User talk:LuciferMorgan: Difference between revisions

Archives
Archive 1 (Mar. 2, 2006 - Sep. 7, 2006)
Archive 2 (Sep. 8, 2006 - Oct. 8, 2006)
Archive 3 (Oct. 11, 2006 - Nov. 3, 2006)
Archive 4 (Nov. 3, 2006 - Dec. 6, 2006)
Archive 5 (Dec. 5, 2006 - Jan. 21, 2007)
Archive 6 (Jan. 22, 2007 - Feb. 2, 2007)

Because later Slayer albums do not sound at all like thrash metal. And accordingly to In Flames, I have a point. There is no difference in calling them "melodic death" or "gothenburg", so, to avoid confusion, I switched it to Melodic Death. Still there is a debate about the genre because some people don't like "melodic death" appearing there. So this is not being disruptive, I am just trying to improve WP's articles. --Dexter prog 17:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lucifer, i would like your opinion on Jeff Hanneman if you think its ready for GA. I also expanded Still Reigning from one paragraph and i think it's also ready, and could evnetually brought up to FA. So whenever you get the time, thanks M3tal H3ad 10:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's aware - messages on MilHist talk already. Let's stay out of it and let them settle it; also wait for Marskell or Joelr31 to surface and see what they want to do. We have to be careful about setting precedents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You nailed it, but I think it's still best we stay out of it. (I also wonder if the people popping all those cite tags on the article bothered to determine if one citation covered multiple sentences.) Oh, well. Kinda hard to understand what all the fuss is about :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit in which you undid my revert of your earlier edit: I concede that there is a quote which I hadn't seen because it follows the tag, and I apologize for that. Nevertheless, Template:Fact says that it is to be used for "to label a quotation which lacks a citation". However, this quote does have a citation: the text says it is by Cicero and which book it is in. So, what is it that you want? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for getting a little hot headed. It needs a citation - author, book, publication date, ISBN number and page number. Just hope that clarifies. LuciferMorgan 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that; lucifer is an old word for matches and everybody knows that they can get hotheaded ;) And it was really stupid of me not to see that a quote followed. The book is from the era of manuscripts. It does not have an ISBN nor page numbers (apparently, it is known when it's written, 45 BC if I remember correctly). That's why I thought that in this case, a standard citation would be silly. However, I now realize that it's not a quote from Cicero (who wrote in Latin), but a translation of a fragment from Cicero's book in English. So I guess we should mention whose translation it is. Hence I now agree that the citation is incomplete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your edit here, please be aware of the WP:NPA policy. When profanity and bitterness laced comments demonstrate an inability to participate objectively in an area of Wikipedia, it's best to not participate at all. When they show that grudges are in place, they render moot all other comments. In short, they ruin your credibility and can rise to the level of a block. Take a step back, please, and think twice. Geogre 09:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a part of the specific FAR, so your judgment is biased. If you wish for someone to make a comment about me, please ask someone independent of the situation. Issuing such warnings when you're involved in the situation actually ruins your credibility. LuciferMorgan 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer, that you believe my reasoning was "rubbish" on Palladian architecture has been made abundantly clear. Your repeatedly mentioning it comes close to a personal attack—you're basically saying "you're lying", and I'm getting tired of it.

On the literature review, nothing is going to happen in terms of article improvement if you must give a tat for every tit from Giano and others. I would consider just not looking at the comments for a couple of days. Marskell 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lucifer. Those are some unreliable "sources" you throw about on FAR. "Silly me" is pretty much the only true part of this post, because it is pretty silly to rely on rumor and gossip. Please substantiate or withdraw your accusations that Giano is in the habit of calling for blocks[1], or that I've ever blocked anybody at Giano's request or suggestion. (Hint: those are lies. Giano doesn't believe in blocking for personal attacks, and I don't either.) Here's the log of blocks I've done. It contains the usual anonymous vandals, abuse-only accounts, abusive sock-puppets, and a few 3RRs—the kinds of blocks all halfway active admins perform. I haven't blocked any established users, or ever blocked anybody who was in conflict with Giano. You do realize these are serious accusations, I suppose? That they attack my admin integrity? Or don't you?

This hypothesis of yours, sneeringly addressed to Giano, is even worse: "And if you felt sufficient cause for my blocking, you'd only inform your friend Bishonen to block me, who happens to also unblock you whenever another admin blocks you." I have in fact unblocked Giano once, when he was (amazingly) blocked for something he said in his evidence in an RFAR case. I'm not sorrry, as I'd do that for anybody. Here's the relevant log entry, which in your imagination becomes "Bishonen happens to also unblock you whenever another admin blocks you."

I'm willing to assume that in writing these things you may have been misled by "friends" of your own. Or that you were in an, uh, less than responsible state of mind. Or that you simply, in your eagerness to attack people you saw yourself as being in conflict with, failed to notice yourself making these unprovoked insults against a stranger. I'm willing to take an apology. A good one. Bishonen | talk 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Since those attacks were made after my warning and were pretty much an attempt at disrupting the discussion and frustrating the function of the page, I will allow some small amount of time (24 hr) to see what moderation/amelioration takes place. If there is any more disruption, then I will have to issue a block for that. Geogre 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I've been away at a friend's, and only logging in today have I noticed the warning. I didn't notice any warning prior to this, so I'm assuming you've made a mistake Geogre, or I didn't read the message until today. Also, I made no attempt to disrupt discussion and frustrate the function of the page - you're mistaken in this definitely. I've been a regular at FAR for quite some time, and respect the process entirely. Can you, Giano and the others actually say the same? I don't think so. After all, Giano feels FAR is "the basement of Wikipedia". Please consider your own feelings towards FAR before making such a false charge at me.

The only person I owe an apology to is Marskell, and nobody else. I wouldn't class myself as making insults against you Bishonen, but you're merely someone who tries to help a friend out of bother. I wasn't eager to attack Giano as you say, but eager to point out the fact that each time he is in trouble, someone he talks to here seems to come to his rescue. This has been proved time and time again, not to mention now where Geogre has given me a warning, even though he is a participant in the specific FAR. If you feel I have done wrong, please have an independent admin to cast judgment on my actions, and not yourself. I fully realise these are "serious" accusations, but I stand by them.

I'd like to point out these people who told me weren't "friends", but people who warned me as to what I would be getting myself into - on that they've been proved correct. I don't rely on gossip, but experience, and experience on Wikipedia has told me it's best not to become involved in any page where Giano, or his circle of friends are participants. I had a lot of hassle with the Palladian FAR when I pointed out statements which I felt needed citation, and don't want any further hassle. I've made a choice not to participate in the "Restoration literature" FAR as I feel it would only attract further trouble that I'm not wholly responsible for. I'd rather leave it there and forget about this unfortunate incident.

To be honest I'm not wholly sure if I've made the correct judgment about you or not, and hope that what I've said regarding yourself I come to believe is incorrect. Indeed, we've never come across each other, so hopefully can come to some sort of understanding. Having said that, I believe 110% in my judgment regarding Giano, and base this on past experience - I just hope you're more amiable than him. LuciferMorgan 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALoan

Well, I am sorry you feel that way - there is a legitimate disagreement about the level of citation required for featured articles which has blown hot and cold over the last 2 years. I understand and respect your point of view, even though I disagree with it; I hope you would be able to do the same for people who hold a different opinion to you. [And Geogre accepts that he was mistaken - you can't expect perfect arithemtic from word-specialists. He has clarified that elsewhere - perhaps he would do so here too?]

On participation, I may not participate in every FAR, but I have been involved in FAR, FARC and FAC on a pretty regular basis since mid-2004. Yes, FAR (and FAC, and the rest of the Wikipedia namespace) are in the "basement" - they contain the behind-the-scenes editor-facing plumbing that underpins the reader-facing part (the main namespace).

I think you ought to apologise to Bishonen for saying "you'd only inform your friend Bishonen to block me, who happens to also unblock you whenever another admin blocks you"[2] as it is blatantly untrue - Bishonen does not block people when Giano requests (indeed, Giano does not ask Bishonen to block people); and (save for the one occasion mentioned above, which was unimpeachable) she has not unblocked Giano either.

I can't make you apologise if you don't want to, but I hope you feel sufficient embarassed at making such wild and inaccurate accusations. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ALoan. Thanks for your comments on my talk page, which are always welcome. Yeah, I'd agree with you 110% that the debate regarding inline citations has blown hot and cold over the past 2 years. I indeed respect people differences in opinion, and do yours and everyone else's. The main problem though is that criterion 1. c. is currently part of FA criteria - I'm trying to enforce criteria, and encourage those who disagree with 1. c. to initiate debate at the relevant page. I wouldn't say I'm embarassed at what I said, but embarassed at the way in which I expressed what I had to say. It didn't make me look that good, but oh well - can't change what's been said. LuciferMorgan 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not me that you said would block or unblock Giano on grounds of friendship alone, without regard to the merits. I have said my piece above and will leave you to think about it.

Something similar to 1(c) has been there for just over 2 years, since 7 February 2005 - it used to say "extensive use of inline citations" and was changed to "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations".[3] The argument boil down to when it is "appropriate" to add inline citations (and, at that time, the cite.php thing was a twinkle in a developer's eye - do you remember inotes, and the fnote and ref templates? Shudder.) There are more links in the FAR to comments discussing similar points in the talk pages at around the same time. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC) LuciferMorgan 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to disagree. The word "blatant" suggests I'm intentionally spreading lies with the knowledge they are lies, which isn't the case. At the time of writing, I felt what I said to be correct. I'll take a few days to decide if that was correct, or I was hasty and too quick to judge.

I notice also Giano happens to think something to do with IRC is the reason for all this - I might sound stupid, but I don't even know what IRC is. I made a comment when Bishonen wished for comment on Ideogram somewhere on Wikipedia, and that was it. To this day, I'm clueless as to what IRC is. Can someone tell me what IRC is and what the "truth of happenings" are which Giano refers to? LuciferMorgan 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me, at least, "blatant" does not carry quite the same overtones of intentional wrongdoing as "flagrant", although it does perhaps connote a bit more culpablility that "obvious": a bit of fact-checking quickly reveals the falsity of the allegations, and your comments certainly added more heat than light, from what I could see. Perhaps you simply stated your perception of the position (although quite where you would get such a perception from beats me) but it really is wrong.

Believe me - being clueless of IRC in general, and the "truth of happenings" in particular, may be a good thing. Let me just say that the ArbCom were satisfied that there were numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell

Lucifer, I accept your apology to me, but I'll tell you what: I think you do owe Bishonen an apology as well. IRC is the Wikipedia "Internet Relay Chat(s)"; see WP:IRC. Given that you're "clueless of" its nature, does it make sense to repeat innuendo and gossip surrounding it? You're admitting that you don't understand it at all, which proves that you were throwing uninformed accusations at Bishonen... Perhaps true, perhaps not—you don't know. And I'd suggest you not try to find out. Leave it be. It has nothing to do with FAR or any of the articles on it.

Which leads to point two: each review, each talk page discussion, each new item anywhere on Wiki, must be treated as a tabula rasa. It's the hardest part of AGF, because personalities bring grudges and affection with them, but it's absolutely essential. The only thing relevant in deciding how to respond Bishonen (or me, or Giano, or whoever) is what has actually been said regarding the subject at hand on the specific page. Unless you're dealing with a vandal, there is never cause to refer to unrelated pages and discussions. Bishonen arrived on the review and was civil; be civil in return. Period. Marskell 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware I was repeating innuendo or gossip surrounding it - I didn't even know what it was until you said, and still I don't really get it. To be honest I'm not bothered - most of the things as concerns Giano etc. relates to the way they seemed to make a mockery out of FAR last time. All I've noticed, based on FAR experience, is they seem to all bombard a page all at once like they're teaming up on people. I wouldn't say I brought a grudge, but anticipated the same would happen with that FAR so didn't wish for it to. I appreciate your opinion Marskell, and I'll consider apologising to Bishonen - the only thing stopping me at present is the response I recieved on my talk page. I found them to be a little threatening to be honest, almost saying "Apologise or else", as if suggesting Wikipedia will be difficult for me if I do not apologise. Also, I don't take too kindly to the "less than responsible state of mind" and "eager to attack" comments, which seemed like sneaky jibes - I made those comments because I felt them to be wholly true, and felt those editors were making a mockery out of FAR. I think it's likely I would've apologised, but in light of those remarks from Bishonen I'm not doing so. At least I don't feel I will.

Also, the fact that Geogre was the admin issuing the warning left a lot to be desired - he had been part of the Palladian FAR, and should have requested an independent admin to take a look at the situation. I'm not saying anything about him, but to onlookers it doesn't look good issuing warnings if you're part of the situation. LuciferMorgan 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I get point 2 and agree - I'll make sure to remember it in future. LuciferMorgan 04:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani

I feel like I'm labouring a point, but it is unacceptable to add lies and innuendo about anybody to any page regardless of what provocation you feel you were or are under. Bishonen had every right to demand an apology, and in the circumstances her message to you seems remarkably restrained. Take a few minutes to check the information that Bishonen provided you (or dig deeper if your prefer) and then look at your comments about her on the FAR. If you see anything to substantiate your claims then by all means don't apologize. I hope I'm uninvolved enough that you don't regard me as part of the team: I had nothing to do with the Palladian architecture FAR, and as far as I recall my only interaction with Bishonen is reading her S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 article (which I recommend if you have a few minutes to spare). Yomangani^talk 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt what I said to be true at the time, a point I've stressed a few times now. You speak as though I'm saying things knowing they are lies - this isn't the case, and when I said what I said I believed them to be true. I don't appreciate everyone saying I was knowingly lying on purpose, which is wholly untrue. When I said what I did, I felt it to be wholly correct. In fact, if people actually took the time to read what I keep stressing, and actually believe that I did feel that way at the time and felt myself to be telling the truth, I would've actually apologised by now. Evey time someone calls me an intentional liar, it makes me think I shouldn't apologise.

I keep having WP:AGF thrown in my face every two minutes, yet am being told that I know I'm a liar - I'm not a liar, and don't appreciate being told I aimed to disrupt the FAR page. Nor did I find Bishonen's response "remarkably restrained" - this depends on your viewpoint and perception. Saying I intentionally am "eager to attack" or was in "a less than responsible state of mind" I didn't find so, and found rather derogatory. Indeed, she was "eager to attack" me on my talk page, albeit subtley.

I don't regard you as part of "the team" as you call them, nor do I recall saying such things to you. As far as I'm aware, you've done a good job saving a few FAs at the FAR/C stage, and do some good work there. LuciferMorgan 09:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't accusing you of intentionally lying and quite accept that you believed what you were saying to be true at the time. As to whether Bishonen's response was restrained or not, it obviously depends on your viewpoint, but if somebody had accused me of using my admin powers to act as the lackey of a user with a grudge, I think I would have given a somewhat more forceful response. Yomangani^talk 10:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that light I can see your point. I've been considering an apology for awhile, but to be honest I don't think it would be seen as sincere, nor I don't feel it would be accepted. If I made an apology I'd like to be seen as making an honest, sincere one which was of my own accord, as opposed to pressure from other Wikipedians. I'm unsure whether you understand this. LuciferMorgan 10:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, and I'll lay off now. Yomangani^talk 10:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a hint to lay off, I was just trying to explain my position that's all. How's the Anne FAR going? LuciferMorgan 10:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the laying off was of my own volition. Anne is hopefully ready to go, take a look. Yomangani^talk 10:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen

For goodness' sake, are you guys still requesting an apology for me from LM? I appreciate the good intentions there, believe me — it's great to feel a little community support — but please do stop, I don't actually want it any more than he does. I said I'd take an apology — a good one — "good", surprisingly, means a prompt and gracious apology— I didn't say I wanted one — and I certainly don't want an apology poutingly and grudgingly extracted like a bad tooth. To "take" it was an offer on my part, not a request. Or a demand, or (for god's sake) a threat. The offer has expired. All I wanted for my own part was a retraction, by no means an apology. I wanted for LM to click on the links I provided, to spend 30 seconds reading the block log, and to retract the allegations. Instead he has chosen to fully "stand by them," with no explanation of why they're still supposed to be good, no comment on the trashing of my admin record, no indication that he's looked at the links illustrating that record. See, that's outrageous, IMO. LM, never mind about apologizing, you're quite right it wouId be difficult to take as sincere. As for the rest of your commentary on this page, you feel you would have returned "her" bucket and spade by now if everybody wasn't being mean to you, do you? And you feel as if you're entitled to them because she'd probably only bonk you on the head with them anyway? You know what? Keep 'em. Please. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The charge you make against Bishonen here, is a serious one. Serious enough that, if true, it might be cause for de-sysopping. If you no longer believe that statement is accurate, then It would be a good idea for you to correct it. Paul August ☎ 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]