User talk:Father Goose/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Father Goose, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Very nice work on Oil gusher it's very interesting, sourced, flows well. Very impressive for your first article! Mak (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Harvey

Thanks for updating the link, the article looks great! Kflorence 07:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oil gusher on DYK

On 4 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oil gusher, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Scott e^iπ 18:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work creating the oil gusher article -- this is one of the best Did you know? articles I've seen in a while. Welcome to wikipedia! -- technopilgrim 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FP nomination

original post

Hey, thank you! That's really nice! It would be cool if it made it... ;-)

Cheers from Scotland! — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User :Father Goose

LOL :) It's a cool quote.. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, grid fin, was selected for DYK!

On February 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article grid fin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:MOAB_grid_fins_small.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MOAB_grid_fins_small.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Thank you for creating the series of images that so clearly shows the solution to the Monty Hall problem: Image:Monty-CurlyPicksCar.png, Image:Monty-CurlyPicksGoatA.png, Image:Monty-CurlyPicksGoatB.png, Image:Monty-SwitchfromCar.png, Image:Monty-SwitchfromGoatA.png, and Image:Monty-SwitchfromGoatB.png. WODUP 08:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you, that means a lot. I'm working on improving the set a little further, which requires a bit more experimentation with Inkscape.--Father Goose 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Monty Hall Problem 2

Hi! I have reverted an edit you made to Monty Hall Problem on the grounds that the paragraph directly above it clearly states that the number of doors that remain unopened must merely be two or larger. There is no requirement that the number of doors be precisely two.

Please revert my reversion if I am incorrect, but contact me via my Talk page (or the article's Talk page) with your reasoning so I don't misconstrue your efforts as vandalism.

Thanks for your work in Wikipedia! Jouster  (whisper) 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You were right, nolo contendere. Thanks for your extra effort in communicating your stance.--Father Goose 21:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Technology

Great. I planned to rewrite the article (here's the sum total of the work from when I started), but it's not easy finding references of a suitable quality, especially for the Prehistory section. Do you plan to rewrite the whole article? In my view, up to the middle of the Prehistory section (which is where I progressed to in my first burst of writing) I think is of suitable quality (although of course it can be improved).

I'm glad there's a willing co-author like yourself; the only people that were willing to contribute to such a crucial article were usually anti-technologists or spammers. CloudNine 08:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[Father Goose's reply]

Sounds like a good layout to me. Go for it; how about developing in a userpage sandbox beforehand? Yeah, the history of technology article is fairly awful to be honest. CloudNine 11:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoid trivia sections in articles

You might wish to participate in the latest discussion at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles.

In reply to your edit summary here,[1] there is no position to "keep all trivia". / edgarde 08:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, nor is there a position to "delete all trivia". Therefore, we have the narrower position that is Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles.--Father Goose 09:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick thanks

Hey, there, finally got around to noticing your change at User:Luna Santin/W. Thanks for keeping me up to date, heh. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

Re this comment that you made at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles: please assume good faith in other users. People often make analogies that other people don't like. Any two things have some similarities and some differences, and therefore an analogy can be drawn between them. Saying that it isn't an analogy doesn't promote communication. Saying it's "deliberately" poor fails to assume good faith. People make extreme analogies in order to make points; the analogies usually don't look "poor" to the one making them, just maybe to people who disagree with them about the point they're trying to make. Getting along with other users and treating them with respect makes it easier to resolve disputes. Sometimes it helps to take 24 hours to calm down before responding. --Coppertwig 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly so (regarding the lack of good faith). I've cut the judgemental portions out of that comment. I've given myself many 24-hour periods in the midst of this ongoing dispute; I don't want my ability to justify my position clouded by frustration, or worse. That particular comment was made without anger, but was arguably catty.--Father Goose 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

refactoring

In a recent edit, I undid your "spelling correction" of "Susinct" that you made when refactoring. It's one thing to reorganize, but that's really part of someone else's comment and shouldn't be edited: general Wiki etiquette concerns here. Anyway, more posting this to mention that I did it; I didn't mention it in my edit summary. Mangojuice^talk 03:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the policy is here: WP:TALK#Editing comments. Mangojuice^talk 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, you're right. I dunno, something about seeing it in big text and the TOC made me twitchy. Still not warranted, though, heh.--Father Goose 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please...

..do not say something and do something the exact opposite. In your edit summary, you said that you were removing disputed material, but you instead actually re-added material. If you continue to do this, it can be construed as vandalism70.190.228.160 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A definite error on my part; I reverted to the wrong version in trying to preserve other edits made to the page which were not related to the disputed material. Thank you for catching my error.--Father Goose 22:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Board Candidacy

Hi! I'm leaving you this note because we've had extensive and/or productive interaction over the course of my time on this Wiki. I (yep, little ol' Jouster!) am running for election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please take a look at my submission of candidacy, and consider endorsing me, as that is a requirement for me to stand for election.

If you have any questions or concerns about this notice, please don't hesitate to poke me on my Talk page. If you object to this solicitation for endorsement, please do not hesitate to remove it from your Talk page with my apologies; it will not appear again.

I look forward to serving you all on the Board! Jouster  (whisper) 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA

While I more or less agree with the pagemove you did at WP:TRIVIA, you shouldn't have edited the redirect it created: it's not an R from shortcut and by giving it an edit history, your (undiscussed) pagemove can't be undone except by admins.--Father Goose 18:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that edit was performed accidentally when I was updating the shortcuts. I've deleted the post-move history. —David Levy 19:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Thermodynamic cycles

That doesn't work; you've turned it into a template which appears under an empty instance of Template:navigation. At that point you might as well ditch the other template.--Father Goose 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose, I don't agree with you. The only difference between the version I proposed and the prior version by Glen is that (a) There is no border around the entire template and (b) the extraneous braces have be removed. Which would you rather have: removal of the highly visible extraneous braces or a border which very few will even notice?

However, if you can come up with a version that has a border and gets rid of the extraneous braces as well, why not do so? I will applaud you for doing that. Cordially, - mbeychok 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unfortunate confusion

I fear that you have confused WikiLen's views with mine; please read the comment I left at Wikipedia talk:Relevance#Mission: Imagining something not easily accomplished.--Father Goose 02:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

By "anarchist", I meant compared to me. I was just joking. Sorry for the misunderstanding. No offense intended, if so, very very sorry. / edg ☺ ★ 03:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for "Review B"

I'm busy implementing your suggestions as well as I can. I keep cracking up while I read your review. You are a ruthless reducer -- and funny. Bastard.--Father Goose 22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my mean critiques in good humor. Not everyone does, especially this week. "Funny" writing is a habit I got into to make sure people read me. / edg ☺ ★ 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:REL

How goes it! Father Goose. The restoration of the oldpage does not signal a preference for it. REL2.2 has been worked up, and was satisfactory when it previously appeared on the projectpage. I would have no objection to REL2 going back up on the page soon. I would put it up myself, I think shortly, since there do not appear to be any arguments forthcoming in favour of other draft(s). However, not truncating discussion is fair, though the discussion would still continue if REL2 was up there. Cheers! Newbyguesses - Talk 01:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your voice of support. Edgarde's "Review B" was insightful and helpful, so I'm busy working on a third major revision, which I hope to have ready in a few days. I hope "FG 3" will continue to meet with your approval when it is ready. WikiLen is busy doing a major revision of his own proposal. I must admit, his new draft is looking a lot better... although I'm still not sure I agree with it.

Wikipedia:Relevance is still a moving target, which is all fine and good -- and it's moving quickly now.--Father Goose 02:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Extreme boldness very impressive

Father Goose, I am very impressed with the edits of my version REL4. I liked seeing the edits instead of just discussing them. The self-revert on what you proposed is very clever. Probably an approach used by lots of editors, but the first time I have seen it.

I have looked carefully at your changes and find I agree with them all. Great addition: "The best way to establish relevancy of material is to edit the article in ways that make its connection to the subject clearer." The only edit I questioned was the removal of "When explaining relevancy of material, be bold (or humble) about improving the material at the same time." Upon reflection it seems best for that to be left up to the guidelines/policies on boldness.

Thanks for you work! It has clearly made it a better proposal. I have reverted your self-revert so your edits are now version REL4.1. I think the other editors in the mix have been waiting to see what kind of consensus we could come up with. Does this represent it? —WikiLen 09:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a self-revert approach since the easiest way to suggest changes is to simply make them. But REL4 is "your work", so I wanted to demonstrate that I had no stake in whether they got adopted. I'm glad you found them to your liking; I'd say REL4's message is much clearer now. The line "the best way... is to edit the article" was meant as a more direct rephrasing of "when explaining... improve the material", which is why I removed that sentence.

You might notice that I incorporated a little bit of your philosophy within my own 3.x version, specifically the sentences "Ordinarily, material is relevant if it is simply 'about the subject of the article'" and "any details not directly relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles", which are good high-level principles. I'd say at this point your proposal is nearly a subset of mine, although I feel I've done a better job of organizing the material.

However, even if we agreed on everything, that still wouldn't represent consensus -- just an agreement between two editors. I guess what we have left to determine is what the fate of the "three questions" will be. I'll comment on that at WT:REL.--Father Goose 01:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alan Smithee here

I hope you don't mind, but I'd prefer my userid not be used to describe User:Father Goose/Relevance. I don't consider it my work, and it doesn't represent my opinions. I made some suggestions — they are yours to use as it pleases.

Disclaimers: not urgent, not a big problem, no offense taking nor intended toward, no prejudice implied, no sides taken. / edg ☺ ★ 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. I'm trying to figure out ways to name each version distinctly from others, but "hybrid edgarde/goose" is not right. Although it incorporates some of your changes, it is much more mine than yours. I'll rename the references to it at WT:REL.--Father Goose 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. / edg ☺ ★ 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive issues

FYI: The Archive 3 that you created has the same content as Archive 2. —WikiLen 21:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer useful names for archived sections. If you have no objection, I may switch the names back for the first two archives (to "Round 1" and "Round 2"). Also, you will note I put the "Problems to solve" topic back in at Wikipedia talk:Relevance — some of its discussion is still relevant. —WikiLen 21:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I pointed Archive 3 to the Archive 2 page. A naming scheme which matches archives to versions is going to break down past 1 and 2 (2 already has the problem of being two forks); however, I added notes to the archive box to make the correlation plain.--Father Goose 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect solution! —WikiLen 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

linking Relevance proposals

When you link a new proposal to established guidelines (as here) can you add descriptive text to the effect of new proposal beside the link? This way more experienced editors will be attracted to the new proposal, and less experienced editors will not give it undue emphasis. / edg ☺ ★ 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I did do that with the link I added to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections, but not with the link I added to Wikipedia:Handling trivia because the latter is an essay, not a guideline -- though plausibly an established one -- and none of its other links had such description. However, at your request, I've added a description to it.--Father Goose 16:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grieg's music in popular culture

Thank you for your kind comments regarding this matter. Bearian 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, all credit to you for doing the work.--Father Goose 02:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance getting personal

Father Goose, I have quoted this below from the project at Relevance of content. Two of my responses are at that talk page. I am posting additional responses here because they are essentially just issues between you and I.

It's not my proposal. I've been the proposal's primary -- but not exclusive -- author, and its biggest advocate. But stop characterizing it as "mine" and keeping on with a "his vs. mine" mentality here. Stop pretending that I control it -- I don't -- and stop trying to control the dialogue over it. Let those who want to discuss the proposal discuss the proposal. Join that discussion. Stop telling everyone else how they should be discussing things. If you have an opinion, state it, and don't cloak it in impersonal passive voice as though it were a fact.

I swear, I've got friction burns on my wrists from these two. For my own sanity, I will stop responding to them, and get back to discussing the proposal with people who are here to discuss the proposal, not to discuss me.--Father Goose 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• "I've been the proposal's primary -- but not exclusive -- author" — I agree.
• "Stop pretending that I control it" — as the primary author you have the most control over it. In my opinion you demonstrate an unwillingness to be accountable for that responsibility.
• "stop trying to control the dialogue over it" — you might be projecting on this one.
• "Let those who want to discuss the proposal discuss the proposal" — In effect, you are saying it is not acceptable to discuss changing this to being an essay.
• "If you have an opinion, state it" — You are seaching for something that is not there. The opinions I have expressed—which are plenty—are it. I'm not holding back. To repeat, to make things go well this project needs to be an essay — just my opinion.
• "don't cloak it in impersonal passive voice as though it were a fact" — Probably a good criticism. I found this external article very informative. But you'll need to be specific. And anyway, if my manner has cloaked something "as though it were a fact", just discuss it to correct my error.

I don't expect a reply. And I mean it when I say your "work [and others] will eventually lead to something useful..." —WikiLen 04:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I've not seen mediation used on policy before, but I would participate. --Kevin Murray 00:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm for it. Have you researched how quickly we might get help? Might be wise to avoid any dispute resolution process that has a huge back log. —WikiLen 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to know, but MedCab seems decently responsive. I've made the request. I'm not sure what happens next, but I think it wouldn't hurt if you two added opening statements, if you like: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-16_Relevance_of_content--Father Goose 01:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

FG, I am inclined to withdraw from participating in the mediation as the impasse seems ended. Do you withdraw your mediation request? —WikiLen 17:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My declining to out-shout you and Mr. Murray for the space of 24 hours should hardly be interpreted as the end of our conflict. I await mediation in preference to edit-warring.--Father Goose 18:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sufficient time is being given for discussions ("rejected" has not been posted yet). However, in my judgment, an impasse with its associated edit-warring, is not the current context. Nevertheless, mediation could have value. —WikiLen 19:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, one harmful state of affairs in force at this moment is the status of the proposal's WP:REL shortcut. All uses of that shortcut specifically mention the proposal, but Mr. Murray is insistent on it pointing to the umbrella version -- and he has rejected the use of disambiguation headers on both the proposal and at Wikipedia:Relevance. Would you be willing to counteract Mr. Murray on this one point, as I feel it is the least damaging way to reduce the confusion between the proposal and the umbrella version?

I'm not fully sure what the status of our dispute is at this moment (you and I), but the state of affairs with Mr. Murray remains acrimonious and damaging.--Father Goose 19:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Regretfully, I am not able to support you on this. I agree with Mr. Murray. The shortcut, WP:REL at its creation, redirected to Relevance and should remain so since Relevance still exists, including all its history, and Relevance of content in my judgment is a new project. As to the state of affairs between you and I... respectful — but not the best — seems I am stuck on this train of yours; your passion for "Relevance." Time to stop it or morph it into something else. —WikiLen 20:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, our conflict continues, then. You are unaware that "stopping it" -- in the manner you have exercised, for the reasons you have cited, is wholly inappropriate. The intercession of a third party will help to shed light on this matter.--Father Goose 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I mean, "time for you to stop" — and only offered if we are in a space of mutual respect; not a personal request or demand — you've carried this far; can't keep it going for ever.  :) —WikiLen 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the reminder

late night yesterday.DGG (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

I’m glad that you took the time to explain this to me. I think that our goals are similar but strategic approaches differ. I too became involved in policy discussions due to meaningless deletions etc. by overly zealous deletionists. What I have observed is that the more policies that are out there the more that they can be abused, either by purpose, or by half-smart admin wantabees.

I have certainly seen other inclusionists who believe that the strategy should be to legislate inclusion, but I have seen these guidelines once established be hijacked by a deletionist cabal. I have worked hard to reduce the number of guidelines and the complexity of those remaining to eliminate loopholes and havens for special interest cabals.

Writers do not have the time or energy to battle junior G-men at AfD who are armed with multitudes of conflicting rule sets and wiki-lawyering skills. Another place to combat this trend is at AfD to help writers “defend” their articles and at RfA to keep the radicals and inexperienced from getting the mop.

I don’t dispute the value of having a guideline on content, but it should be comprehensive covering as many aspects of content as practical. WP:NOT substantially covers content; perhaps the content discussion from NOT, Trivia and your proposal could be the basis for WP:CONTENT? Regardless, I see a virtually insurmountable problem with subjectivity. --Kevin Murray 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that "deletion" is the default winner anyway; it's easier to delete something than to fix it. Deletionists, or immediatists, or whatever they are, would be deleting stuff just as much as they are now without the guidelines. But the guidelines can be used to counter the most extreme deletionists -- by having a centrist position laid out, moderates and inclusionists will come together against the frothy-mouth types. I've seen that with the discussions at WP:TRIVIA; several users I know to be deletionists still defend the "integrate" philosophy of it, just not as strongly as you or I would.

I guess when you speak of hijacking you have the "notability" family of policies in mind. I haven't studied their history; I loathe the entire AfD process. The big problem with those guidelines is that they default to "delete", so any "notable" subject that isn't on their list of "keeps" gets deleted. If we are to succeed with content where others failed with subjects, then what we need to do is design the guideline so that "keep" is the default position.

WP:NOT covers "content to delete", and does not serve our purposes. The entire "not an indiscriminate collection of information" section transforms readily into "delete information indiscriminately". WP:TRIVIA is extremely narrow in scope, except for the loophole which makes its scope effectively unlimited.

I agree with you that the "notability" approach has been a disaster. So to craft this guideline right, we need to it to say "keep except in these cases" instead of "delete except in these cases" and let the deletionists worry about closing the loopholes. We should at least try to see if we can reconfigure it that way.--Father Goose 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this Template seem familiar?

If I really like, hated you, like, for dragging me into this fine kettle of fish, as if, I would send a post with this message at the beginning!! do not post to this page, evverr!! Newbyguesses - Talk 12:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(ignore all indents) it seems that Evita is no longer trivial enough in Italy

Viva la svuota!--Father Goose 15:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Father Goose, at this point in the proceedings I dont see much prospects, but if this goes to arb., it will be a "lay-down misere". I hope you would understand then, if I decide to choose to exercise the right to "recuse" myself, if I feel it best. Though, in that case, feel free to message me if thereby some User was in a "tight corner". I am hoping not to receive any communication on my talk page from u:WikiLen; not to reply may be interpreted as impolite, but what else can I do? How long is a piece of string? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you also have the right to withdraw if you feel it best, and I respect your decison if that is it. I will see what wikiLen has to say, at the mediation, but there seems no prospect of a sensible solution. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Although it's informal mediation, as opposed to official, WP:M#The privileged nature of mediation probably still holds to some degree, and the snippy comments you made at WikiLen fall far short of the sustained campaign of disruption he and Kevin waged. Your conduct, which was angry at worst, and otherwise nondestructive, won't even come into play. If someone trashes your car, it's not like the cops will arrest you for cursing at them. You have nothing to fear.--Father Goose 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

FG, it only just occurred to me - does KM not understand that the RELproposal is about relevance of items within an article and not about relevance of articles. as such. Or, would KM be thinking the guideline would lead to deletion of say, articles about obscure topics? Is that the basis of KM's rejection? Can you offer advice, to somehow explain why Km has objections. Maybe a compromise wuth KM is possible? Newbyguesses - Talk 14:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a compromise is possible. Have you seen this yet, from KM? [2] Newbyguesses - Talk 00:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read your post at the mediation. Looks like this is over. That's great. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hyphenated adjectival compounds

Regarding [3]: Adjectival compounds with an adverb that end in -ly are generally not hyphenated, as there can be no confusion as to the meaning of the phrase. Whereas it may not be clear that the phrase a fast sailing ship means a ship that sails fast (a fast-sailing ship), in loosely related information there can be no doubt that the phrase means information that is related loosely not related information that is loosely (which does not even make sense). Similarly, there is little confusion in the phrases a much loved friend or ever faithful friend such that the hyphen is unnecessary, but it is nevertheless not-infrequently included in such phrases. Adverbs than end in -ly, however, usually do not have the hyphen, and including it is clutter. (Examples from the Chicago Manual of Style). —Centrx→talk • 21:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Father Goose 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Essay move

As discussed on the village pump last week, I'm starting to move essays to people's userspace if they haven't been edited by others (not counting typo fixes etc). Since there's a lot of pages in CAT:E, I'd appreciate some help. Other people suggested deleting some of the worse essays, or adding {{merge}} tags as appropriate; I'll leave that up to people's discretion. >Radiant< 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll make an attempt to help. I did a quick scan of the category and will be using the following criteria, in the following order:

• Not new (3 months?)
• Extremely few incoming links (< 20?)
• No apparent usefulness
• Only one or two primary contributors I'm not sure I'll even pay attention to this.

--Father Goose 15:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good, except that given the speed at which Wikipedia works, I'd suggest using one month. Aside from that, I note that several pages have both {{essay}} and Category:Wikipedia essays on them; the latter is redundant to the former. >Radiant< 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we have our first dissident. User:Andrevan send an angry note that moving his page was "out of process". >Radiant< 08:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhuh, he can just revert it. I have to apologize for not helping out yet; I started looking over the category and found several that were good candidates for moves, but realized I have enough hostility directed at me as it is and do not wish to take on any more. Cannot fucking handle it. I'm just going to hunker down in the Green Zone and shout words of encouragement.--Father Goose 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

When you respond to my points, respond to me

Father Goose's comments addressed to WikiLen are moved to here from the mediation page for "Relevance of content" because I find they are completely personal in nature. - (WikiLen)

Instead of playing "argument", play "conversation". Express your views. Express them in a way that I can understand them. If I can't understand them, keep trying. Express them as your views. Use first person singular pronouns. Reason with me. Pretend that I'm a person capable of understanding your views. Acknowledge that I might not end up agreeing you on some points, and that that's okay. Acknowledge that I might agree with you on other points, if you actually tried to convince me of them.

When you respond to my points, respond to me, not by using broad declarations as though you were addressing Parliament. Demonstrate some willingness and ability to understand other people's views. Don't pretend that you can force a position upon them that they disagree with through dubious legal interpretations and sheer stubbornness. On an open community like Wikipedia, playing a stone just means you'll eventually get pushed to the side of the road. If you actually controlled Wikipedia, or even just the Relevance proposal, then you could enforce any outcome you liked. But you're playing chess on a Scrabble board. Open up. Converse. Reason. Don't obstruct.--Father Goose 18:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My replies: (WikiLen)

• You mistake "obstruct" for "brutal." A brutal approach makes sense to me when good-hearted souls get lost in a consensus fog — a fog of your own creation I might add. I am not being abusive; I remain polite; and I stay on-topic. I am just punching through the fog with all the clarity I can muster.
• I discussed issues on Relevance abundantly, using the casual dialoging that you like, when I thought a Relevance policy was a good idea. Here is a whole page of just you and I discussing things.
• When I became convinced that a Relevance policy was a bad idea, you then began to hammer at me for not discussing the proposal's content. Given that I became convinced development of a Relevance policy is a bad idea — period — why would I help develop it?
• And finally your request, "When you respond to my points, respond to me...[rather than to the Parliament]" suggests you are missing something important. When it is an issue of consensus — most of it is now — we both need to address our responses to the editors-at-large. After all, they hold the keys to consensus, not you or I.

End of my replies. —WikiLen 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• (Discussed issues): Yes. Yes. Why did that stop? Even if you changed your mind about having a proposal, why did you have to pull up your roots and switch to haranguing instead of talking? It's a good way to get people to stop listening to you, because you come across as not listening to them. Back when you were still explaining your views instead of proclaiming them, you managed to convince me of several points. It was an error to abandon that.
• (help develop it): Criticize it. Express your concerns about it. Work toward changing the parts of it you don't like -- but by convincing others of your views, not by edit warring. The "style guideline" concept was emerging despite your disruption, not because of it. And it will continue to emerge even if -- believe it or not -- you step aside. Things would have gone in that constructive direction far sooner if you had adopted the role of a council member instead of the zeal of an executioner.
• If the editors-at-large don't speak up, you can't claim that they're on your side. If they don't speak up even though they've had the opportunity, you shouldn't even imagine that they're on your side, or else you're flirting with delusion. Of the editors that have had an involvement with proposal, your 'four' were negative. (Not five: do you really think edgarde would accept your attaching his name to your claims? I haven't contacted him about that matter yet; do you dare to?) Between six and nine have said something positive about the proposal, and the remainder were neutral. Can you see how no outside party would regard this as a consensus for "rejection"? Do you see how this situation might make you appear disconnected from your senses?
• Again, I urge you: Blink. Breeeathe. Untense. Reevaluate. If you lose your ability to reason, your argument disintegrates as well. In your earliest Relevance draft, you spoke of "pitfalls due to the weight of one's passions". Can you see how you might be in that exact situation yourself right now?--Father Goose 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Incidentally, you don't need to make the case for a style guideline. I was the one that brought it up as a possibility. I've also mentioned that we've been working in that direction over the course of the proposal anyway, and were moving even further in that direction when you tried to "shut it down". Can you disentangle yourself from "argument mode" and delegate the work of migrating to a "style guideline" to DGG? He has been far more effective in explaining his views and gaining concessions on that front due to his even-handed manner. Can you trust him to fight that fight properly and, if you can bear it, loosen your grip so he and the rest of us can resume the progress we were making as it was?--Father Goose 02:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tranquility

Don't know how exactly to offer it to you, but here it is anyway.--Father Goose 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Serenity now!

Seriously, thanks.  :-) —David Levy 05:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance

I'm ready to remove my advocacy of the rejection tag immediately and fade into the background if you make a clear acceptance of the two month deadline to review progress. I will only intervene if someone pushes for acceptance during that period and I still disagree that the proposal is either ready or viable. In the interim I may be working on a comprehensive content policy if there is broad interest; however, I get the feeling that there is no strong support for that concept either. --Kevin Murray 14:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's say November 1, although if WikiLen continues to disrupt the work, I might ask for an extension. I will still solicit your comments since I'd rather have your acceptance than just your compliance. Separately, I'm curious as to what areas you think a full content policy should cover.--Father Goose 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I am fully on board with this plan. I will support the work, not disrupt it. I will have no presence during the 2 months unless so requested. I will also not attempt any edits at Wikipedia:Relevance, unless it goes beyond being the "umbrella" version, which seems highly unlikely. —WikiLen 17:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My brain just exploded.--Father Goose 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I will support Kevin's suggestion, but I have an alternative/supplement--

do this as a centralized discussion--or two centralized discussions, one in general, and one on so-called-trivia. Looking at my watchlist, there are at least 8 or 10 places where this is being discussed. I know thats not strictly under your remit. I'll make a more detailed comment tomorrow about the matters to be considered. DGG (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable. There are a bunch of policies interlocking here in such a way as to make pop culture references homeless, so I'd be happy to join a centralized discussion about how to change that -- that was on my mind when I started Wikipedia:Relevance of content/Content policy analysis, although that's not necessarily the perfect place or way to go about it.--Father Goose 05:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The question of the topics to be discussed has been Moved to User:DGG/unified as requested. only this particular thread is being moved -- other related matters remain on my regular talk page. DGG (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

opinion needed

as a sensible mediator, Id appreciate it if you informally could look at a comment just made by another ed. in response to one of mine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Wukong in popular culture. DGG (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was an unnecessarily personal response, and the concluding sentence doesn't hold water. I don't plan to intervene, however, if that's what you were looking for; I don't think I could accomplish anything anyway by adding my thoughts to that page. AfD is a pro-deletion venue, so I'm limiting my approach to the IPC issue to neutral venues (policy and such), and on the basis of principles, not pageantry, which is what I think of AfD.--Father Goose 06:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

An expanded thought: my view is that spending that hour a day, like you said, at AfD, is like trying to plug holes in a dike. I'd rather rebuild the dike, if possible, or retreat to higher ground if it's not.--Father Goose 06:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Trivia

Template:Trivia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pixelface 20:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Essays

Discussion is presently active about the definition/description of "essays" at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Problem_with_wording. Radiant, Kevin Murray and myself are presently involved. I will leave a note on SmokeyJoe's page as well. ... Kenosis 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

I know we've clashed in the past. I see you increasingly around the policy pages and more often than not agree with what you are saying. Be patient though some traditions die slowly. Maybe if we talk long enough we'll be of like mind on many issues. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 00:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that you had a change of heart about how you were approaching things on WP:REL (much thanks to Equazcion for bridging the divide), and there's no value in holding a grude. Cheers.--Father Goose 07:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Extreme comment

So err... that TfD has been up for a day or so now. I know you value your objective persona, and maintaining it is a constant delicate balancing act, but you really should let us know what you think. Even admins don't shy away from !voting. C'mon, the people deserve to know :)

PS. "Strong comment", that was clever, made me laugh.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain. I'm for the template in theory, but in practice, it has a number of drawbacks. I've been limiting myself to making comments on specific points where I felt I could say something useful. Keep or delete? Fucked if I know.--Father Goose 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. One more thing, tell me what you think of this, as a possible... gradual replacement: Template:Trivia talk

Let me know.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that quite a bit, and would even start substituting {{trivia}} for it if I were actively doing cleanup tasks. I have mild problems with "relevant and verifiable". "Relevant" is undefined, but that's not a problem if WP:REL passes. The bigger problem is that "verifiable" on Wikipedia excludes primary sources, even when they can be readily checked. This fact really undermines Wikipedia's coverage of pop culture. I'm not sure how to change that.--Father Goose 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've begun doing that already (substituting) :) Thanks. Well I'm sure once the template becomes popular people will start changing the wording a bit so it complies more with existing guidelines. The point was basically to make a talk page version of the current template, but one of the benefits to that, as I see it, is there's less concern with taking up space -- so I figured I'd add more explanation. I'll keep on substituting and see what happens. If you want to use it yourself, I made several short-and-handy redirects, including {{ttrivia}}, and {{ttalk}}.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm open to suggestions on rewording. Feel free to start the template talk page if you have any.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording's fine, my complaints are more about systemic faults of wikipedia. The "do not remove info" line will probably get watered down as deletionists get their hands on it, but it's nice and firm right now.--Father Goose 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

userbox mfd

hey there! I have an odd favor to ask... I have no access to a computer and must edit from my phone. someone has put my "lame password" userbox up for deletion thinking it is unsafe to use. I can no longer participate in the discussion as it has grown too large for my phone to edit. the box is just a joke off those "this editor uses a strong password" templates (actually I just copied and altered one). I never claimed it was funny, but it is a joke, and I don't see any valid reason to delete it. could you drop in (see the bottom of my talk page) and tell them its a joke, and maybe lend some logic? thanks much. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Real moral panic kind of mfd.--Father Goose 06:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your quick response. its really frustrating to be just an observer at something like this. especially against these arguments! one person said to delete per wp:beans, then referred to it as "spill the beans"... *sigh* btw, you have my admiration for sticking to template:trivia through the assaults from both sides. I got too frustrated after the anti-trivia outburst once the first discussion was over. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Integrate}}

If you were following the TfD at all, you saw more than a few suggestions for this -- a renamed, reworded version that's "less inflammatory" than {{trivia}}, named {{integrate}}. Your proposed one-line version seemed perfect for this, so I used it. Hope you don't mind.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

09:32, September 10, 2007

That's fine, although I want 5% of all DVD revenues. Nice new sig, although display-inline causes it to have no spacing on the bottom. I'm not sure how to fix that.--Father Goose 22:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections

Could you please spend a moment to add your 2 cents to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Sections vs. collections and also Wikipedia:Requested moves#September 12, 2007? There seems to be a continued campaign to remove any mention of Trivia sections, but no real attempt to get alternative viewpoints to the table. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I already commented on the move at Wikipedia_talk:Trivia_sections#Proposed_move, and I've added some new thoughts to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Sections vs. collections. The proposed move looks pretty well opposed; the WP:NOT issue is still in play.

Having been attentive to the "trivia" issue for several months now, I'd say there's a lot of exclusion of alternative viewpoints on all sides of the issue. It swings back and forth depending on who's in attendance on a given day. You probably are very familiar with this phenomenon.--Father Goose 20:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I replied to your comment on WT:UP. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to your wife?

What happenedto Mother Goose?

Just a joke!--Angel David (talk•contribs) 15:50, 15 September, 2007 (User Talker Contributor)

Disputing

Just wondering, how "widely" does something need to be disputed for there not to be consensus in your opinion? Why do you think that the discussion going on at WP:TL can be simply discounted? Reinis^talk 20:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't discount it, but I've seen vastly more users express support for the standardization than opposition. The support is possibly less visible at this instant than the opposition, due to the support being scattered in the archives from the last several weeks, and the opposition being very vigorously voiced on the current talk page.

I expressed a few concerns during the proposal's development, but I was eventually satisfied that the project, and most of its implementation details, was quite widely supported. I don't dismiss your concerns, but I must point out to you that you have a lot of people to convince first.--Father Goose 20:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

I've noticed that when making comments in a discussion, you tend to start your own section or completely outdent, even when you're replying to the existing discussion (as you did at Template talk:Trivia#Pointless). I find this very distracting, and it also takes away from the impact of the people who have commented above you; it somewhat makes it seem like their issue is closed, and it's time to start something new... I respectfully request that when you reply to a discussion, participate in it rather than remove yourself from it, by indenting once or whatnot, as is the most common practice. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 22:23, 09/17/2007

More often than not, I do reply in-line (i.e., properly indented). I tend to outdent when I'm trying to comment on a body of earlier commentary, not just replying to individual statements. I find that to be the clearest way to organize things, though I might be wrong about that. And if I'm replying to a specific earlier statement, I'll +1 indent to that statement, not to the most recent one. I also outdent when the colons get really deep. Lately I haven't been adding "reset indent", but I guess I should.

I'll be more sparing about starting new section headings. Personally, I wish other people did that more often -- some multi-party, multi-topic conversations get jumbled very quickly.--Father Goose 22:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I know the reasons for doing it and have done it myself, but yes all I'm suggesting is to do it more sparingly. Like in that example I linked to, I didn't see any need for it at all, as it was a direct reply to the comment(s) above it. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:55, 09/18/2007

New proposal: Wikipedia is not a trivia collection

This proposed guideline is so that WP:NOT#TRIVIA can be returned to Wikipedia. It is distinct from Wikipedia:Trivia sections in that it is a content policy, not a style policy. This guideline states that trivia may be removed.

I know in advance this is not your point of view, and this proposal may be seen as in competition with the Wikipedia:Relevance of content guideline, which I think is mostly your work. However, I'm hoping you can find elements of my proposal that might help your proposal, and I'm hoping I can receive some feedback from you about what is needed to make my proposal better.

As I've stated at WP:VPP, it doesn't help my proposal for contradictory philosophies to be introduced — this is, after all, a proposed guideline and does not need to contradict itself. However, I would also be interested in feedback from people have problems with excluding trivia, and by now it's clear whom I can an cannot communicate with. You I trust can work in cooperation with me. I'm hoping you might have a few specific suggestions on how this guideline can be made better, preferably on a relevant Talk page, either mine or Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia.

If you are not interested in supporting this proposal in any way, I won't hold it against you, but I think I can only benefit from your suggestions. / edg ☺ ★ 14:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid trivia proposal shutting down

No one seems to think Wikipedia:Avoid trivia was useful in its current form, so I'm retiring it as an unneeded distraction. At least now I know. Reverting to the old redirect to WP:TRIVIA. / edg ☺ ★ 01:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made some comments about this project on my talk page in which you may be interested. DGG (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It would probably be too enthusiastic to give you a barnstar for hitting the nail on the head with a #¤%&@ sledgehammer on the fiction notability talk page, but you have my gratitude for trying to bring sense to the discussion, and for remembering that the rules are means. With WP:IAR under permanent siege the latter is in preciously short supply, judging, e.g., by the webcomic purges that peaked and faded in February, that have cost WP - very roughly - a fourth of all our webcomic coverage because they are inherently badly suited to meeting WP:WEB, section two, subarticle three. Honestly, the movement against fiction coverage is - as several of its supporters say outright in the same talk - in large part not for Wikipedia, but against the perceived threat of fanboys. And acting against something is ridiculously hard to aim and limit. I think that our fiction coverage may well tear itself apart in a year or two, likely becoming something pretty, concise and useless; two people have recently told me, in AfDs, that they took the part of WP:FIVE about us being a specialized encyclopedia to only mean things like physics and law - and there's no mention whatsoever of that on the page. --Kizor 01:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"When a rule turns into a ritual and we say "oh, you didn't fill out this part of the form, we'll have to reject it" without paying attention to why we have the rule, then we've lost sight of what we're doing here. Any time something is wikt:notable by any reasonable estimation but not WP:Notable, WP:Notable is in error, and we act wrongly to enforce it."

Still. Keep fighting the good fight. Please. --Kizor 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've been reading up on the problem and am discovering that part of the problem has a legal underpinning (i.e., fair use issues). However, I think those issues are addressable, and that the approach legislated right now is restrictive to the point of absurdity.--Father Goose 12:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

May the guidance of the guideline guide your guidance ...

Please be advised that your comment here may not be in compliance with all provisions of the guideline that guides the guideline for commenting on guidelines designed to guide the creation of guidelines for ..... :P

Thanks for your post, I got a good chuckle out of it. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Hi. I just read your thoughts on trivia and I was wondering if you would be interested in this.

Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins. Support the wikiproject proposal. Add your name to the list here: [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia]

Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested. Thanks Ozmaweezer 18:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

query

the relative benefits of centralization, vs putting our eggs into one basket. 01:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean the grouping of trivia and pop culture? I find the battles over both subjects tend to take place in the same way with the same group of people. The physical approach that should be taken with each is different, but the principles governing them tend to be the same. We can split the project if we find it's too unfocused to keep them both under the same roof.--Father Goose 07:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would think that the two subjects should ultimately be separated. Right now, I think the primary weakness of the project is the "trivia" aspect, because as of yet there is no clear idea as to what the term means in this application. Popular culture references shouldn't have undue weight in any article, but then there's a question as to how much weight is due weight. But right now, I personally think the primary tasks to face immediately are trying to decide what sort of content was generally included in the "Trivia" section, and what other if any section titles can be used for this content in a way that doesn't turn off some editors with the use of the word "trivia". Also, I think some of the things which have been included in "trivia" sections are not in any sense of the word trivial to the subject. Heads of corporations or public entities are not trivial to the organization/city/whatever they head, although sometimes I've seen them included in only trivia sections. Maybe we could try to figure out a standardized group of alternate subject heading names into which the various trivia items could probably be included? John Carter 20:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

An issue of relevance

National Maritime Museum has a controversy regarding the relevance of discussing the propriety of exhibits taken from Germany after WWII. Since you are interested in relevance, I thought this might find this interesting. --Kevin Murray 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like that situation's under control for now. Thanks for the heads-up though.--Father Goose 01:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Response (KieferSkunk)

Hi there. Thank you for participating in my RfA, and thank you for being open-minded about the incident that you asked me about. I appreciate knowing that I was able to answer your question to your satisfaction. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)