions, etc., have been brought to Cornish, are you talking about on-wiki or off-wiki? Since you and she have been arguing on the talk page, I mostly only see the two of you participating, with a little bit of contribution from Albion moonlight (talk · contribs). So that's why I thought a Request for Comment (from Wikipedians!) might be helpful. If for no other reason, this helps get enough eyes on it to enforce consensus, should one or more editors resist the consensus.

One problem I am noticing in the discussion between you and Cornish is that both of you seem to be relying on interpreting the secondary sources to make a personal assessment of the validity of Cornish's work. Wikipedia has policies to discourage/prohibit original research and synthesis of information that is not directly presented in the sources. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it seeks to present what third-party sources say in a neutral manner.

Now, with the philosophy out of the way, down to brass tacks: The article as it stands has major POV problems, and I do believe you are trying to rectify them. I have not read the book, but from a brief perusal of the reviews and the article, I find her thesis both implausible and distasteful. The Richmond Review article put it nicely when calling the book "learned sensationalism." That seems to summarize the mainstream coverage of the book.

Yet the article clearly attempts to bury this. The "Reception in Germany and Austria" section touches on this, but fails to actually characterize the overall reception (which is painfully clear after reading the reviews) and even goes so far as to lash back at the reviewers (e.g. "A review by Kathrin Chod in Berliner Lesezeichen 4/99 reels off, with an increasingly weary air of stunned sarcasm, the conjectures put forward by Cornish. At the end, the reviewer refrains from delivering a coup de grace or even a conclusion, trusting the reader to supply one themselves in light of what has been shown." That is so far from neutral, I don't even know what to say!)

The other problem is the o'erlengthy "Evidence" section. The purpose of the Wikipedia is to summarize what the book is about, not to summarize Cornish's argument. The sources referenced do not discuss the book, they are the bibliography of the book, and that is not the purpose of the Wikipedia article (again, this is synthesis of information from secondary sources to make an argument, which is not encouraged).

I will raise these issues on the talk page and we'll see where it goes from there. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)



Thanks for the note. When you say that outside opinions, etc., have been brought to Cornish, are youtalking about on-wiki or off-wiki?

Both! See (1) my WikiAnswer discussion with Cornish (btw, Kimberley is a "he"), (2) the continuation on the talk page, (3) the archived discussion threads at http://groups.google.de/group/humanities.music.composers.wagner, but most importantly (4) the many many fruitless discussions with Cornish over the past several years on the talk page.

The upshot always is the same: discussion with Cornish is useless, he employs a well-honed arsenal made up of "PLAYING STUPID", "MOVING THE GOALPOSTS", "CHILDISH STUBBORNNESS", "INJURED INNOCENCE", until the exasperated counterpart gives up and leaves, all in the service of making sure that he can continue peddling his product unimpeded to a less than savory demographic plus unwary passersby.

I am sure that in my strolls through the fields of Wikipedia, I encountered a page or two that specifically address the problem of disingenuous debating tactics, however, I don't remember where.

To be clear, it is NOT my aim to "improve", "edit" or "meliorate" the article. Somebody who pens adulatory letters to holocaust denier David Irving and reeks of pathological obsession with Jews, Hitler, and antisemitism is way outside of my ambit.

I want the article moved to the loony bin, where the Moon Hoax people are. Cornish's refusal to engage in rational debate, where he would have to acknowledge fair points the other side makes, is part of the rationale for the move, the other is the numerous distortions of fact in his book and his online postings.

The purpose of editing should not be to "correct" the misinformation in his book; that misinformation is there and must be accurately summarized; it cannot be suppressed in a Wikipedia article. Cornish wants an article that is an advertorial for him; even a bland recounting of the claims in the book serves his purpose.

One problem I am noticing in the discussion between you and Cornish is that both of you seem to be relying on interpreting the secondary sources to make a personal assessment of the validity of Cornish's work. Wikipedia has policies to discourage/prohibit original research and synthesis of information that is not directly presented in the sources. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it seeks to present what third-party sources say in a neutral manner.

Not sure I understand... if you have the time, maybe you could give an example?

I am shocked that you felt that the new section put in by me about reviews in Germany and Austria "goes so far as to lash back at the reviewers". That was the last thing on my mind when I wrote the summaries!

What I did was to enter "Kimberley Cornish" as search string into Google, and then extract the top five German-language reviews regardless of content; I merely changed the order to put the oldest review first and the newest last. In writing the review summaries, I tried my best to avoid bias while maintaining a certain stylishness that would give an idea of the reviewer's stance.

Judging by your reaction, I failed miserably in that regard.

However, I welcome your criticism and will try to do better. By the way, how do I manage an indent? Thanks!--Number17 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I misread the discreption of the Berliner Lesezeichen article.. I realized my mistake later, and that's why I left it in. I thought it was saying that the reviewer had not even bothered to make a conclusion, and was just criticizing the book, but I saw when I re-read it what your intention was. My bad. I still think the sentence has WP:NPOV problems, but the pov problems are in the opposite direction :D Eventually hopefully we can fix it up to read correctly.
I didn't realize you had recently added that section. That's like the only thing that even gives a flavor for the actual mainstream reaction to this book, heh... So good start there, really.
I have tagged the article as having a "conflict of interest" and I intend to work on it some more. As I mentioned, the Evidence section needs way trimmed back (there is no reason to give a condensed version of the book here) and the article should also make it abundantly clear to the reader what the mainstream press' reaction to this book has been. It will take some time to get the article whipped into shape, though.
Oh yeah, and you can do indents by putting one or more colons (:) before your paragraph (each colon is another level of indent). --Jaysweet (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Translated page

I am afraid that I had to revert your edits as you completely deleted the template code. To edit the instructions, you need to go to this page Template:Translated page/doc - if you take a look at the existing instructions you will see a little edit link next to that link - clicking on that will take you to the documentation sub-page in edit mode. The thing to remember is that the template page itself (Template:Translated page in this case) contains the code for the template and that should only be edited if you really know what you are doing as any edits affect how the template is displayed on all the pages that use it. Template documentation is always in a subpage. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you cannot do it like that. The instructions/documentation are here: Template:Translated page/doc. You must make your edits on that page not on the template main page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I should have replied earlier at the Help desk. I have reverted your good faith edits. Wikipedia has thousands of templates and it's impractical to write documentation for each of them aimed at users who have no idea how templates work. I know such documentation could have benefitted you who apparently happened to come by this template before having tried any other or know anything about how templates work. But the large majority of users will already know template basics and will just be annoyed by having to read through elementary editing instructions to find the relevant information about this particular template. Another thing: As the old documentation said, the template should be placed on the talk page of the article. And linking to the page template is not so helpful because that page is written for the encyclopedia and is not about Wikipedia template. Help:Template would be better. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template namespace is also a useful link for template basics. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, it's better for using templates which produce a message box like this one. Goodmorningworld, I understand why you want to write the documentation like that in view if the time you wasted because you didn't know how to call a template. But very few users, or maybe nobody ever, will go through that experience with this particular template again. There should be elementarry template instructions for complete beginners somewhere, and there are. You were unlucky to not come by them before trying to use this template. But writing them at tens of thousands of templates is impractical and annoying for the users who read hundreds of template documentations. And writing it only here is arbitrary. I see no reason to guess that this template is especially likely to be the first template a new user comes by. I don't know your previous computing experience but maybe the following analogy will make sense. Imagine a thick set of software manuals which at every of thousands of instances of things like "Press Shift+F1" wrote "Hold down a Shift key while pressing F1. The Shift keys are usually to the right and left of the letters and may display an arrow pointing up instead of text. F1 is a single key usually placed in a row above the digits. It does not mean to press the letter F followed by the digit 1." Such instructions may be good to have somewhere like an introduction. I have seen people pressing F and 1 instead of F1 which is perfectly logical when they don't know a computer keyboard, and finding out what went wrong may be hard. But I guess you would get pretty tired of having to read past such instructions all the time to get information about what Shift+F1 actully does in the given software. A template documentation may have a link to template basics but I don't think those basics should be repeated all the time. Let's see if we can come to an agreement before involving others. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Printed manuals were just an example. Help pages on the screen would maybe have been a better example. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A template can be discussed on the associated talk page like Template talk:Translated page (which hasn't been created yet but you could do that). See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for ways to get other editors involved, but I don't think that is needed yet for this one template. If you want to discuss which general advice Wikipedia:Template documentation should give then use Wikipedia talk:Template documentation. I will make a suggested compromise version of Template:Translated page/doc soon. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made a new version of the documentation.[1] It includes a link to Wikipedia:Template namespace which may be useful to users who don't know templates at all. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be possible to not display the orange box at top by wrapping it in includeonly tags (see Help:Template#Noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude). But doing so would be against Wikipedia template practice and annoy many users who expect to be able to quickly see what a template produces when they look at the top of the template page. If a user is for example browsing through Category:Wikipedia translation templates to find the right template for their purpose then it's practical to have the top display. It's also practical while editing and previewing a template.
The translation box is not important information for usual readers so it should not be on the article, especially when it's so large and in-your-face. The more discreet {{Translated}} may be used at the bottom of articles instead. Authors are not written on articles anyway so readers always have to click something (for example "history") to see who wrote it. And editors adding translated content from another page should say so in the edit summary.
I picked a random French article with a special character in the name, but it has not really been translated. You can click "What links here" in the toolbox at the left of Template:Translated page to reach Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Translated page which shows pages transcluding the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. I removed this template and put it on the talk page as the template says you should do. These sorts of messages are for the editors rather than the readers, which is why it belongs on the talk page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
But how does this template help the reader? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first-and-foremost. The editors "work in the background" to create good articles. The article itself should be an article - that is all. The article should simply tell readers what the subject of the article is (i.e. Dog talks about dogs), and not the meta-discussion about the article itself. Information that helps editors edit the article should be placed on the talk page, where it does not interfere with the readers' experience with the encyclopedia. If someone wishes to see the editors who contributed to the article, there's a history button - we do not need to have templates which tell users that such a button exists on the articles themselves.
I don't feel the template is used in such a way that it tells users what is wrong with the article ({{cleanup}}, {{prod}}, etc.) nor is it used to enhance the article's quality. Which is why I believe it should be put into the talk page. Readers should not need to know where the article has come from. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, Wikipedia is a paper encyclopedia and does not have authors on its covers, or printing dates, or publication notes, etc. - the authors are all available in the history tab to satisfy the GFDL.
Secondly, since de.wiki and en.wiki are largely autonomous, the texts are not translations of each other and they will never represent simple translations of each other. de.wiki and en.wiki have different policies and guidelines to follow, and because of that, they will be essentially more different than just languages.
Thirdly, regarding the possibly unverified part, use {{refimprove}} or {{citecheck}}.
Fourthly, for the de.wiki page, {{Translation/Ref}} should be used, as it does not distract the reader, but preserves GFDL information.
Fifthly, any inclusion of something requires reason, not the opposite (WP:BURDEN). You have had two responses requesting removal - from PrimeHunter and myself. I'm sure if I use WP:3O they will agree with the two of us. The template documentation says to put it onto the talk page, but {{Translation/Ref}} can be used on the article itself, as it is much less "in-your-face". Readers want the article, less so the meta-information about the article. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting concerned that you don't quite understand why this template, or the other one, does not belong at the top. The template documentation says to put this at the bottom of the article, in an external links section. The reason for this is so that it is not so in-your-face for readers, who will want the article in detail first. The translation template does not tell the reader that the article has potential problems (such as {{cleanup}}) nor is it a disambiguation link ({{otheruses4}}). Hence the first thing the reader would like would be the article itself. I'd like you to read WP:OWN and if you still don't quite understand why, I'll be seeking a third opinion. x42bn6 Talk Mess 06:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw the discussion here on my watchlist and have also moved the translation message to the external links section where it belongs according to Wikipedia established practice and guidelines. You might suggest the new placement somewhere but it's not a good idea to just place it without support. Wikipedia works by consensus, and some consistency between articles is also good. Wikipedia would have chaos (at least more chaos than already) if every editor just did what they preferred without regards to guidelines and other editors. If you reply then keep the discussion here before it gets spread on 3 user talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I now see you have created Template talk:Translation/Ref/doc with a suggestion. It's unlikely to be seen by many editors there and placing a new type of hatnote at top of an article seems too principal to start based on an obscure talk page. You might suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote instead to get broader input, but I guess it would be opposed. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Breidenbach

I am sorry if you took my words in a wrong manner. There was nothing personal about it and I did not even bother to look who just copied-and-pasted.

However, I have to stand by my view, even more so since there was an earlier version of the article without the wrong information. Copy and pasting removed not only the bad edits but also the good ones and made the article inferior even to the original version. What you did might be okay if you quickly want to remove the false information, but then you should as soon as possible start to bring the article back into shape. You didn't do that for over three weeks (and your last edit, on 6 August was uncalled for, as the article really needed wikifying - as correctly detected by the bot).

Don't take it personally but please consider my words in a similar case.

And thanks for liking my editing. Str1977 (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. We all make mistakes. Nobody's perfect (but Nobody and Mr Perfect of course). Str1977 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Copying a Template from Latin Wikipedia

I have replied on my talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A note on deleting pages, re: Simon Moritz Bethmann (1685-1725)

Hi, I have placed a speedy deletion tag on your page Simon Moritz Bethmann (1685-1725) as you requested that it be deleted in the edit summary when you blanked the page. In future please place a tag from the selection of templates at this page as this will quickly bring the page to the attention of administrators who can delete it for you. --JoeTalkWork 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Victorianism
Rape of Belgium
Tuscania
Analytic philosophy
Zorba the Greek
Jewish denominations
Juhuri language
NASAP
University of Oulu
Krymchak language
Jewish languages
Ecossaise
John Ryle
John Robert Vane
Knaanic language
Dzhidi language
Karaim language
Felix Wong
Abe Holzmann
Cleanup
Piano Sonata (Liszt)
Philosophical Investigations
Paulus Moritz
Merge
Woodrow (television)
Simon Willard
Molecular phylogeny
Add Sources
Un Sospiro
History of the Jews in Spain
Anna Liszt
Wikify
Shasta McNasty
Edmund Husserl
Réminiscences de Don Juan
Expand
Paneriai
Alexander Pushkin
Biblical Hebrew language

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hitler and Wittgenstein

Hi, Goodmorningworld. I saw your explanation on the talk page and reverted my edit, only to see that you had beaten me to it by a split second or so. Just wanted to let you know. Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

House of Bethmann

You are the only editor to make edits to User:Goodmorningworld/House of Bethmann, so just copy everything from that page to House of Bethmann. This doesn't require a page move. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good morning world, <smile> I think, you should try to take this article to a featured article or at least to a good article. This is a very good article in my opinion. Sebastian scha. (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If you need help I'm usually available to give a good GA review when needed. --Banime (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bethmann Bank

Sure thing, let me know when it's done being under construction and I'll be glad to rate it again. Let me know if you need any help or have any trouble. --Banime (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

David Irving

This edit was insightful; thanks so much! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rotschild ancestry

The article does not state that the Rotschild theory is a minority view and dismissed by most serious historians. Could you please reference it? After doing so, please feel free to revert my edits on both pages. Until then, i will have to revert your edit on both the articles. Its better never to get into an edit war. Regards, Joyson Noel (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See my comments on the Talk page of the articles, let's keep the discussion there.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you drop by the Alois Hitler article discussion page and answer some more questions on the Rothschild issue? --Cff12345 (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I can but I won't. Both sides have already exchanged their arguments. The case is closed.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no it isn't. You still have not explained why you think the sources that say that Rothschild is Hitler's grandfather, such as Walter Langer, are incorrect. Please go to the Alois Hitler discussion page. --Cff12345 (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Walter Langer never claimed that Rothschild was Hitler's grandfather. Now please stay off my Talk page.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/October 2008#Goodmorningworld. SoxBot X (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Apollogies

I'd like to apologize for my reply to you in the Village Pump area. Criticizing your proposal is one thing, but the personal attack was uncalled for. :-( I'll remove it if you wish. - Denimadept (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Carr

I saw that it was a bluelink, so I removed it. Granted, now I see that it was to someone else, so that was a messup. Wizardman 03:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Throttle the boid"

Well...I went and did it. I killed the little cretin. —La Pianista (T•C•S) 06:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Bethmans/Rothschilds

See talk page for the article. [roux » x] 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bethmanns and Rothschilds. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please stop removing the {{essay}} tag until the issue has been addressed. [roux » x] 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bethmanns and Rothschilds

Hi Goodmorningworld. I noticed that you appear to be involved in a edit war at the above article. Edit warring is extremely counterproductive and often results in a block. I ask that you refrain from continually reverting and let the AfD run its course. Also, remember that article does not belong to you, it belongs to the community and if they see it fit to remove or add some content then you need to abide by their wishes. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree and make sure you don't edit war. It's never productive. Also, I took a look at the article for you and posted in the AfD, I found some good sources. Finally, you're allowed to !vote keep or delete yourself, as long as you provide some sort of logical reasoning behind it, despite writing the article. --Banime (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you vote. As the article's creator, who better than you to explain why this topic is notable. It's perfectly acceptable to identify yourself as the creator and to explain yourself. Banime asked me to look at his new references so I will be posting my thought at the AfD discussion soon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record. I believe that Tiptoety was wrong to issue a block threat against me. In doing so, he

  • overruled the admin closing the complaint at 3RR who wrote "No vio, obviously. There are only 3 reverts"
  • did not address the issues raised by me at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
  • wrongly implied that I interfered with the AfD process (I have not)
  • made an unfounded imputation that I believe that I WP:OWN the article (I do not).

I have left a message on Tiptoety's Talk page to register my objection.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, it was just a warning, so learn from it and so as long as you don't continue on any bad path you'll be fine. Just make good edits and no one will continue to have a problem. As I said before, edit warring is never productive. --Banime (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that input, Banime, and I appreciate it. However, it isn't about me but about Tiptoety's block threat, which I object to strenuously. If I did not put down my objection now, at some future point someone could refer to it and claim past misbehavior, and it would be too late then for me to explain myself.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you had the time to improve the Bethmanns and Rothschild article yet? It's still written like an essay and needs some help. The article has a lot of potential and I'm sure you can improve it a lot, and when its improved I can help rate it and maybe in the future give it a GA review when its closer to GA status. Good luck. --Banime (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I have left the B&R article alone since the AfD discussion because I was hoping that other editors would take an interest and contribute. That way, I figure that some of the unfounded criticism can be defused. Given that some of the sources are in English and online, it would not be hard to do. Perhaps I should have posted notes to the Talk pages of individual editors inviting them to contribute?
Well, I'm back at the library and I have Holtfrerich in front of me now: in German and in English. So, I am going to start typing up relevant quotes for subsequent integration into the article. You're right that the article has a way to go yet.
I'm not sure that I'm fully on board with the "essay" criticism. You've been on WP longer, when did this become a policy? Some of the best articles on WP are the ones written with a certain style and flair. For example Crank (person), which has survived more or less intact the departure of its main author more than two years ago.
Perhaps the pendulum will swing back from the rigorous enforcement of WP's five pillars to allow some leeway for personal expression.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well its designed so that not just anyone can write what they believe with some supporting sources, but so that you have to write what other reliable sources believe about the subject. Bethmann and Rothschild obviously was written that way by a few reliable sources (as seen in the AfD and others) so you could use their information to help make the article based on how they are protrayed by those sources. I'll try to help out with this article in the future but it may need a relatively big overhaul. --Banime (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hey just wanted to give you some quick AfD tips (I don't think you've ever been involved in an AfD of your own article, or maybe even any AfD before, correct me if I'm wrong). As the article creator you are most intimate with the knowledge of the article and can provide usually the best reasoning for keeping that article. Therefore its good if you give your Keep !vote, and provide a good explanation for why it should be kept (sticking mainly to wikipedia policies and guidelines and not just "I like it"). Finally, you're there to clear up specific things if people ask or if someone made a large error in their reasoning (like if someone said Bethmann and Rothschild are notable only for the fact that they were the only two jewish banks in Europe, you can remind them that they were not both jewish, etc). However, you also want to make sure you don't seem like youre pestering the Deletes by responding to them often. The best responses are ones that provide new evidence but otherwise its usually just a moot point. Anyway, I wanted to let you know since I had trouble with this myself when I had articles up for deletion. Good luck. --Banime (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

MECO on Fringe Theory Noticeboard

I just noticed that you linked to Hillman here, but that is not the same person as in the usenet post, who has no article, so it probably should be delinked. Good luck if you step into this MECO goo, but I think the chances of the article ever being decent are virtually nil. Tim Shuba (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No.

That's just how the bot works. You have to fix the link on the talk page itself. --harej 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Manual edits to the RFC lists are pointless, since because of the way the bot works, they will be overridden. Pages get added through the list by transcluding a template on the page, listing things like the talk page section and such. If you want to make corrections, you have to do it on that page, as the bot heeds that but not manual edits to the lists. Incidentally, there is an issue with linking to diffs. I found a way around it which should suffice. --harej 22:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anti-semitic people

Hi, Goodmorningworld. This is a friendly notice to inform you that a category on which you commented Category:Anti-semitic people has been nominated for deletion. The conversation is located here. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Goodmorningworld. You have new messages at Xymmax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bethmann

No, no issues - just marking the page for the project so that there's a better idea of the # of disambiguation pages out there! Skier Dude (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bethmann

No, no problems, just brining the Disambiguation project 'up to speed' so that there's a better idea of the real # of project pages out there! :) Skier Dude (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Date Linking RfC

I think that they should only be linked from other chronological date pages, and therefore, there should be no problem with bots or scripts removing them from all other pages. That would be my only certain times exception.--2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Kim Il Sung

Hello and good morning to you too - thank you for this comment. Gave me a good laugh. Tvoz/talk 00:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

I hope that you put the anti-Zionism article on your watch list. I am not sure why Gwen Gale gave you a warning when she has shown zero interest in this civility violation attack on me [2]. I feel the issues involved were handled very unfairly, and there will be much more on that to follow. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it on my watch list. Probably best to take things a step at a time. As I showed, the Fischer quote reported by the Wiesenthal center is in keeping with other public statements he made. The comments by PR on the ANI thread were clear evidence of bad faith, in my opinion. The excerpt from the interview I posted could be used as an alternative source instead, and Die Zeit is prima facie a reliable source. Or you could fight to keep the quote from the Wiesenthal center, on good grounds in my opinion. My ability to help, however, is hampered by the fact that there is a block threat hanging over my head now. I have not been on WP long, but my feeling is there is little to be gained from escalating this issue to a complaint about administrator misconduct.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You are right about making complaints of administrative misconduct, and I would never wast my time on such an approach. I hope your WP problems are soon resolved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material

You may wish to contribute at the discussion here, as you have previously commented on this in a discussion that got sidetracked. Verbal chat 12:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My judgment

I'd prefer that you revisit the comment you made about my judgment. I don't want you to change it if you feel, upon review, that it was fair and accurate, but I would like you to review it. In particular, please look at the posts made in the thread (by me), the times and the process of deliberation that I went through. Also please look at the evidence presented by this account and the accusations themselves. I like Banime. I've seen his edits, I liked his questions in my RFA. He seems like a good and sensible person. However the technical evidence presented is fairly compelling. A big part of me is conflicted about it. The "story" one would have to believe in order to say banime==annefrankfanfic is much simpler than the story you would have to believe in order to say he is innocent. So if he says he is innocent I'll accept that but only after some deep reservations and not completely. If you want to call that a second class acquittal, do so. But please don't call it sloppy or ill-conceived. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And I would thank you for not putting words in my mouth. I never used the words "sloppy" or "ill-conceived" in reference to you. In response to your request, I went back to the thread and re-read it. I stand by everything I wrote. It's very late and I have to sign off.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your show of support so far at my ANI. However, I'd like you to also remember to be as civil as possible, especially with this situation. The last thing I want to see is others dropping to the level of the accuser. So please, just remain civil and discuss the facts of the case with the others and you don't need to be so confrontational. Thanks again though it really means a lot to me. --Banime (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about how to reply to this. Finally I came up with this:
  • I don't work for Banime. I am not his spokesman nor his public defender.
  • From the time that the AN/I thread against Banime was launched to the time that Banime posted above, we had not been in any contact on whatever medium.
  • Even before then, there never was an agreement, implicit or explicit, that I would defend him against attacks anywhere.
  • In the AN/I thread, I posted a total of three times. The first, to call for quiet until Banime had a chance to respond to the accusations. The second and third, to confirm that Banime inadvertently misspelled the name of the user on another forum that he was accused of being, also to cricitize admin Protonk for his handling of the thread.
  • I stand by my criticism of Protonk. If there was anything wrong with it, I alone am answerable for that, not Banime.
  • I reviewed the evidence presented against Banime and his defense, and I am satisfied that the charges have not been substantiated.
  • Had I come to an opposite conclusion, I would have come down on Banime, hard, and joined a call for sanctions.
  • I believe that Banime must be vindicated, not left in the lurch with an inconclusive outcome.
  • To repeat, I alone am responsible for what I write. If anybody does not like my comments, take it up with me.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AdminWatch

Nice to have all of the rules written out in a cogent, user-friendly way? It's only because admins have written the Admin policy page that this has not been done on the page itself.

User:Tony1/AdminWatch#Specific_policy_requirements Tony (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Ludwig Wittgenstein

Hi :Goodmorningworld.

From article:

After G. E. Moore's resignation in 1939, Wittgenstein, who was by then considered a philosophical genius, was appointed to the chair in Philosophy at Cambridge. He acquired British citizenship soon afterwards, and in July 1939 he traveled to Vienna to assist Gretl and his other sisters, Regards, Ian Dunster (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I would be more inclined to go for Austro-British but it's not that important to me. I just amended it because he's known as British here in the UK. BTW, you might find this interesting: In Our Time - WITTGENSTEIN - use the LISTEN AGAIN link at the left. Regards, Ian Dunster (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

pithpoor way to thpend an evening

User_talk:Tony1/AdminWatch#Redvers.2C_knock_it_off

If it's your intention to ask him to change his use of terminology, please revert yourself and post instead to his talk page. If you want to create drama, please just leave it as it is. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Germany

Welcome, Goodmorningworld, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

  • The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
  • Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
  • We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks you can do. Please remove completed tasks from the list.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Agathoclea (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Channel 4 documentary

Hi. If you are in UK, you can watch it at 4od or you can buy at lots of places

Please try a google search in the future about simple things, like checking if you can buy a dvd online - it is quicker than waiting for me to reply! :)

Chendy (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are allowed to link to retailers in wikipedia policy - it is advertising. But I here is a link that you can use (i don't think it official) - http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_drugsmoney.htm

PS If you like financial/economical programs watch the second one below "Silly Money"- It is funny.

He is pretty smug isn't he! I don't like him really, I just wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Chendy (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM: Linking of units

Goodmorningworld: I hope my efforts lived up to your faith in my abilities to “home in on a good solution.” See Proposal 11. If you think I came up short, I will certainly understand; some editors here have polar-opposite views and trying to find a middle ground can be elusive at times. 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

In the debate between Str1977 and me about Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs you attempted to broker a compromise. By now, I have made a note of the controversy at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, because I perceive that Str1977, who accused me of POV-Pushing in the edit summary, is assuming bad faith. Any help or advise would be appreciated. Zara1709 (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delinking now before ARBCOM

That's fine. If I can help with any more stats or other support, just let me know. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We're discussing a review of yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Criticism.2C_not_review - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll back to you

Sorry, I don't mean to sound I am ignoring you. I have just been overwhelmed with work and other assorted disasters in the last couple of days. I'll post my replies on the relevant talk pages of the articles in question. Barring some unexpected event, I'll probably respond tomorrow. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on editor's Talk page.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates

I was going to post this on the editors page, but I thought it'd be better placed here. I hope you don't mind: Sorry to come back to this, but the situation with the other editor was very different. He took offence to the 3RR template after he had reverted 3 times against several editors. That template was meant to stop him getting blocked. He took offence, and we discussed it and I even discussed it with the template maintainers. Gandalf is a very good maths editor. In this case the warnings were justified by the actions of the editor, and I always stick around to explain them. I don't want this or any other good editor to leave. I really don't hold with the not using templates thing, but I tend to take each occurrence individually. A controversial page move and wholesale reverting against the talk page seemed to warrant it. I have nothing personal against this editor, and I'm sorry if they blew a fuse about something else but I wasn't to know about that. I was shocked by the vandalism on this their page earlier today and I reverted it immediately, reported the attackpuppet, and left a handwritten note explaining my actions. I do feel in retrospect that two templates was probably too much, and the second should have been appended as a note. Saying that, the "welcome to wikipedia" bit is odd, and I'd honestly not noticed that before. I can see how that could be taken as rude and I'll note that for future. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift and entirely reasonable reply. For the record, I never thought that you were not acting with the best of intentions.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I feel like a prick about not noticing that now :( I've apologised to the editor. All the best, and thanks for your nice reply, Verbal chat 20:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Piercing entertainment desk question

This detailed plot summary of the infamous 1963 version of Cleopatra says that Octavian skewers the Egyptian ambassador on the steps of the Senate with the "golden spear of war". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Turn off display of in-line cites by default

How can I add a support message to your proposal? It seems I shouldn't edit the section directly.  HWV258  03:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer! It's archived now, and I believe we're not supposed to alter archived threads. However, I plan on re-introducing the proposal at some time in the future and I have some ideas for making a more effective presentation, having to do with side-by-side comparisons of screenshots. If and when I get a second try off the ground I will gladly solicit your input especially. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead, dead, dead redirected to British cuisine?

Hi Goodmorningworld, could you explain the above redirect? If its a joke then hahaha but it should be deleted as not being encyclopedic. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete away, I don't care. By the way, you commented in my section at Giano's RfC, which is against the rules for that page, so I moved your comment off to the Talk page.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed other people doing it so I thought it was OK. Thanks for moving it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

“Others’ comments”

I didn't edit your comments. But if citing the guideline floats your boat, here are some helpful tit-bits from the same page you linked:

  • “The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page”
  • “Keep on topic”
  • “Start new topics at the bottom of the page”
  • “Make a new heading for a new topic”
  • “Create subsections if helpful”

And the guideline explicitly permits “deleting material not relevant to improving the article,” so perhaps I should just have zapped your comment. —Michael Z. 2009-02-02 20:34 z

Michael Z., what you did gave any reader of the page who had not seen the previous version the impression that the new level section 2 header was placed by me, therefore you were in the wrong. You could have included a parenthesis like "I've inserted a new section header, I hope you don't mind – feel free to revert", which is what most editors would have done. Yes it was thread drift but in my opinion not a reason to fly off the handle as you did (implying that I was "whining", claiming that I wasn't showing "a bit of respect for professional design and development".) Both of these comments as well as your edit summary could be seen as uncivil, but I'm not a stickler for civility. Therefore I have taken no action in regards to them. You voiced harsh criticism of my comment on the page. That's fine, you're entitled, and I let you have the last word. Readers may decide whether or not it was justified.

Now give it a rest.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to sound harsh. But I felt you interrupted a thread which was trying to improve a controversial template, and your tone was not positive to begin with. I think it's great that Wikimedia has some funding to take usability seriously and make substantial changes, I strongly disagree with your comment and don't understand why you have a negative attitude about that project. It was irrelevant to the topic, except to throw a bad light on Wikimedia's global efforts while discouraging editors from their local work on usability.
There are places to talk about this stuff. Let's remove those comments from template talk:Fact, and move them to wherever. Either way, I'll give this a rest now. —Michael Z. 2009-02-02 21:21 z

David Talbott

Thank you for your appreciation. Editor Davesmith_au could just as well have provided at least cites to the criticism by Ashton, Rose and James, but evidently he was more interested in identifying Ben Ged Low as the producer of Talbott's second video documentary. Talbott's activities have, by and large, been below the radar of mainstream criticism (which critics mostly went on to other subjects after Velikovsky died in Nov. 1979) and most of the criticism occurred on Usenet's talk.origins (and also sci.skeptic) in mid-1990s, which many editors do not consider acceptible referencing, despite the high quality of the posters who criticized Talbott's notions in great quantitative detail; plus the fact that many of the posts are no longer archived at googlegroups.com. However, there is one 47 message thread from Oct. 1994 that makes for interesting reading when Talbott was trying to recruit interest in his Saturn Thesis on alt.history.what-if and talk.philosophy.misc: <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.history.what-if/browse_thread/thread/482cba0a730d4092?q=%22saturn+thesis%22>. At the same time "An Antidote to Dave Talbott's 'Saturn Thesis'" was posted on talk.origins, which Talbott ignored: <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cle/cle-talbott-antidote.txt>. Because of the ban on "original research", I do not see how a fatal criticsm of Talbott's Saturn Thesis can be added to Talbott's bio: In his book The Saturn Myth (1980), p. 342, n. 60, Talbott confronts Peter Jensen pointing out that the Babylonians recognized both the "Pole of the Equator" (which is Talbott's idee fixe vis a vis planet Saturn) and also the "Pole of the Ecliptic" (which has no meaning in Talbott's framework), whereupon Talbott remarks "I certainly cannot accept" that. Then he simply ignores this fact that is fatal to his model. You might also like to read my comments Saturday on ScienceApologist(Talk) where this is also discussed in an attempt to persuade Davesmith_au of his foolishness in defending Talbott. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I did read those comments and enjoyed them. David Talbott is on my watchlist now and I'll be on the lokout for tendentious edits.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility and Sarcasm

GMW...I don't think a debate over the above topic is sensible in the middle of a WQA incident - it only serves to show some editors that they a) have done nothing wrong and b) that they need not reply and c) serves to weaken points already made in the WQA itself.

When I look at behavior, I look at two main points: is it mean to demean another, and is it meant to inhibit additional editing. Thus, "you're stupid" and "you're the stupidest editor ever so stop" mean two very different things - the first is an insult, the second is an insult and an attempt to dissuade future editing.

Additionally, both of the main points have their own sliding scale based on specific and non-specific. The "specific" involve what I would consider those that tend fall in the definition of hatred: racism, sexism, anti-religious, etc. The non-specific would be those like "asshole" and "moron".

Sarcasm (although I believe it appears in a guideline, and not a policy) can be used in both columns. For example, "...oh yes, we'll accept your edits on this article because you are obviously the most uniquely brilliant Christian editor of all things Jewish, NOT!" This would be the use of sarcasm, and hits both religious grounds, and does indeed attempt to dissuade further editing. This, of course, is a minor example but I think it shows the point.

I could pull out a whole whack of examples from the WQA to show where sarcasm was used in a similar manner to dissuade editing, but I'm sure you can find them yourself.

Maybe I'm off base expecting people to treat others fairly, but I don't believe the entire series of transgressions in that WQA require any templating/warning, more of a slight degree of contrition and a stoppage of the behaviour. Sure, one editor is kinda milking it, but that behaviour is a consequance of a percieved lack of action. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi BMW, you are welcome on my Talk page! :-D

I'll get to your well-stated points in a minute, but first I want to issue a death threat:


"BMW"… "junkyard"… "pressing"… geddit? Aaaaa hahaha hahaa haaa! I kills myself sometimes, I tell ya!

Now to your points. You argue well, but I think you are wrong. Very wrong, in fact – so wrong, I doubt I can bring you around to my point of view. However, I'll try.

If you think that keeping the WQA threads launched by Thunderbird2 open will result in the outcome you desire, namely that Greg L, Headbomb and Fnagaton show "contrition", you are sorely mistaken. The only thing that will happen is that some of the scum-sucking bottom feeders, I mean annoying busybodies, that infest the dramah boardz will discover the thread and inflame the situation more. (In the meantime, I note to my dismay that you canvassed for one of Wikipedia's most block-happy admins to weigh in on your side, and she has; bad idea.)

The thing is, with what little knowledge I have of the targets of the Wikiquette alert, it will be a cold day in hell before they do what you request, namely express contrition. Greg L, to take him as an example, is a straight shooter who can be blunt to the point of gruffness and even, sometimes, ridicule. But does he wield sarcasm as a club in a content dispute, to force an open debate towards his aims? Generally, no. (Truth be told, I've seen him do that, once, and I let him know that I was not in agreement.)

What he will do is, after a debate has been settled by consensus and if one or a few editors try to stand in the way of the consensus by incessant filibustering (I believe Wikispeak for this is "Climbing the Reichstag in a Spiderman Suit"), he will tell them to cut the crap. I approve of this. Not allowing sarcasm under this circumstance would unduly restrict the range of expression and turn us into a bunch of sissies who speak in mincing tones all the time. Do we want that to happen? Suppressing healthy aggression ends up pushing these normal impulses underground where they fester and eventually erupt in ugly ways.

I've said this before but it bears repeating: much worse than the occasional rudeness is the harm done on Wikipedia every day by the ethnic haters, the religious bigots, the laser-guided single-purpose accounts, the insane Wikilawyers and the dramamongers, even especially if they manage to stick to the letter of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (and joke!). You'll note that I recused myself from the situation, mostly because the best part about banging your head on the wall is how good it feels when you stop. I agree that I involved (not canvassed) a second set of eyes, who politley tried to "warn" (non-template) the users in question on both sides, which is fair. I feel was 100% right in this WQA situation, and yet nobody was 100% wrong, and I tried to bring the sides together, unsuccessfully. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Mmkay… I know the feeling, sorta like inserting yourself into the middle of a bar fight and the ER doctor asking you afterward, What were you thinking? By the way, I am concerned that I may have infected you with my dangerous subversive thoughts: [3]. Tsk, tsk.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

AdminReview page move

Hi, I think one of the sections on the talk page got left out when you moved the discussions, and thus deleted. It was called "Break out unrelated", I couldn't tell what page you think this discussion should be on, so I put it on the new one. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I knew I was going to mess up somewhere, good thing you caught it. I see your point about "special treatment". My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the user should have his original account reinstated (he is obviously a former banned user, even before the "Who Watches" account) and then resume posting while abiding by the same rules as the rest of us.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, Goodmorningworld. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1. Thank you. --— Dædαlus Contribs 23:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Goodmorningworld. You have new messages at La Pianista's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—La Pianista Speak · Hear 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice userbox

I'm going to have to steal it... :D Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest :D I stole the code from Ohconfucius' user box page and merely altered the content inside the box.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

You've been sent one. Best wishes. Acalamari 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted with thanks.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You have another. Acalamari 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

DDStretch

I would have responded to you on AdminReview talk, but thanks to bad-faith admins impersonating people and abusing page-locking powers, it's closed off to anyone they can close it to.

I've responded to Tony1's talk. Feel free to read it there.

Oh, and yes: your name is on "the list" too, just like Malleus and OhConfucius and Tony. Keep your eyes open and get someone to watch your back because I'm out after this. And don't trust Ryan4314, he's been offered adminship to pass along "juicy info" about AR participants any time he can get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RolexWatchMan (talk • contribs) 02:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, you seem to know what you're doing, and I've given you this, but please note that it is only for obvious vandalism; if in doubt, use Undo instead. --Rodhullandemu 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will use it only for that purpose.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive conduct.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Diff  Sandstein  19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I have also removed your rollback access, because the above edit draws your judgment into serious doubt.  Sandstein  19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Goodmorningworld

I've refactored the first part of your statement. It should be fairly clear why, but to be clear the first sentence was unnecessarily combative and the second sentence labeling Aitias a Sociopath was an outright personal attack. Please don't attempt to readd these comments. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Due to edit conflict, I am seeing your message only after I struck through the offending word and replaced it with more neutral language in my comment there.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've removed that whole sentence again (even in its altered state). Whilst I can live with the first sentence, your next sentence simply isn't acceptable. Please leave it out or your whole statement will be removed. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to move article Talk:Patricianship incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Talk:Patricianship to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

  1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the [[Talk:Talk:Patricianship|talk page of the page you want moved]], replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
  2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the [[Talk:Talk:Patricianship|talk page of the page you want to be moved]]. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
  3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment in Requests for adminship/Bwilkins

Hi Goodmorningworld, regarding your comment in Requests for adminship/Bwilkins, could I ask you to consider removing the comment about Gwen Gale? I have disagreed with at least one of Gwen's blocks, however I think your comment is possibly out of place in this RfA. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I've struck through the polemical language but I stand by the substance of my remark, which is integral and necessary to explain my Neutral comments.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
...and you know RfA in Wikipedia well enough that your diff's would be the numerous nails. In fact, with Padillah as a nominator, I'm surprised that he asked for them. Oh well, Adminship isn't a prize or a goal, it's a tool. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
BMW, I am sorry that you feel that way. As I wrote here before you made the above comment, I am very surprised at the response my comments received. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry - I'm not at all pissed or anything. We all know how RFA works, some people circle at the drop of blood. Perhaps it's the descriptions you used for each diff, I don't know. Of course, I still think the whole thing is out of context, but if I try to defend myself, I'll get piled on more. Indeed, I did see the last post you made, and appreciate it - just by that point, it was far too late - indeed, even if the entire section was struck right now, people would still use it. No worries. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason I asked for them is because I knew when others saw the conflict they would understand just how much you had contributed to it's end and how baseless GMW's statements were. I know RfA is a bit of a hate-fest (I did just get done nominating Bugs) but I didn't realize it would be taken so out of context and held to such unrealistic ideals. This is ridiculous. I'm sorry GMW but there's no way I can sympathize with your rendition of these events, it boggles my mind to not see how even-tempered BMW was. He may have been disagreeable but he was even-tempered and clear. You say you asked to have the thread closed and BMW told you it wasn't going to happen. I don't see that. You asked when it would close and BMW (oddly enough) answered your question. Are all those editors seriously suggesting that, since BMW disagreed with others he's not fit to be an admin? I am quickly loosing all faith in this process. I can only hope the 'crat that reviews it has the wherewithal to see past the back-biting and see what kind of good this editor has done. This process is shamefull. Padillah (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

fall

Thanks for your kind words. No one stomped on me, but you soon realise how living with other people would have its advantages. The stairs are still a difficulty. All fours going up; wincing on the way down. Tony (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu

What can I say? I think you've encapsulated the whole reason I'm here, to provide good content and resist any threat to that. I am now actually weeping with your appreciation, as it's exceedingly rare for an admin to achieve that. I am truly grateful for your support. Rodhullandemu 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As user:Hoary, another admin whom I respect greatly, says: "Consider the pay." In light of which my demands of Wikipedia admins are surely too high. It's an aporia. If I were an admin and feeling stressed right now, perhaps I'd hop over to User:EVula/fun#Collection_of_threats and peruse his collection of death threats, which never fail to amuse me… but then I'm a twisted bastard anyways. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg comment

Hi Goodmorningworld! Firstly, let me say that my revert of your comment there was a complete accident and I have reverted myself. However, I do have a question to you: It seems like you are saying that you are opposing the sanctioning of Jayjg (by means of sarcasm), but shouldn't then the support (first word) be changed to oppose? I'm not really sure I understand the post. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ynhockey. If you're like me, you probably hate when people answer your question with questions of their own, so that's exactly what I'm going to do. When Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal, was he proposing that children be sold as food? When Oskar Maria Graf said "Burn Me, Too", was he asking to be burnt? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not that I don't appreciate the irony, it's that I'm not sure that everyone else does. I know that this ArbCom case has many elements of a circus, but it's meant to be serious :) —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting in the work on Hauke Harder sources. Dlabtot (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4

Thanks for the feedback. If there is anything I can clarify for you, please drop me a line. — BQZip01 — talk 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Song on Israeli radio, mid-2000s

Howdy, GMW! I moved your query to my User talk page for followup. What radio I listen to is mostly oldies so your description doesn't ring any bells of recognition. Achshav, hu yosheved [sic] doesn't quite mean "Now, he knows" - the third word (transcribed?) is close to the 3rd person f. sing. present tense "[she] sits/dwells" (while "he knows" would be hu yode'a). Soon as I can get to it, I'll post your query on LiveJournal's "Sheela Ktana" forum, or ask my daughters when they come home on the weekend. Meanwhile, the only known cure for an earworm is to replace the haunting song with another, hopefully more forgettable one. Watch this space...!-- Deborahjay (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Twist and Misrepresent?

I did not say you said anything in particular and I am extremely offended by your post, which doesn't belong on the Williamson talk page. If you have a problem with anything I wrote, contact me. Your edits were completely in good faith. I was trying to explain why I thought that the many news articles were correctly representing Williamson's view, and were therefore properly represented on Wiki (I personally have an issue with the Wiki doesn't need to tell the truth as long as you can source it; it should be correct.). A journalist's job is not to just report exactly what the person said, but without bias, investigate the meaning of those words and teach his/her readers. Williamson is an unabashed anti-Semite, gay basher, and Holocaust denier, among other things. The multiple journalists that came to the same conclusion were just doing their jobs. They were neither mis-quoting, nor lying. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck, even if it tells you it isn't.Sposer (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What you need to do, after subjecting me to that utterly pointless Chinese water torture instead of acknowledging what any fifth grader could see, is apologize to me. Instead you come on here with totally irrelevant crap that is not at issue and was never in doubt. Poor show.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you sir, owe me an apology. I am waiting.Sposer (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Is communication difficult for you?

You appear to have made some reverts lately. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in blocking of accounts.

WP:BATTLEGROUND, Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:MiszaBot III (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

--CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I find communicating with people generally easy, thank you very much. If your message is "intended in good humor" then why are you gnashing your teeth, LOL? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A joke?

In an effort to improve or at least to understand the basis of criticisms, I'd appreciate any thoughts you'd care to share on why you consider my performance as an arbitrator to be "a joke," as you've suggested on User talk:John. If you'd care to respond, I'd appreciate it. Although disagreement is inevitable when it comes to the final stage of dispute resolution, I do my conscientious best to address issues fairly and appropriately, so I'd welcome a better understanding of where I have failed to meet this test in your estimation. (Incidentally, I don't know whether your criticism is aimed at my work in a particular case or more globally, for what it's worth you can review my votes on the proposed decision page of the Date delinking case, or any other case.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pressed for time and so cannot give your question a reply that approaches the depth and breadth of my contempt for your performance. For starters, you could look up my contributions to the Date Delinking arbitration, beginning with my urging that the case should be thrown out on its ear and continuing with my submissions on the "Evidence", "Workshop" and "Proposed Decision" pages resp. Talk pages. Nearly all of my contributions were roundly ignored by you arbitrators, sometimes answered only after repeated prodding as much as a month late. Not that I consider my comments to be such shining examples of argument that they must needs have received a response. However, similar comments from others were likewise ignored or brushed off with laughable, patronizing responses. By contrast, the few editors who commented in support of the complainants and in support of the arbitrators usually received prompt affirmative responses. Tunnel vision? A possible explanation but it goes only so far. As far as I know, you are the only lawyer among the arbitrators and moreover someone who professes an interest in constitutional law. While the other arbitrators can claim that their shortcomings can be explained as they did not know any better, not having had any training in the law and its underpinnings, that excuse is unavailable to you. There is a line in the play "A Man for All Seasons" where Thomas More rejects the suggestion that he should go along to get along, asking in return whether his counterpart will join him in hell should he be sent there for having violated his conscience. You have failed to speak out loudly in response to the travesty of justice perpetrated by the lead arbitrator on this case. You have failed to note and remedy the many violations of due process – both an ideal notion of same and its enshrinement in Wikipedia arbitration rules – during the "proceedings". You have sat on your hands impassively while all notions of a speedy trial flew out the window and good, decent people were subjected to abuses of authority. I have seen you likewise underperform in the witch hunt on user:Jayjg and the mistreatment of user:Scientific Apologist, as well as promise serious action in the case against an abusive admin (user:Aitias) who as it later turned out was let off with a slap on the wrist. If you are seriously as concerned as you profess to be above – and it is not just an overture to getting me blocked before my retirement – then my advice to you, sir, is to grow a spine.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Discuss instead of reverting all the time"

I'm pretty curious about this remark. Are you referring to any incident in particular or are you just flexing a little WP:POINT here? I obviously agree that the wording is a WP:NPOV violation, and thus the revert. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

By my count there were ten reverts in the article during a 24-hour period (including yours and mine). Most people would view this as an edit warring situation. Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms provide for better avenues than edit warring, namely discussion on the Talk page as a first step (already attempted without achieving agreement between Mackan and Zara), followed by the solicitation of outside opinions (currently in progress). I also explained my reasoning yesterday on the Talk page. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I am entitled to my reverts and for good reason; the current state of the article blatantly violates policy. Please do not revert me solely to make a point. That was my first revert in the discussion, no matter how many came before me, and we are allowed reversions for a reason. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Predecided cases

You might find this discussion interesting.70.90.183.122 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Germany (terminology)

I reverted the redirect -- I don't see a consensus for it yet on the talk page, so preserving the status quo pending further discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is now resolved: User:Cs32en has moved the content to History of Germany and restored the redirect. – ukexpat (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuzzballs

Hi, Goodmorningworld. I responded to your post here on Talk:Fuzzball. Greg L (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I saw. Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I have much sympathy with what you wrote, and indeed have commented several times (especially in May) about how damn awful the delinking case was. But the worst thing that has come out of it is the human impact. I can't even imagine how TRM is feeling this morning after his cheerful offer to help out with backlogs caused such a 2nd time muckraking. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. And to think that I voted Support on OR's RfA {rolleyes}... Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuing allegations regarding John Vandenberg

It is fairly old now, but I noticed that you are continuing to say that John Vandenberg is a mediawiki developer, when he has stated that he is not. Please see what I've posted here. Could you please read that and consider striking your allegations? Carcharoth (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Answered you on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard page. I notice that you've painted a target on my back there while totally ignoring the substance of my comments. Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Undoubted skills

You are, I think, too kind; at the same time, you ignore what my skills are. Chief among them is being diversely enough read to recognize when MOS is endorsing the language of one nation or one field at the expense of others, which it does all too often. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Bethmann family of merchants and bankers

Category:Bethmann family of merchants and bankers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)