→Thanks...: Heh. Yellow I am... |
Balloonman (talk | contribs) →The Rest of the Story: Giggy: new section |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
:::You were brave to pick that one up Ealdgyth. I looked at the oldest on the list a week or so ago and decided to go instead for [[Andover F.C.]]. Much safer. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
:::You were brave to pick that one up Ealdgyth. I looked at the oldest on the list a week or so ago and decided to go instead for [[Andover F.C.]]. Much safer. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::: I get my moments of bravery. They usually don't last long though. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
:::: I get my moments of bravery. They usually don't last long though. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== The Rest of the Story: Giggy == |
|||
Hey Geometry, |
|||
I meant to say this during my RfB, but forgot. In your rationale to oppose, you indicated that I thought Giggy should be an admin despite his revealing somebody's personal information last year---and my belief that he should be an admin. I still do think he should be an admin (although I think his attitude towards WP has soured some over the past few months.) Anyways, I wanted to give you a little bit of history that you probably are unaware of. Yes, I know that the person whose personal information he revealed was mine. While I can't say that I am happy about it, I am not terribly upset either. First, let's remember the context. It happened immediately after one of the most dispicable events to ever happen on WP. He was pissed and had every right to be pissed. The fact that he did so shouldn't come as a surprise because what happened then was outside of the norm. You know that. What you don't know, is that shortly after he revealed my information he sent me an apologetic email. I don't have it anymore, but it basically went to the effect of, "Balloonman, I owe you a huge apology. I blew it. I responded negatively, and revealed some of your personal information. If I could take it back I would. Can you forgive me?" Again, that aren't his exact words, but it's the gist. He was apologizing to me, while he had every right to be utterly pissed at me. In other words, I didn't find out about the incident via his RfA, but rather from him. While he did make a mistake in revealing my information, he did apologize, and we reconciled via email almost immediately---although I will be honest, I couldn't believe that he actually meant it. It took me months before I really believed that he forgave me, but the way he handled my betrayal, will forever have me in the Giggy camp. He showed me a level of maturity I wasn't expecting.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''<small>[[User:Balloonman/CSD Survey|CSD Survey Results]]</small> 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:41, 23 January 2009
Welcome to my (rather minimalist) talk page: please leave comments, questions, complaints, or just general chat below. I can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while I will drop a note on your talk page. Please provide direct links to issues you raise. I like to help out and have experience with templates, but my wikitime is limited. I have access to admin tools, but I don't use them to deal with vandalism or editor conduct.
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1000 | This user has made almost 1000 deleted contributions to Wikipedia. |
Re Cam's RfA
Thanks for your reply (not worth posting this there) - just to assure you that I do appreciate your reasoning, and the respect and admiration is mutual ;) I still think you're perhaps being a little harsh in your opposition, but your opinion carries a lot of weight with me and I've yet to see you make an ill-considered judgement. Given that it looks like he'll pass, I'm sure Cam will take on board the various suggestions to proceed slowly and carefully with his use of the tools, and with what I know of him, and Roger and Kirill there to help him out, you shouldn't be unduly concerned. EyeSerenetalk 11:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hope that my oppose of an editor I respect might serve a wider purpose. RfA has a reputation for being a popularity contest. I would like instead for editors to vote based on principles concerning what adminship entails. Some do, but many do not. I have struck my oppose on the grounds that good judgement and trustworthiness are more important than experience of conflict or adminstrative roles.
- However, I am disappointed that Cam has not contributed to the RfA since 7 January. It gives the impression that once the RfA was in the bag, contributing to it was a waste of time. I consider that a very bad sign, and hope for the sake of all those supporting, that this bad sign proves to be spurious.
- I do hope Cam will take the criticism on board and draw on the expertise of other Wikipedians when he gets into scrapes. In that respect I am not concerned. I am concerned, as are many others, about the integrity of RfA. Geometry guy 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- True, RfA has it's problems as a system, although I've got no proposed solutions :P I only drop by there rarely - normally when I happen across a mention of a live RfA on a talk-page and I know the candidate - but it's a minefield of negotiating Wikipedia's ever-shifting mores, policies, and editor alliances, and it seems a candidate who fails one week could just as easily pass the next. I suppose that's an argument to myself to get more involved, but that will have to be for another day ;)
- Regarding the lack of response, naturally I can't speak for Cam but I know I was really (perhaps stupidly) apprehensive of posting replies on my RfA, having read somewhere that it's seen as argumentative and can tank a candidacy.
- One other unrelated subject while I'm here - at what point do you think it's worth closing the Open Review proposal? It looks like it's run out of steam and we'll be stuck with the status quo, and I'm not sure it's worth keeping open much longer. Your thoughts? EyeSerenetalk 17:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also a pretty occasional RfA contributor, for similar reasons. The best candidates respond to opposes without arguing against them. There is such a candidate right now. But surely Cam will make an excellent and well supported admin, hence my lack of concern.
- Regarding Open Review, the obvious thing to do (on my mind since the New Year) is to start a new section "Open Review: where to go from here" (or something like that). It seems to me that the main objection is the requirement to remain open for 3 days. I'm sympathetic to that objection, because I think GAN has too many rules and arbitrary numbers (bean counting) which simply don't reflect reviewer practice. So let's drop it.
- The quality of reviews has gone up enormously since the introduction of review subpages, with GAR traffic falling accordingly. Reviewers have multiple styles and many creatively adapt their style to each article's needs. There is no point in prescribing so much at GAN, except as a way of guiding newcomers towards best practice. The "open review attitude" can help with that, but maybe it only needs incremental change. Geometry guy 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd noticed that RfA and have been popping in from time to time while making up my mind ;) Your advice on the GA Reform proposal is very welcome - I'd actually been thinking something similar, but was unsure if it would come across as a bit WP:DEADHORSE ;) I'll give it some thought over the next day or so though, and post something up (it's about as clear a 'no consensus' as I've seen!) EyeSerenetalk 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- What bothers me most at the moment is that the GAN guidelines don't really reflect actual practice. Open review (minus the 3 day minimum) is closer to what reviewers actually do, namely take the lead in their reviews and carry them out in the best interests of the article and the project
- Meanwhile, can I ask a favour: could you take a look at WP:Good article reassessment/Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/1 and comment on the reassessment? There's a shortage of independent reviewers in GARs at the moment, and this one could use another opinion. Geometry guy 19:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, that came out in the debate. It's heartening to see from a quality perspective, but I do think we're losing an opportunity to further enhance the quality of GA by dropping the minimum time proposal. I don't like doing things purely for show, but I think in some ways what we're seen to be doing is as important as what we actually do, and (as with any behind-the-scenes activity on Wikipedia) I occasionaly notice little signs that some reviewers have forgotten we only exist to provide a service, and only have legitimacy as long as article-writers continue to find the GA 'brand' credible...
- Anyhoo, I'll be more than happy to drop in on that GAR (sometime tomorrow probably). Any request from you is always welcome, and I'd be most put out if you ever even thought twice about asking ;) All the best, EyeSerenetalk 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. My only grounds for thinking twice were the length of the reassessment, but your solution to provide a fresh review was an excellent one. It echos the concerns raised by SilkTork and myself.
- As for open review, the minimum time could become a recommendation rather than a requirement, just as we are (very) flexible about the length of holds. Geometry guy 20:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd noticed that RfA and have been popping in from time to time while making up my mind ;) Your advice on the GA Reform proposal is very welcome - I'd actually been thinking something similar, but was unsure if it would come across as a bit WP:DEADHORSE ;) I'll give it some thought over the next day or so though, and post something up (it's about as clear a 'no consensus' as I've seen!) EyeSerenetalk 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA
I responded to your interesting questions over on my RfA. Cheers!
CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Jennifer Brunner
Are we waiting for a bot to finish administrating Talk:Jennifer Brunner?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, it was an oversight on my part. Thanks for drawing my attention to it: it should be fixed now. Geometry guy 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Quick question
I agreed to review Janszoon voyage of 1606 for GA. However, I find the embedded geographical templates in the body of the ariticle terminally distracting and have asked the editor to remove them. Do you have the same reaction as I do, and can an article pass GA with so many embedded geographical templates? Thanking you in advance for your advice. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would have had the same reaction, but think that the decision to footnote them was a good choice. I see no decisive GA objection to the templates: one would either have to argue that they are original research, or unnecessary detail, both of which are a bit of a stretch. Geometry guy 13:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think footnotes is a good choice also and I am glad the editor came up with that solution. I had considered reviewing the article previously, but those geographical templates deterred me. If I don't know the answer to something, my way is to avoid the article! Thanks for your answer. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I will work with the issues. Cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Knowing it might fail
Actually, I expected it to fail, but like I said, there aren't many people who IMO have the experience, trust, and interest to run. But the third reason I expected it to fail, which I didn't mention in the RfB, was that I know that people would oppose for my role in RfA's. Like I said, I am not going to harbor any ill will towards anyboy (unless they go over the line in making it personal, which I haven't seen.) Right now, I don't know if there will be an crat2. We'll see... a lot depends on where/what I end up doing next.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- A warm welcome to my talk page. We first interacted at GAR (if I recall rightly) and it was a pleasure working with you. I particularly recall the GAR for Holocaust denial in which you, EyeSerene (another editor I greatly respect) and myself were instrumental not only in addressing neutral point of view concerns about the article, but also putting in place a structure for the lead which made the article more encyclopedic, more effective, and easier to defend against POV pushers. I revisited the article recently for unrelated reasons and was pleased to find this structure basically intact.
- Wikipedia has changed a lot in the last two years. It is no longer de rigueur to vilify it as unreliable and focused on pop culture, even if these are still both statistically true. Instead it has become a major reference worldwide. What Wikipedia has to say on a topic really can matter and so it has become more important that we get it right. Wikipedia's neutral point of view, which presents material in an encyclopedic way, and represents other viewpoints fairly and without bias, has become increasingly important. Yet it is, in my view, poorly understood. Well meaning editors want to use Wikipedia articles to "set the record straight" or "say it like it is". It is a massive challenge to explain to these editors that they are shooting themselves in the foot, that it is far more effective to disengage, describe, and let the reader decide. We need to find better ways to convey that message. Geometry guy 20:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes, the Holocaust Denial page... nothing like being called racist and anti-semites because we were seeking a more encyclopedic article. Thankfully, after the allegations of bad faith subsided we were able to make real changes.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, helping the encyclopedia can be a thankless task sometimes, and advocating an encyclopedic approach in the face of NPOV issues is one such case. But I think it is rewarding in its own way. I commend and admire the graciousness of your RfB withdrawal. Another thankless task perhaps, but even though I opposed, I would like to thank you for putting yourself forwards. I was also happy to see that this RfB was mostly a civil and constructive affair. Perhaps (in a different way) it might inspire real changes, who knows? Geometry guy 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I honestly went into the RfB knowing the basis that I would get opposes, and I decided before running that I wouldn't run if I couldn't handle rejection. Eg I wasn't going to pack up my bags and go home. I look at it as an editor review. There was a lot of constructive criticism intermeshed with some generic criticism... now is my chance to take what was said, and put it to good use. (Plus, it would have been terribly hypocritical of me to get upset with people who oppose me, because I've always said my opposes are not personal.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, your honest approach was clear from the beginning, and was one reason I thanked you for putting yourself forward. Putting it to good use (not necessarily just as an editor review) was also exactly what I meant above. All the best, Geometry guy 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I honestly went into the RfB knowing the basis that I would get opposes, and I decided before running that I wouldn't run if I couldn't handle rejection. Eg I wasn't going to pack up my bags and go home. I look at it as an editor review. There was a lot of constructive criticism intermeshed with some generic criticism... now is my chance to take what was said, and put it to good use. (Plus, it would have been terribly hypocritical of me to get upset with people who oppose me, because I've always said my opposes are not personal.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, helping the encyclopedia can be a thankless task sometimes, and advocating an encyclopedic approach in the face of NPOV issues is one such case. But I think it is rewarding in its own way. I commend and admire the graciousness of your RfB withdrawal. Another thankless task perhaps, but even though I opposed, I would like to thank you for putting yourself forwards. I was also happy to see that this RfB was mostly a civil and constructive affair. Perhaps (in a different way) it might inspire real changes, who knows? Geometry guy 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes, the Holocaust Denial page... nothing like being called racist and anti-semites because we were seeking a more encyclopedic article. Thankfully, after the allegations of bad faith subsided we were able to make real changes.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
AP Bio Project--> Banker horse
Hey, I was wondering if you could stop by the Banker horse article. It was recently promoted to GA and I am trying to get some more input before possibly pursuing FA. It needs some work with prose and the like... If you don't have the time/interest, would you mind passing along the name of a good c/e?--Yohmom (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've watchlisted it. The article needs work, but you have the good fortune to have Malleus contributing. For copyediting, there are many options: among the editors I know well, the ones who are most dedicated to MoS and prose copyediting are Dan and Jennavecia. Geometry guy 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Bravo. I was going to comment, but I found that you'd said everything that needed to be said. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Tim and a warm welcome here, as always. A comment like this from a splendiferous editor like yourself is a great tonic when Wikipedia is going through a somewhat fractious moment. Geometry guy 22:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...
For the support on WT:GAN, I hadn't realised that quick failing at GAN had become that contentious. I felt I left a comprehensive review highlighting the issues, and if consensus is that I was wrong, I can take my lumps. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that for some time there has been a certain tension between the lazy approach "either quick fail with almost no review or put on hold" and the responsible approach "Leave a decent review for any reasonable good faith nomination, and put on hold according to reviewer judgment". A number of editors of the latter viewpoint want to move away from "quick failing" (whatever that means) to failing without a hold, which is what you did in an exemplary fashion in this case. (There was nothing "quick" about it.) Geometry guy 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've been trying to get back to GAN for at least three months (FAC eats a lot of my time..) and knew I was picking up a possibly contentious one, but really, I hate seeing some poor nominator wait two months for a review. Someone's got to do the difficult ones, but I think I'll leave the other ones from that set for someone else... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- As I said on at WT:GAN, some of the others are actually possible AfD candidates. The one you reviewed probably isn't. Geometry guy 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- You were brave to pick that one up Ealdgyth. I looked at the oldest on the list a week or so ago and decided to go instead for Andover F.C.. Much safer. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've been trying to get back to GAN for at least three months (FAC eats a lot of my time..) and knew I was picking up a possibly contentious one, but really, I hate seeing some poor nominator wait two months for a review. Someone's got to do the difficult ones, but I think I'll leave the other ones from that set for someone else... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The Rest of the Story: Giggy
Hey Geometry, I meant to say this during my RfB, but forgot. In your rationale to oppose, you indicated that I thought Giggy should be an admin despite his revealing somebody's personal information last year---and my belief that he should be an admin. I still do think he should be an admin (although I think his attitude towards WP has soured some over the past few months.) Anyways, I wanted to give you a little bit of history that you probably are unaware of. Yes, I know that the person whose personal information he revealed was mine. While I can't say that I am happy about it, I am not terribly upset either. First, let's remember the context. It happened immediately after one of the most dispicable events to ever happen on WP. He was pissed and had every right to be pissed. The fact that he did so shouldn't come as a surprise because what happened then was outside of the norm. You know that. What you don't know, is that shortly after he revealed my information he sent me an apologetic email. I don't have it anymore, but it basically went to the effect of, "Balloonman, I owe you a huge apology. I blew it. I responded negatively, and revealed some of your personal information. If I could take it back I would. Can you forgive me?" Again, that aren't his exact words, but it's the gist. He was apologizing to me, while he had every right to be utterly pissed at me. In other words, I didn't find out about the incident via his RfA, but rather from him. While he did make a mistake in revealing my information, he did apologize, and we reconciled via email almost immediately---although I will be honest, I couldn't believe that he actually meant it. It took me months before I really believed that he forgave me, but the way he handled my betrayal, will forever have me in the Giggy camp. He showed me a level of maturity I wasn't expecting.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)