User talk:Father Goose/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On your commentary

The Socratic Barnstar
I was starting to lose hope. --Kizor 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks.--Father Goose 01:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}

Hey Father Goose, I had a quick question about the changes to the above template. Most of your edits have been great, but just recently you removed WP:AB and moved WP:COI. I think this change should be reverted because if you look at precedent here that is how it has always been listed. Not a big deal but I think WP:AB at least needs to be listed. Thanks!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I made the same change there, then. AB is really just a specific form of COI, and we should stick to the most basic pages to keep the templates tidy. There are some other changes I'm considering too, like moving/removing disambiguation, which is not particularly fundamental and is at least partially subordinate to naming conventions. Since your template is "policies and guidelines", it shouldn't use exactly the same set of links as Template:Guideline list, which by definition covers guidelines only.--Father Goose 20:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah whatever, I just would rather have too many listed than too little. I have just seen many people cite WP:AB so I thought it should be listed. And remember it is not "my template" its the community's template :P haha thanks for your work! Good luck editing!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"Your template" is easier to type than {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}. I wasn't implying that you own it, though you did create it. You can add WP:AB back in; I've just been being bold and changing it according to my sensibilities.--Father Goose 20:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Haha sorry, that was actually a feeble attempt at a joke on my part. Thats why I put :P next to my comment lol. Your changes are fine, I just wanted to hear your reasoning behind it. Thanks again for the work!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay!!

Ahhhh... so much better! I knew there was at least one word in the english language that would work. Thanks again!!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:-) --Father Goose 05:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a directory: A section "Contact details" in an article is generally not appropriate

See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much for the kind gesture of awarding me this wonderful barnstar. But your edit prior to mine on the Barbara Woodhouse article as well as your comment on the edit summary about the lead of the article gave me the idea to further clean it up. Therefore you deserve a lot of the credit as well. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it's not every day you start a job in a half-assed way and someone finishes it for you. Enjoy the barnstar.--Father Goose (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Give it a time

It will be one day. Other users have done it in the past, and as long as people go along with it, it all works out fine and dandy. But thank you for your concern. Hiding T 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Puzzled

Hi. I'm puzzled at the idea that we should keep the wedgie article in it's uncleaned state in order to talk about its deletion. When other articles are nominated for deletion, do we go back in the history to find the worst, most bloated version, and then discuss that? If someone's just done some decent work on the article (I added a source, which your edit removed), why should people not evaluate it in its improved state? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken; you didn't remove the source. I'm still puzzled. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate as to whether lists of cultural references to a subject belong in Wikipedia. Some people say "fuck no", some, "fuck yes". Most of the material you removed could be verified (again, see WP:PSTS), so I don't agree with its removal on OR terms. The "types of wedgies" section does appear to contain some OR, though a quick search suggests that at a minimum the "atomic wedgie" and "melvin" can be sourced.
Pared down to little more than a dicdef, the logical choice would be to merge it with a nearly identical paragraph in school pranks, but no article should be deleted on the basis of such a purged version, where the purge is not justified by policy so much as the claim that it is "bloated".
You're free to disagree with me but I hope you are no longer puzzled.--Father Goose 23:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a bit, although now I'm puzzled as to why anybody would think that lists such as that belong in Wikipedia. Is this "ongoing debate" centralized in some place? Do you think that my edits made the article worse? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've posted to WT:NOR#Relation of PSTS to "... in popular culture" sections, if you're interested. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of content

How dead is this? I only came across this discussion when it was in its death throes. I don't understand why this is controversial. I think it's very clearly stated in the good article criteria and the featured article criteria and, in that context, it is utterly uncontroversial. Do you think there's any point in my adding something about WP:GACR and WP:FACR to the essay? Or would I just be opening a can of worms that most editors would like to keep shut? ---- 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be uncontroversially accepted as an "essay" at this point, so edit it all you like. I too don't understand why it was faced with so much hostility at various points in its life, but I think most of that has died down now.--Father Goose 21:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Veni Vidi Vici

Do you still have a copy of the now deleted IPC article saved in your user space? I would be interested to "borrow" a copy, and use that as springboard to generate a new discussion on the Veni Vidi Vici page about what is considered a notable use of the phrase. I would just pull the content out of the page history, but I seem to recall the IPC article being more selective and much better sourced. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on my talk page, I appreciate it. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I think we know the same people. Mother Goose? Easter Bunny? Santa Claus? I saw your name and had to say hello! Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good heavens! I never realized Easter was married. A pleasure to make your acquaintance.--Father Goose (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a particular article that you would like to work on together? What if that article soon had an edit history full of Father Goose and Mrs.EasterBunny entries? If you can't think of an article, how about a subject and then let me make some suggestions from that subject? If I have to make suggestions, it would be geography related, perhaps a city. A biography would also do. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm semi-inactive on Wikipedia right now, and a lot of my focus has been on policy issues. But if some subject catches my fancy, I'll let you know. Maybe I'll tackle another DYK one of these days, they're always fun.--Father Goose (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted your request for rollback. Please make sure you are familiar with how rollback works. In general, the tool is only for reverting obvious vandalism - any edit, no matter how awful or biased, that could possibly have been made in good faith should not be reverted in this manner. Never use rollback on the edits of regular contributors and most of all, use common sense. Remember rollback privileges can be revoked by any administrator. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism.--Doc g - ask me for rollback 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Woot! Thanks. I promise not to abuse it more than 30 times an hour.--Father Goose (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Versions

Hi, FG - I can see some overlap between what gets onto this page, and what would get on a History of IAR page as you floated here.

I can see such as a good idea, one reason I haven't tried to do it myself is, as you say, that th signal-to-noise ratio in the edit history for WP:IAR is horrible (the talkpage is worse, I think that is obvious).

If its still a good idea, and you have time to forward this, I would suggest that identifiying the "versions" that lasted a month or more would be easy. (There aren't many.) Identifying those that were only up for hours or minutes is a different kettle... (how many different "significant" versions are hiding in all those edits?)

In any case, the expansions and accretions to the WP:IAR essay/family may be making it easier to get to a position where the El Dorado! may be attained - a change to the 12wordstableversion that all can agree actually helps to explain IAR better, but not at th expense of limiting our ability to "improve and maintain WP".

And now hoping all (editors) can get together, peacefully, on the same page (same pages). It isn't always just people talking past each other, Cheers —Newbyguesses - Talk 21:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This much was easily researched. Newbyguesses - Talk 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not my intention to catalog the versions, but to describe how IAR has been interpreted and used in practice over the years of its existence. I'm only aware of two really noteworthy versions -- the original "nervous and depressed" wording and the present one (plus variations). The rest are transitional forms, rejected forms, or ones that got mired in edit wars.
Either way, the actual rule is not what's been on the page, but what editors have followed in practice. The history of IAR is not the edit-warring that has occurred over its page, but how it's been used in the field.--Father Goose (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. There's two main "texts" that have persisted. What is on the page is not the rule, it is a set of words, or text, which Is a way of expressing the principles which seem to underly the (collective) actions of editors.
The edit-warring, and subsequent accusations and justifications thereafter on the talkpage have usually shed more heat than light. (The recent protection of the page was for pretty much the same edits which caused the previous protection, despite gigabytes of talkpage arguments in the meantime, from what I read in the archives.)
I will be interested to see this subpage materialize when you get it up and running. Newbyguesses - Talk 09:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
So am I. I can't say for sure if it'll amount to anything.--Father Goose (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
FG, I am not convinced that thispage(/Versions) has a great deal going for it, although I do value it to the extent that some additions I have made. It may be though at some time (not soon) despite my personal editting, that I make the suggestion to remove the link from WP:IAR. Just thinking out loud here, I see you have also expressed a low opinion of thepage's prospects. For now, I reckon, the most important thing is for any editors to work on IAR in such a manner that edit-wars, and cycles of protection, do not have to kick in, at least, that is what I would wish to avoid. That is one reason why I am happy having the link there, for now.
Meanwhile the page you have mentioned working on may then prove hopefully viable when exposed to the limelight.
It seems difficult to get any response at Talk:IAR just now, perhaps shell-shock from our recent long-posting (retired) user. I would like to see that page slim right down to 30K in any case, just to speed up loading every time I visit. It seems surreal to me that the projectpage will load in seconds, but I get to make a cuppa waiting for Talk:IAR to load. Any case, I have no further thoughts at that place, until I see some fresh input there. FWIW, I am currently seeking to minimize my edits to WP:IAR itself, (don't want to be accused again of being in a dreaded CABAL), so if my handle appears in the edit history more than once a fortnight, I have probably got over-excited, as that is my unofficial limit (self-imposed) at this time. Cheers. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(re: Zenwhat) Man, things develop quickly around here sometimes. (re:IAR) Man, things sure do crawl around here sometimes. ;-)
As for the "history" page, time for me to stop talking about it and just do it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WGA strike article

You sold me. Done. - Philippe | Talk 18:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

popular culture again

At ANI this time [1] You might want to provide some background. You've followed this more closely than I have. DGG (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I commented there.--Father Goose (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why so quiet

Thread moved over to Talk:Monty Hall problem#Why so quiet

Every evening, when the sun goes down

Wikipedia:The twilight zone has got me puzzled. This is supposed to be a funny piece, but if the talk:page could serve a serious purpose, ie. discuss and update the See also's, and develop some guidancwe or balance between such as AGF, and SPADE etc. If, then would it deserve, and is there an elegant way to add two shortcuts, WP:GREY, and WP:TWILIGHT, Thoughts? Newbyguesses - Talk 19:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • tweeked!! Newbyguesses - Talk 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • FG, you may wish to comment at the talk page. I will explain my thinking at this point. It has been bugging me for some time that WP:DICK is a redirect to meta. It is however, a position which is likely to find me on my pat malone. I actually would be happy to see peniS retired. But it is a minority view, i feel. Your thoughts, if you care to? Newbyguesses - Talk 14:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't love dick myself cough but it can sometimes get the message across better than "be civil". Plus, it captures something a bit broader than WP:CIVIL; I also take it as an admonition against being obsessive (even when being polite), since when dicks like that get on to something, the result is never good. WikiLen was a perfect example of that, back during the battle over WP:ROC; he never said a single unkind word, while being furiously dickish in his pursuit of something he didn't even want once the smoke had cleared.--Father Goose (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As for WP:GREY, I don't know what your aim is with it, so I don't know what kind of feedback to offer.--Father Goose (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough FG, I am not to sure what would be best. Some thoughts then - My intentions for TWILIGHT a) attract some thoughtful editors to the talk page debate. b) Use this talk-page to discuss this question, ie.

How far does one go with AGF before SPADE kicks in, and is it really helpful to label editors with titles such as troll, etc. For instance, GTBacchus is a stickler for the concept of "discuss the edit, not the editor", see [Wikipedia Talk:Ignore all rules/Archive10] or round about there in the archives, where GTB patiently engaged in dialogue with Zenwhat (now retired) long past the point when everyone else had given up. (I think that is one of the few recent archives that MiszaBot II has done there where my handle does not appear). Remember when? Newbyguesses - Talk 08:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

woops,syntax! Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 05:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankfully I do not have a dog in that spectacularly messy fight. However, as regards the diff you linked to, I am inclined to embrace everything written in Wikipedia:Blp#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article.--Father Goose (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP. Did you spot the syntax error? I put {{User:Newbyguesses}} as SIG when I should have put {{User|Newbyguesses}}. So, if you scroll down the page to #Proposals by JzG, I think, you will find that nbg signed off with the page User:Newbyguesses, instead of a SIG! Newbyguesses - Talk 14:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, okay, you transcluded it. Yeah, whoops!--Father Goose (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

Is this it? —Random832 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, perfect, thank you. Was it there all along? If so, I apologize; merged histories are confusing.--Father Goose (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was - when I did this I figured a history merge was the best solution because the disambiguation version hadn't existed very long and the contents of each seemed to have been feeding into each other for the short time they both existed—Random832 14:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You took the right approach, I just need to learn how to find my way around merged histories better. Or maybe just clean my glasses.--Father Goose (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review

So far I have found 4 strong candidates for deletion review, I posted details on my talk page. Ridernyc (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IAR

Ref - Can we add the standard explanation of why we have such a rule? Gosh, that would be nice. It really would.--Father Goose (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Which "standard explanation", and which "rule" did you mean? I am confused, as usual, but i think you may be on to something. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the rationale, suggested application, and other details that tend to accompany other polices when I spoke of the "standard explanation", and I was expressing my wish that the IAR page could have just such supplementary details. Imagine if all the other main polices were reduced to a single terse sentence, with no further explanation permitted. They'd be as much of a mess -- and as misunderstood -- as IAR is.--Father Goose (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, we are together there, anything which will decrease confusion is welcomed. I think the 12word is fine, though, perhaps a series of statements a la Wikipedia:No firm rules would work, for starters? But, hasten slowly, the dratted page is protected again.
I had further ideas, ie. delink /Versions, that can (will have to) wait. Patiently, in every way, Newbyguesses - Talk 01:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on an essay that just flat out explains IAR as well as I can. We'll see how it goes -- provided I even manage to finish it.--Father Goose (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you said that before.(smiley :) Why doesn't No firm rules grab you? It is only a draft, admittedly—Newbyguesses - Talk 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm angling for something that really lays bare the thinking behind IAR, not just a few bullet points.--Father Goose (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Go for it! Newbyguesses - Talk 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closing

Stemming from previous unpleasantness regarding this issue, I started Wikipedia:Discussion closing in the hopes that future unpleasantness can be avoided. This is a rough idea so far, and I have no idea what the specifics should be yet. I'd appreciate any input, as you tend to be good at this stuff. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:57, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a worthy project. The first thing I'd suggest is renaming it to "closing discussions".--Father Goose (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That was my first choice, but I thought that on its own the title sounded like the term used to describe a discussion that occurs at the end of a process -- like the "closing arguments" in a trial. I'm open to a rename though, if that's all in my head. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:53, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I think that's mostly in your head.--Father Goose (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I took your word for it. I feel rather sick right now, hence my awake state :) Equazcion •✗/C • 10:02, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry to hear that. Be well.--Father Goose (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Done

The Barnstar of Recovery
For the great work involved in the rescue of Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much. :-) --Father Goose (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

user page vandalism

mine's a bit more esoteric than yours so i won't be offended if you remove it. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:29, 6 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that episode was just on the other day. I'll bet we both caught it.--Father Goose (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"I wish the dog's urine?"

I asked the refdesk to translate it, because that metaphor might be useful (or at least interesting).

I found something else in the Japanese version of IAR (as translated by Google):

荒らし行為は、 基本原則の中の「ウィキペディアは百科事典です」に反する重大な違反であり、荒らし行為者には特別な対処がなされることもあります。

Vandalism is a basic principle of the "encyclopedia Wikipedia is."

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested (I know I was!), here's someone's translation at the reference desk, of the paragraph in question:

Additionally, actions that follow the rules in a superficial manner only serve to make those rules more complex than necessary. For example, dogs might frequently defecate in front of your house. In response, you might put up a sign that reads "please do not let your dog defecate here". A superficial and incorrect interpretation of this rule might lead to the assumption that it is okay for dogs to urinate in front of the house, or that cats may defecate there instead. It then becomes necessary amend the sign in response. Then perhaps empty drink cans will be discarded in front of your house. And so the rules get more and more elaborate. In other words, a sign saying "please do not let your dog defecate here" should be interpreted instead to mean "please keep this area clean".

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting, thanks.--Father Goose (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear

Just to be clear, I did apologise to Chardish, and meant it.

They say it takes all kinds to make up a world.

Just to be clear, I do not think my initial comment "Stop whining, Chardish" should be construed as a personal attack, I am withdrawing it because the debate has moved on. I was commenting on an editor's present actions, (ie. "whining"), and not on that editor's unchangeable personality. IE, "Chardish, you are a whiner." would be a personal attack, and a very mild one at that. Chardish's edit-warring to remove such innocuous statements is a much clearer violation of civility, IMHO, ...(X) is relentlessly pursuing, surreptitiously i might add. - Newbyguesses - Talk 22:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems my present understanding of CIVILITY differs substantially from the "normative" one, and i am damn glad for that, i would not want to be associated with a flawed conception which has taken hold, throughout certain quarters, apparently. I really do try to consider "the edit, not the editor" and I really do consider disruptiveness, POV-pushing, and CENSORSHIP, as practised by whomever, to be a personal attack against editors acting in good faith.

Yes, I say that lying, disrupting, causing edit-wars, and censorship and so forth are far worse transgressions than calling someone's actions "whining", or "childish", and I am surprised that you do not acknowledge my right to hold such an opinion. I make a "mild' comment about an editor who has disrupted this page for ten months, and i get jumped on. I dont get it, but , believe me, it aint no problem now, till the next time.

I guess it really is difficult for me to understand how "normative" it is being part of the "dominant culture on the planet", that is tech-obsessed adolescent US boys. I live out here, beyond the International Dateline, where it's hard to tell George Bush from Bart Simpson, (they are one and the same to me, or for all i care) and, I like it out here in the boondocks, believe me. Sorry b'bout the rave, but there's no future in my "gagging myself", I dont think. Thanks, anyway, for listening or not. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to apologize to you, meanwhile, for stepping in as clumsily as I did, and for hurting your feelings. Don't perceive my criticisms or other comments, as siding with Chardish, or jumping on you. All I saw is that you and he were in the midst of a classic flame war, and no one can claim the high ground while engaged in one. The "whys" don't matter to anyone watching a fistfight from the sidelines.
This isn't about US culture. It's about people (all of us at WT:IAR) chewing each other out and getting nowhere. That happens in any culture. Chardish is guilty of this, you are, I am, David, 1==2, Kim, Zenwhat, everyone else. Frustration sets in and we all start acting stupid, each in our own way.
The best way forward is just to ignore how you feel about any given editor and remain focused on how to improve IAR. 1==2's attitude used to bug the hell out of me until I realized that since I could get no useful communication out of him, I did not have to communicate with him at all. To do so would just anger me (and in turn him) and accomplish nothing. You could do the same with Chardish, Zenwhat, and anyone else who you feel is not acting in a sensible way.
Seek out those with whom you can communicate, and avoid speaking to those with whom you can't. Then if someone you dismissed as insensible does say something sensible, you can respond to them without having any resentment toward them clouding your judgment.--Father Goose (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah thanks, the apology is most uplifting, though I didn't think you owed me one. You are quite correct, when in a hole, stop digging (Dooh!) Now note this, thankyou, I do seek out those I can communicate with, I seek out you.
Also, funnily enough, I think bothZW and myself have benefited from our long series of interactions, and I look forward to a post such as "Yeah, agree with Zen- ...NewbyGxxx !! (This isn't about US culture - hush my dratted mouth, I am foolish sometimes.) I already did a Yeah, Chardish, a couple of'm, and that has come about from taking, at late time, your advice, and that of GTBacchus, who is a deep one.
Oh, and "sensible" is a judgement call, unfortunately, and we all get tired, and unwell, and make bad calls (I call that the human condition, or a part of it). Keep posts short, keep positive, and say, thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"Sensible" is subjective, certainly. What I'm saying is if you find what someone else is saying insensible, and cannot get anywhere with them, spare yourself the frustration of further miscommunication. If at some point they do make sense again, return to the conversation, but otherwise, wash your hands of it. Some people will not be moved, so don't try.--Father Goose (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright and plot summary and Wikipedia

I'm not here much these days, but I thought I'd let you know Mike Godwin responded to my query at his talk page regarding copyright. [2]. We have to respect the law, is pretty much how it reads to me. If you intend pursuing the idea further, I would suggest you engage at WP:FUC or maybe on the mailing list. I can't see much coming from discussion in other places. Maybe at WP:WAF or WP:FICT. I think the first step is to identify the "relevant provisions of copyright law, trademark law, etc." All the best, Hiding T 11:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

His e-mail reply to me back then settled the issue for me. To generalize what he seemed to be saying, we don't try to anticipate the law, just respond to it where it is enforced. Unless someone does come after us for our plot reproductions, we won't treat it as a legal issue.--Father Goose (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from 65.78.108.234

Thanks for that link to the Time article from 51. That was interesting!65.78.108.234 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another question: how do you force a hard return?65.78.108.234 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

<br /> is a hard return. It should be used sparingly; normally you can get the formatting you need using regular returns. BR is useful inside tables and lists, however, which have their own margins and formatting.
{{clr}} (also {{-}}, {{clear}}) produces a hard return with a "clear" which can be used to keep a large html element (usually a picture) from overlapping subsequent sections. See the examples given at Template:Clear for how this works.--Father Goose (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, the picture used as an example at Template:Clear is the Heidelberg Tun, which I know from some novel I read somewhere... I forget which. ;-)--Father Goose (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
PS, Wikipedia is a little weird in that it combines lines that only have a single break between them; in other words, pressing return once doesn't have any effect in most cases. You need to press it price, ie. leave a single blank line in the code in-between two lines, in order to actually have two separate line show up when viewing the page. br will do the same thing (equivalent of pressing enter twice). Equazcion •✗/C • 23:47, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)
That's actually behavior native to HTML. Two returns will be treated as a paragraph (<p>); one return will be ignored. Or so I remember.--Father Goose (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I never tried writing HTML without any tags, so you could be right. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:01, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

RfD starter text

Hi. The text each subpage is started with is in Template:RfD subpage starter. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Tizio 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha, thank you. No problem about the delay.--Father Goose (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This attempt to formalize a debate at talk:IAR may be "futile".

Father Goose, you may also think this is "futile". Or, you may think the sections on WP:UIAR should be amalgamated, or moved up to number 1 position. This is how I thought things might go, but I have been wrong before. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying at the discussion page. Now, have you noticed that/Workshop now redirects to IAR. Were you still using the Workshop? No problem here? Cheers --Newbyguesses - Talk 04:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe it's the talk page that's been redirected to the main IAR talk page, which I agree with. That confused me at first as well, though.--Father Goose (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is getting a cleanup by Kevin Murray

Miracles indeed. Want to help out? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're doing fine. I'll just watch for now.--Father Goose (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment

Hi - This comment is really not helpful, please be cool. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you felt personally insulted by it, then I apologize to you. But overall, I felt it was truthful, if confrontational.--Father Goose (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I know who it was directed at (seems a little too obvious). The point is only that such comments are never helpful. Some folks might consider it bordering on a personal attack. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

'nother essay

Inspired by scrolling leisurely through ANI, and my past experiences. Just wanted to hear you thoughts, if you have any: Wikipedia:Just drop it. Thanks - Equazcion •✗/C • 00:26, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)


Monty Hall

You wrote:

It isn't just that some people don't have any chance of understanding conditional probability; it's that there are ways of using simple logic to explain the basic paradox correctly without delving into the conditional analysis. For some reason there are people who are incapable of understanding that. They have learned how to use a hammer, and insist that everything must be treated like a nail.--Father Goose (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Father Goose - The probem description in this article says:

Reply:

"You begin by pointing to door number 1. The host shows you that door number 3 has a goat. Do the player's chances of getting the car increase by switching to Door 2?"

Therefore, the question is precisely about conditional probability because the player learns information that was not available before (the car is not behind door 3) and that fact changes the probability that the car is behind door 2 (and possibly also the probability that the car is behind door 1). You cannot avoid the issue of conditional probability here because this is precisely what it means -- a revised probability in view of newly acquired information. Simple logic can explain conditional probability, but the exact meaning of the question remains the following:

"Given that the host has opened door 3, is the chance of winning by switching greater than the chance of wininng by sticking?"

So, the conditional probability is not one ("hammer") of several tools to approach this question. It is the very concept underlying the question. I suggest you read Morgan et al. I would say that a person who does not understand what is conditional probability also does not understand the question that is phrased in this article. Some people convince themselves that their simple explanations prove the result, but it turns out that by the same arguments they could prove a falsehood. If so, then the arguments do not actually prove the correct result. 70.137.136.97 (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I do understand conditional probability, and why it "has" to be applied to the problem as asked. I also understand that the unconditional analysis provides a correct answer as to why the probability is 2/3, not 50-50 as many people (including myself) initially think when they first hear the problem.
So the question is, how to offer general readers a simple (unconditional) explanation of the paradox without getting bogged down with the "Aha! You picked a door! All unconditional solutions are false now!" problem. I would be happy to explain to readers that the various unconditional solutions do correctly explain the overall probabilities involved (2/3, not 50-50), although, technically, when faced with a conditional statement of the problem, a conditional analysis should be used, which can be found in the Bayes theorem section.
Would that, or something along those lines, be an intolerable approach?--Father Goose (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Goose - What do you think of this version of the solution? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your opinion on this. Just a poke to make sure you see the question. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

userfication

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No, it is not premature. As long as an essay is mainly written by a single user, they are supposed to be in userspace. Please undo immediately. Consider that userfication is not a value judgment or "demotion" in any way. That village pump discussion took place because the Wikipedia essay category became crowded by a constant stream of essays written (or mostly written) by individual users. Dorftrottel (warn) 04:12, March 21, 2008

I'm busy rewriting WP:JDI, as I had intended to when I first read it. I commented in the VP thread you linked to, and had additional conversations with Radiant about what kind of criteria would be used to determine which essays would be userfied. A brand new essay should be given at least a little chance to gain exposure and additional authors, as otherwise all essays could be userfied on Day 1, having just been started by a single author.
Userfying low-interest essays is a good idea. Userfying all essays preemptively is... less so.--Father Goose (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
New essays should not be "userfied on Day 1", they should be created in userspace in the first place. Also, not notifying another user of a revert like you did is yet another issue. Dorftrottel (warn) 06:41, March 21, 2008
I'm not sure you'd find many people who would agree with either of the assertions you just made.--Father Goose (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, I am sure. Dorftrottel (canvass) 09:13, March 21, 2008

Dorftrottel, I don't know where you're getting any of this from. Anyone who thinks they've written something of general helpfulness to the workings of the encyclopedia have always put it in Wikipedia space. They've also always been kept there, unless someone finds them somehow objectionable or of only esoteric interest. I can give you many, many examples if need be.

Father Goose, thanks for the rewrite. It's definitely much more concise now. And thanks for the move back to WP space. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:59, 21 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Individual opinion pieces are appropriately labeled as user essays, only collaborative efforts which reflect wide community consensus are labeled as Wikipedia essays. This has been done for quite some time now, and if you think there's something wrong with that, you may want to request a change at the village pump. Dorftrottel (harass) 21:43, March 21, 2008
Essays that reflect wide community consensus are guidelines. Essays that aren't guidelines don't need any consensus to remain in WP namespace. Exmaples: WP:Editors matter, WP:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, WP:Why do you care?, WP:Credentials matter, WP:Credentials are irrelevant, etc etc. If you're against this practice, then you should probably bring it up at WP:VPP, but currently this is how it works. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:03, 21 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I ask you to bring it up at the Village Pump right now to see if people agree that things are done the way you claim.--Father Goose (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an established and sensible status quo with which you do not agree, and you're asking me to go to the VP? No, no, sorry, that's not the way it works. Dorftrottel (troll) 06:31, March 22, 2008
Righty-o: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Outside opinions requested.--Father Goose (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying it don't make it so. I offered you plenty of examples. You keep making claims but haven't offered any actual proof yet of this "established status quo" you refer to. So yeah, you should go to VP. That sure is how it works. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:19, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)
If you are so convinced any personal opinion piece should be included in project space and if you actually think this has community consensus, why don't you just go and request Category:User essays to be merged back into Category:Wikipedia essays? Dorftrottel (complain) 10:36, March 22, 2008
Who said "any" personal opinion piece should be in WP namespace? I already described to you the circumstances in which an essay in WP space is moved to userspace. Stop with the all-or-nothing attitude. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:44, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)
You can not explain something you're not quite getting. I am trying to explain to you. You are refusing to accept reality. The thing is, you talked above about some circumstances where essays may be userfied "if someone finds them objectionable or of only esoteric interest". Which is considerably fuzzier a dividing line than the one in actual use (contrary to what you are willing to accept). That you would start an essay of yours directly in Wikipedia space rather than in your own userspace (eventually moving it after others have contributed considerably), simply reflects badly on you and your common sense of modesty. Dorftrottel (complain) 12:58, March 22, 2008
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Father_Goose/Archive_2&oldid=1142999507"