Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 9 November 2006 (Barnstar thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please get off of Misplaced Pages, your drivel and opinionated comments only anger most of us. You are NOT a productive editor, and you would best help Misplaced Pages by no longer being a part of our community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.220.37 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your comment. You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends. (Joseph Conrad)

You haven't responded to the above comment, but have only made a mockery of my request. Your choice of language, unwarranted and non factual criticism of VALUABLE Wikipedians gives your overall worth here a negative. Neither you or your opinions help the environment.... You are not a good person, you are a horrible editor and pretty much a contemptible, self-righteous, bigotted and hateful individual. Either change or leave. Your biased and ridiculous opinions have only caused an environment of shame. Your refusal to formally respond to these messages only proves that you are a coward, and do nothing but add shame to this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.220.37 (talk • contribs)

There is a time to archive; and then there is a time to archive.

Radian

How did you create Image:Pi-unrolled.gif? Radian could use one very similar. If I have the software I'd be happy to give it a shot. Cburnett 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I used 5 main applications to create that. If you want to do this sort of work, you need a vector drawing application, Photoshop or equivalent, and one or more animated GIF tools. I find GraphicConverter essential for all types of graphics jobs, not just this. And in order to properly manage and document the project, I must have a good screen capture utility. This latter is often useful for palette management. Of course, it goes without saying that I use a Macintosh. Um, you should be aware that this was a fairly advanced project. Animations are especially tricky. There are many ways in which to cheat the viewer into seeing more than he does. Also note that you need extremely consistent organizational skills; the image you cite consists of 45 frames, each its own graphic design. All must work together and -- essentially -- you have to be able to visualize in your mind, while working on any given frame, all 44 others.

I'm trying not to brag and I'm not trying to dissuade you from the effort; I only suggest that if you have to ask this kind of question, you may not be ready. But don't let that stop you! I was certainly not ready to do Image:Clay-torus-3a.gif; I put a huge amount of effort into this and it sucks. But I learned a lot. Next time will be better (although note Kieff's Image:Mug and Torus morph.gif has grabbed first place).

As for radians, I'm not sure you want anything like Pi-unrolled for that, you know, some sort of 1-unrolled. Sure, you can show what a radian is; but don't you want to show why? I think it's a bit misleading to explain to anybody what "1 radian" is; this is not very important. What's important are measures of angles such as 2π, 3π/2. π, π/2 radians. Why? John Reid 11:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The my point in asking was seeing if you had some sort of base graphics I could go from and if I had the tools to use them. I'm on linux so no photoshop but I could probably manage with gimp and inkscape.

The reason I ask is that while the ratio of circumference to diameter is pi, there are 2pi radians per circumference. Eseentially what I had envisioned was pi-unrolled.gif but instead with marks at each radius instead of diameter. Converting pi-unrolled.gif would be a much more trivial thing to do than recreating an entire sequence. In a jist:

• adding a few extra vertical bars (0 to 8 instead of 0-4)
• changing "pi" to "2pi"
• changing the wheel/disc to be like a pie with six slices denoating one radian and the last/seventh slice being 2pi-6 radians

If you'd be willing to share some of the base files, that'd be great. On second thought, I think I could decompose the animated gif into individual frames and go from there... Cburnett 00:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See, that is exactly the wrong approach -- no offense intended. 1 rad is not the fundamental unit. This is the standard textbook treatment and it leaves the student confused. He can see at once that 1 rad is not an even 1/6th of the way around the circle; it looks like a stupid unit of measure, an indigestible bit of mustard, skid marks on your shorts. Why reinforce this poor presentation?

2π rad is the fundamental measure of angle: one full turn around a given point. Until the full turn has been made, there is no a priori reason to stop. Once it has, then a basic unit of angle has been established. A simple theory of angle is entirely possible in terms of turns.

The theorem π = C / D is elaborated to C = 2πr. This is a nontrivial development; the unit circle is now redefined -- doubled in size, in fact. This point cannot be lightly bypassed, there's a serious need to show both "unit" circles together, to discuss the meaning of the arbitrary unit. Confusion is possible even without the complication of the "bigger" unit circle; I have had to demonstrate to some students by actual experiment with dressmaker's tape that π is independent of the size of a circle.

Once the unit-radius circle is firmly established and the concept of the full turn of angle, then and only then is it meaningful to introduce radians. Once it is accepted that one full turn is equal to 2π radians, then this measure can be usefully subdivided: the straight line is π, the right angle is π/2, and so on. These are all rational angles -- angles that are useful for other purposes. The angles of an equilateral triangle are π/3 rad; those of a right isosceles are π/4 and π/2. One radian is an irrational angle, with no direct application suitable for the beginning student.

Not until the calculus is the true value of the radian -- as opposed to the turn -- revealed. Until that point, one is essentially putting something over on the student. The average student can be presented with rational radians as angle measures, legitimized with use. The bright student will ask why radians instead of turns and the tutor must beg off with a promise to explain in 10 years.

I agree that radians are infinitely superior to conventional degrees; I make a point of demonstrating that these are rooted in ancient superstition and the accident that a careless (or optimistic) observer records that the periods of year, month, and day appear in the ratio 360 : 30 : 1.

Note that Euclid mentions neither radians nor degrees; his fundamental unit of angle was the right angle. I begin from this point when teaching geometry and I develop the measure of a straight line as two right angles, the sum of angles of any triangle as a straight line, etc. I introduce radians only when a student's school curriculum demands it.

I realize this community lacks respect for expertise and experience but I do indeed tutor math to students of all ages; it puts food on my table and a roof over my head. My students tell me that my explanations are lucid; their increased ability to tackle more advanced math bears me out. I understand that you have been beaten over the head for years with one-radian diagrams such as Image:Radian cropped color.png; they are not "wrong", merely misleading and confusing.

If nothing else, you've provoked me to consider an effort. Alas, I fear it will be another animation. It will have very little in common with Pi-unrolled, though. Let me screw my thinking cap on -- after I get some of my paid consulting work out of the way. John Reid 08:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pi-Unrolled

Re: Now I have a question. I see that a block of text is required of FP's. Who writes such a thing? Where is the text stored? Pi is a technical subject; I'd rather not see this botched. John Reid 12:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• You can do this at Misplaced Pages:Picture of the Day. Ask Howcheng (he's in charge) for a date, and you can write it, following the format. NauticaShades 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UT

GFDL

I think you meant to put that snippet from my archive on User:Stevage's talk page? I agree with you - once someone has added their work to WP that cannot revoke permission. Other GFDL sites may have picked it up, etc. I agree that such a position is completely unworkable as you say and was arguing that position with Stevage. -999 (Talk) 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just stated my opinion: GFDL is irrevocable. IANAL. John Reid 09:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Please see my comments on the impending ArbCom decision here. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Still without endorsement of everything you've ever said and done, but I find the issues that have been raised concerning the ArbCom's proposed one-week ban against you to be sufficiently troublesome that I intend to bring them to the attention of User:Jimbo Wales pursuant to the Arbitration Policy unless you would expressly prefer for me not to do so. Please let me know. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just hope nobody block wars over me. Nobody should need to block me to enforce a ban I shall respect scrupulously; nobody should unblock me, either; instead, have a chat with the idiot child who blocks me and try to make him see reason.

If you want to beef to Jimbo, go ahead -- but what's the point? The substantive issue here is who controls our community? You and I think we do; that is, we are self-governed and our trusted servants, well, serve us. Taxman and Fred Bauder seem to think they do; that we are governed by an aristocracy. I don't think that fiat action by King Jimbo really aids the forces of self-government.

It all boils down to this simple point and all the rest is just wordsmog: Do we work for them or do they work for us? Banning me isn't going to stop me from asking this question until I get a definite answer. John Reid 09:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but it now seems you won't be able to take an enforced week off after all. Enjoy a happy week of editing, and keep asking your questions if you wish, although I still think you're more likely to get buy-in and meaningful answers if you moderate your tone a bit in doing so. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. As usual, my thinking is idiosyncratic. I think the proposed ban was ridiculous on at least 3 different levels but I think it's shameful that ArbCom should listen to us yelling from the peanut gallery. This is rooted in my belief that the office must be upheld regardless of who holds it or what he does with it. The recourse appropriate when an office of trust is abused, foolishly used, or not used properly is not to back-seat-drive the officer but to remove him from office.

This is why I objected to any attempt to "reverse" Taxman's promotion of Carnildo; Taxman was the officer on the spot and he made a call -- and that's it. He gave me at least to understand that this was not an isolated incident but that he felt he was acting rightly; so I say he should be removed but I think ArbCom is the wrong vehicle for that. Fred and the rest at ArbCom are in the hot seat on this particular RfArb and if they decide to ban me for a day, week, or year, that's it. If you feel they're abusing their office to do so -- more particularly, if you feel there's a pattern of abuse -- then remove them.

As for your comment about my tone: You're not alone; everyone thinks I should have spoken differently; even I do. However, you are no more helpful than anybody else from Fred to Tony and on down. Let us agree that I'm an uncouth idjit who doesn't know how to express himself politely. Frankly, I just don't see a nice way to say to anybody: I think you have abused your office. Do you think you did so? Will you do the same again? I also want to hear from all the other b'crats: Do you think Taxman abused his office? Will you do the same as he did? Educate me. You ask the question nicely. Please show me how it's done; I'm sure you'll do better than I have. John Reid 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have several comments here. Your thinking is indeed idiosyncratic, but not, of course, incorrect for that reason alone. Here are my reactions, for what they are worth.

First, I argued strongly against the proposal to ban you based on your comments on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard because I thought that comments made by a good-faith user, on an administrative board during a stressful time, were not an appropriate basis for a ban. You obviously are a person of some principle, and I thought that the precedent that would be set by this particular ban would be a bad precedent indeed, which is also a point of principle. I hope you can appreciate what I had to say on that basis, rather than thinking of it as some kind of bleeding-heart intervention on behalf of yourself personally, which I am sure you would scorn. My arguments were made out of concern for precedent, coupled with the practical effect that enforcing this ban would have had in creating new causes of dissatisfaction rather than trying to heal the old ones, which is the only valid reason for being that this arbitration case ever had, if it had any at all.

Second, I don't believe that my advocacy for the arbitrators to change their votes on this issue displayed any sort of disrespect for the arbitrators' position or the arbitration process. I agreed with you and with a number of other editors that the proposal to ban you was unwise, unwarranted, and incongruous, although I would not quite use your word "ridiculous." I give the arbitrators, including those whom I've disagreed with on other issues or votes, the courtesy of presuming that they want to render decisions that are wise, warranted, congruous, and non-ridiculous. Therefore, I stated my position concerning the ban - on the /Workshop page and the /Proposed Decision-talk page, where they invite editors to make proposals and comment on the proposed decision (although not usually at the length found here), in the hope that the final decision would be improved in this respect. And after all, you were the editor who observed most strongly that there was a disconnect between the discussion on /Workshop and Fred Bauder's proposed decision, and thought this was a serious problem, so I don't see why it is disrespectful for me or anyone else to point out perceived fallacies or incongruities in unexpected aspects of the decision and suggest changes. It's not as if I were lobbying the arbs to death or threatening them with adverse consequences for voting incorrectly. In fact, I had a very civil talkpage conversation with one of the Arbs who disagreed with me. As for your comment that those of us who comment on an ArbCom proposed decision represent "the peanut gallery" from the arbitrators' point of view, that is the sort of comment that I can only imagine would have you going absolutely ballistic if it came from anyone else. The ArbCom has been given the power to decide; all of the rest of us have the power to discuss; and it's no disrespect to the arbitrators or their process to suggest that the discussion should have some weight, although never dispositive weight, in the decision-making. And it's not as if I went outside the process to effect a change; the decision not to ban you after all was based on a motion by a duly selected arbitrator and supported by others; that's part of the process, not a deviation from it.

Regarding "tone," the starting point I suppose is that you did feel more strongly about the resysopping decision than I did. I thought that it was very arguably an error of judgment, made in good faith; you thought it was an outrageous, blatant, willful disregard of consensus and community standards (although I gather that in your mind, the need for consensus stops somewhere between the bureaucrats' discretion and the ArbCom's shores). But even assuming I felt as strongly as you and many others about September's decision, and concurred that the decision represented an "abuse of office," rather than a mistake, I do think there are ways to express the same thoughts more calmly, and I think if you go back and reread the debates in the light of day, you'll find others who did express the thoughts more calmly. In any event, on a pragmatic level, the combination of the outcry at the resysopping based on 61% support, coupled with the actual finding of fact by the ArbCom (which is going largely unnoticed but which I think represents a significant victory for those who were aggrieved in September) that at 61% there was no consensus, makes it highly unlikely that this scenario will repeat itself anytime soon.

I've been too long-winded so I'll stop here, but I hope this clarifies some of my own idiosyncratic thinking. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible to be too long-winded on a talk page? The bit bucket is bottomless; no worries. I've been accused on occasion of going on too long -- and in the Real World, with justification. Here, it's only because I touch-type.

Of course, you didn't object to the ban for personal reasons. Why, I never had so many friends before! Everyone argues for his principles. And that's an excellent thing.

I think you're reacting negatively to my last comment, as if I'd said you'd done something wrong. Well, you spoke your peace on talk, as did others, and that's not wrong. I think I would have preferred that ArbCom had not listened, though, and gone ahead and banned me. There is a strong current of aristocratic feeling among our trusted servants and we need to squelch it; I think it does not really help to moderate unreliable or untrustworthy officials. Better for us to remove and replace them with ones who do not need to be moderated.

You still haven't satisfied my simple request. Please rephrase my question in acceptable form, preserving intent but making the expression polite. I want to see the way you do it. If there is some specific comment another made that better expresses my position, please copy it here. Thank you. John Reid 06:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service. As Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway gave up their sysop and other rights under controversial circumstances, they must get them back through normal channels. Giano II may, if developers cooperate, be restored to access to the account Giano. He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance. Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, Thatcher131 14:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oi

Você lembra de mim. Já tenho estado aqui, e tenho escrito a verdade da Wikipédia e o que vc fez comigo, mas me dieram um bloqueio por meus comentários. Somente quero dizer que vou voltar muito logo. Vc não sabe o que vai acontecer aqui – eu planejo escrever piores coisas. Vc tem que sofrer pelo que fez comigo – eu preciso obter a vingança que eu almejo. Os wikipedistas são fascistas – e têm que sofrer. A Wikipédia é uma merda, somente há penetelhos como você que não sabem fazer nada, excepto me foder. Hoje é um novo dia, sabe? Cada vez que vc ouve o idioma português já sabe o que é. Parabéns, vc me zangou – e vou te punir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oi amigo, como vai? (talk • contribs)

Estava brincado, moleque

You remember me. Already I have been here, and I have written the truth of the Wikipédia and what vc made with me, but me they dieram a blockade for my commentaries. I only want to say that I go to come back very soon. Vc he does not know what he goes to happen here - I plan to write worse things. Vc he has that to suffer for that he made with me - I need to get the revenge that I long for. The wikipedistas are fascists - and have that to suffer. The Wikipédia is an excrement, only has penetelhos as you that they do not know to make nothing, excepto to foder me. Today it is a new day, knows? Each time that vc hear the Portuguese language already knows what it is. Congratulations, vc irritated me - and go to punish you. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oi friend, as goes? (talk? contribs).

He was played, moleque

{{markups}}

Hi, I found this gem when rummaging through departed User:Xiong's stuff. I used it a few times and even fixed a small mistake. I agree it needs work but it's useful. Why was it deleted? I see you left a notice on talk but the link doesn't point to any discussion of this. John Reid 15:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I was at a loss for a while as to what you thought this had to do with me, but I managed to find this.

Basically, notifying Xiong and voting to "userfy" the template was the extent of my involvement.

You will note that it was eventually userfied. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I've had a look at it. Doesn't seem as if this template started a war; I'm not sure why anybody wanted it gone. It's a useful tool, although I didn't understand the {{helpbox}} at first. That latter gadget is nonstandard; {{tnavbar-mini}} &c. are the standard tools for that function.

Can we bring this tool back to templatespace? Yes, I suppose we can always use it from userspace but that could be said for any template. There was very little discussion on the deletion. I'm not going to argue for undeletion on grounds of improper process but it does look as though the main reason this got deleted was that Xiong pissed people off, got pissed off, or both. I'd like to rewrite it to replace the objectionable "helpbox" with "tnavbar-foo", maybe clean it up a bit; but it will be substantially the same tool. Can we salvage this? John Reid 14:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

More peanuts

Peanut gallery! :-) Anyway, I note, with some surprise, that the motion to censure you (probably intended to replace the one to ban you) failed to gain support before the case closed, so I think you 'escaped' both ban and censure. Anyway, I was wondering if you were thinking of taking a week-long wikibreak regardless of the outcome of the case... There would be a name for that. Irony? Carcharoth 14:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, yes, that is the great joke of RfArb/Giano. A majority of arbitrators failed to get behind either ban or censure, so I'm officially vindicated. Now I think I really deserve a week off. I got a lot done recently; haven't I earned a break?

Of course, the truth is that I enjoy contributing, even when the going gets rough. It's a pleasure to improve the world, just a tiny bit. Editing is both cheaper and easier than distributing canned goods to the poor; it may also be a more enduring contribution to the public good. I have done much in my life, not all of it good; I sleep better knowing I've done something that's not all wrong.

But I do have plenty of Real World work to do; it's looking over my shoulder at this very moment. It may be sordid, petty, and eventually delivered to an ungrateful client who shelves it, there to gather dust and rot. But it pays the rent. John Reid 14:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well go and do some real world work, then! You've earned a break! :-) Just one more comment: "That effort begins in the morning" - from your earlier comment on my talk page under the heading "Peanuts" (thanks for the above link by the way, very interesting) - I wonder how long the night will be? Carcharoth 15:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, again. Let's copy that comment out:

This User talk:Carcharoth may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Misplaced Pages's copyright policy. Please review the source and remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Misplaced Pages mirror.

This RfArb has ripped the lid off of a lot of outdated ideas and unstated assumptions. This community and this project have staggered along for a long time on the strength of a lot of weak straws and as one goes, it takes the next in line. It's obvious that WP was founded in the early days by people with no political or organizational experience; more, by people actively hostile to proven techniques of management. In place of these, they substituted emphatic demands for good will and common sense. When those failed, they threw all sorts of ad hoc remedies into the breach; and like all who recapitulate development instead of studying their predecessors, they made the most basic mistakes and created some of the most brittle, oppressive, and opaque methods. Lacking leverage with which to enforce draconian standards, the whole effort degenerates into a pillow fight.

Assuming that we still want to build a project, we're going to have to reorganize. That effort begins in the morning, when the empty beer cans, spilled ashtrays, and butt prints in green ooze on the windows are cleaned up. But for now, it looks like the party is in full swing. John Reid 07:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Template:Copyend

Well, it might be easy to say that with that RfArb closed, the party's over and we can start to clean up. But that was not the party; that was just a fistfight in the parking lot during the party, which is still going on strong. Every new day sees an explosion of new policy initiatives, all trying to patch up the failing social fabric or at least nurse a private grievance. We are at the "zombie" stage of a party, where everyone is too drunk to realize they're too drunk to stand up. The older members, with experience and pickled livers, are sitting on the back porch, chugging straight from the bottle, alternately swearing undying brotherhood and waving pistols.

The next stage is the big fight, the one for which all previous broken noses are forgotten. This is the one that stops the music, that gets all the deadheads off the floor, that wakes up all the neighbors. This is the one that is so compelling it involves everybody at the party. At least for a moment, everybody stops drinking and gets some adrenaline in to combat the alcohol. The Cops come and there is a moment of clarity, after which some people go to sleep, some go home, some go to the hospital, some go to jail, and the party is over.

We have not yet come to this point. In order for it to be the big fight, somebody must get injured -- not offended, not scratched up, but seriously hurt. There needs to be a lot of blood and, preferably, a noise loud enough to be heard over the music and general yelling. The big fight is not a good thing in itself but in my experience, few really big parties held by ordinary people end any other way.

Here in cyberspace, it's difficult to hurt anybody seriously. You can annoy them greatly but this kind of vandalism is merely amusing. Blocks and bans -- considered our strongest remedies -- don't necessarily take anybody out of circulation for an hour. Even if a valuable, longtime contributor is hounded off the project, the party rolls on. Entire groups of editors stalk off, fork the project, party in their own places, and the main party rolls on. "Neighbors" threaten libel suits, Danny quiets them down, and the party rolls on. It's the exact same people doing the exact same thing with the exact same group dynamics as in the Real World; the only difference is that we all have pillows tied to our hands.

This party will probably roll until somebody figures out how to do serious, lasting, Real World damage to somebody else (WP:BEANS). It's just a matter of time. Then the nasty little red ticks in their loud suits and heavy wristwatches will circle their briefcases and loot the WMF treasury. After they've drunk their fill, we may, perhaps, as a community, have a moment of clarity. John Reid 16:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixing WP

Sweet <profanities deleted>! That is a scary scenario, and it sounds horribly plausible. You've reminded me of a page I once saw (but cannot find now) that postulated several possible endgame scenarios for how Misplaced Pages (ie. this party) might end. Did you ever read that essay (well, it sounds like it was an essay), and do you have a link for it? It might be on meta or in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Not sure. Carcharoth 17:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Still can't find it. I did find this and this though, and maybe you are already aware of this? Carcharoth 17:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages may not dead when the drunken party phase is over; only the chaos will be over. We have a choice between reorganizing and disintegrating. The challenge is to preserve the fun but eliminate the broken glass. As a reformed drunk, I know quite a bit about this.

I read Eric Goldman before; you have to like suggested fixes like per-edit captchas. Jason Scott is new to me but his predictions are not:

1. Misplaced Pages will no longer allow anonymous edits of any kind.
2. Misplaced Pages will have to split off "user space" from "Encyclopedia space".
3. Jimbo Wales will be either ousted or have his power curtailed relative to Misplaced Pages.
4. Misplaced Pages will make it almost impossible to edit entries on living people (or any entity that can sue).
5. Misplaced Pages will add advertising (banner ads, text ads, or pop-ups).

Closing the door to anons may happen in order to avoid an invasion of lawyers; same for locking bios of living persons. This is already starting, with various restrictions on anons and WP:OFFICE. There is considerable resistance to these steps and, without an effective alternative, sooner or later the little weevils will come. The current deterrent is that WMF has so little cash on hand that the weevils don't see much to loot. That bar will be overcome when someone with deep pockets gets sufficiently upset. "Subpoenas are the ultimate edit."

Note that anons and new editors are not marginal; they may contribute the bulk of article content. We close the door on them, all we're left with are process wonks.

Jimbo is obsolete; I've said this before. Nice guy and all that but not up to King of all Wikipedians standards. What has kept him enthroned so far has been inherent conservatism and his Praetorian Guard. Also, an autocrat at the top is needed to counterbalance the anarchy from below. He probably needs to move on; he's said so himself.

It's not just userspace that's the issue; it's projectspace, too. An editing community needs to have common resources and some of these just shouldn't be "public". Of course, the distinction between public and private spaces means nothing without a bar to membership.

So long as the quarterly fund drive brings in enough to keep the servers limping along, I see no future for advertising. Once the lawyers have looted us and possibly forced out the Board, then I expect ads -- discreet at first and ramping up.

Hillman is one of many users who got pissed off and left. The freedom with which one can depart is both a great strength and great weakness. Disruptive elements go, so the community stabilizes; it also ossifies, since those who see most clearly what needs to change don't stick around to change it.

Well, as I said, the drunken party phase is not over yet, so there's not much hope of sweeping changes -- and those will probably be bad when they do come. Meanwhile, I'm afraid we will creep into exactly what which we wish to avoid becoming.

There are things that can be done now to avoid disaster; they require judgement, maturity, and hard work. We need to turn off the music, lock up the booze, open up the windows, and send a lot of people home. A day off from policy-wonking has been proposed on Pump -- an article-editing-only day. I think this is exactly the wrong direction. We need to lock the entire database for a month and spend the time in a new space, discussing how to resolve the forces within and without our community which would destroy us. John Reid 17:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

John, I feel some responsibility for your edits this week <grin> so I suppose I should comment here. Frankly, although your facility with metaphor is superior and this thread's entertainment quotient is high, I don't understand your arguments here at all.

The policy disagreements that we have been debating for the past few weeks, and which you believe we should continue to debate, deal with allocation of decision-making authority over intra-community matters. My personal opinion is that we have largely reached a modus vivendi and should be writing; your opinion, as I understand it, is that there are major unresolved issues of principle requiring urgent community attention; and I am sure there are other users on the continuum of views in between.

But none of that has much, if anything, to do with concern over potential legal liability issues. Perhaps you are right that someday some lawsuit will pose a significant threat to Misplaced Pages's continuation or foundational principles, although I certainly hope not. But I doubt very much that the litigation will relate to our internal squabbles about such things as whether the bureaucrats have independent discretion in assessing consensus on an RfA or whether there is a required numerical level of support.

And the idea that we should all stop writing for a month and gaze at our navels is, not to mince words, the very worst policy suggestion I've seen on Misplaced Pages since I started editing. If most of the editors didn't participate, we'd lose a month of encyclopia writing. If most of the editors did participate, we'd have conflict and more policy proposals than anyone could hope to read and analyze (not to mention a record number of edit conflicts). What could this possibly hope to accomplish?

Enjoy the rest of your week. :) Newyorkbrad 00:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Brad, if you don't understand my arguments it's because I haven't made any. My comments in this thread are strictly off the cuff, my eyeball of the situation. I won't even dignify them with the title of "prediction"; there are far too many variables involved. At best, they are visions from beyond the fog of the future. This certainly isn't a proposal; it's more of a fear.

I agree with you in principle that power is well-distributed between our community (the masses, if you will) and the aristocrats: admins, b'crats, arbitrators, WMF Board, and Jimbo. Unfortunately, this distribution is unstable; every week sees a new crisis. None of these are severe; they are all fistfights in the parking lot, ugly non-consensual drunken sex in the bathroom, somebody's purse stolen, somebody's wallet lifted. Taken case by case they all seem to be manageable; taken together, it's a bad trend. If I didn't think it would only aggravate the situation, I'd hand out a Haig Award to some editor every day. The vicious power-grabbing is fueled by a sense of opportunity, lack of structure, and the occasional deep-felt need to Save The Project.

Distribution of power is itself not the only problem. The overall membership of and participation in our community is in doubt. We've generally been willing to pay the costs of a completely open-door policy but there's considerable resistance building. I don't want to see more semi-protection initiatives, greater restrictions on anon editing; new editors seem to have written the bulk of the corpus. We need to employ more delicate, social means of controlling the kinds of people who come and what they do here. We need to suck some of the heat out of the room.

Meanwhile, we are constantly skirting libel and copyright issues; sooner or later we are going to run into a bull that Danny cannot sooth. This has nothing directly to do with the other issues; it's just another pot on the stove, bubbling away. Certainly it's not an unwatched pot -- but too many cooks spoil the broth.

Litigation itself will not solve our internal issues by any means but if it has the effect of stopping the project for a time, then a large number of people will go home and that reduction in the size of the community, coupled with shock, may cause a moment of clarity to emerge, during which major progress can be made toward solving internal issues. I don't favor this, pray for it, or work toward it. It's just that, in my experience, when the party is rolling along this strong, it simply doesn't stop until somebody outside makes it stop. Lawsuits are only one way this can happen; criminal charges from the notoriously prudish State of Florida are another. Or a hurricane may wipe out WMF offices. I really don't know.

I'm a little offended that you characterize a month of organization building as navel gazing. We can well afford a month off from article writing; we have plenty of articles and nobody will stop reading because we stop dotting is. We have no competition and whatever we're doing, we'll never finish anyway. We'd do well to take a break, stop the music for awhile, open some windows, cool off, and face organizational issues that confront a large, growing, open community. If it pleases you to know, I don't think we will take this month off voluntarily. I wish we would.

I agree that if the entire community sits down at one round table to fight out all the hateful issues and rake up all the old grudges, we will not only never finish talking, we will not accomplish anything in a month -- or a year -- of such chatter. As I say, I don't think we will come to that table voluntarily anyway; if and when it comes around, most of our members will refuse to sit at it. That's not necessarily a good thing but it may mean that the discussion will go forward, with fewer voices.

I don't expect edit conflicts because I expect that the database will be locked, possibly offline. The round table will not be another projectspace page or even a new namespace; it may be a mailing list, a different wiki altogether, an IRC channel, or possibly just a Formica table in some cafe or ice cream parlor somewhere, as 6 or 8 people with commitment and power sit down in meatspace to work out what to do next. I really don't know.

There is no point hoping for any outcome other than survival of the project. Too many variables go into the crisis; I have no specific idea what is going to happen at the crisis, let alone on the other side of it. That is why I use the party metaphor. It is not an elaborate disguise for specific predictions; it is a general statement of human behavior under similar circumstances.

To continue: Jimmy Wales et al, a few years ago, turned on some loud music, threw down a gigantic keg of free beer and invited some people over. They told their friends and the door was left wide open; naturally, a crowd gathered. The keg was advertised as bottomless; it wasn't really but people brought more and more beer. There have only ever been 3 rules for this party that have endured from start to present:

• All the beer is free.

• The door must be left open; nobody gets thrown out unless they really become ugly.

• Anybody can change the music but all the records are from Jimbo's collection.

That is, all content, storage, and bandwidth is (more or less) free gratis and free libre; anyone (more or less) can edit; and everything we write here has got to (more or less) support the encyclopedia. No other rules or policies really hold with the same force. There is another condition which is not so much a rule as an inherent technical constraint:

• There are an infinite number of rooms but no doors between them.

Pages are unlimited and all are public read/write access. This is similar to one big room, with some interesting side-effects.

Now, I ask you: Have you never seen a party like this before? Beer free, door open, the same music all night, one big room. I have. I've seen many parties of this kind and they all wind up the same general way. It's not always The Cops; sometimes it's The Landlord. But when a party passes a certain critical mass, there is just no way for anybody to stop it without a gun or something of equal weight in his hand. If the beer runs out, the party's over. If the house burns down, the party's over. If somebody gets shot, the party's over, maybe. But a party of this kind can rage on for days. It doesn't even matter now if Jimbo takes a bus to Cleveland. The party is out of control.

This is just human nature. The big mistake I see people making around here is to assume that either (a) we are not human people with human natures or (b) the nature of wikicommunity forces us to interact in non-human ways. Cybertechnology does distort certain dynamics but we're humans -- the same people who killed everything on the planet that even looked like a threat, the same folks who pray for an alien invasion so we can show the bugs what we've got, the same greedy breeders who created the Sahara Desert, the same half-devils who bomb abortion clinics to save lives, the same half-angels who stood on the Titanic as the band played on. Our human nature is far more powerful than the little toys with which we create cyberspace. We're human and we're doing the thing that comes natural to humans in large groups: We're making trouble.

Brad, if you think everything is okay, well, fine. Everybody loves a good party; that's human nature, too. I'm not leaving either. But I really am trying to figure out how to open a few windows around here and let out some of this hot air. John Reid 04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "everything is okay" in the sense of complacency and Dr. Pangloss, but I don't think that we are at a crisis point, either. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, definitely not. We are not at the crisis point yet. I don't even dare to say when it will come, any more than I will stand in the middle of a party during the drunken zombie phase and say how long it will take before something stops the music. Could take an hour, could take a week, could happen any moment. Who knows? I'm not even sure the crisis is inevitable; it's only very difficult to avoid and requires more leadership and greater average maturity than I think we can muster. I don't know. John Reid 17:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pornography as defined in the United States by the FCC and its inclusion on this Encyclopedia

This Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Misplaced Pages's copyright policy. Please review the source and remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Misplaced Pages mirror.

Priceless! I salute you. Melchoir 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. John Reid

Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship

I tightened up the language in your edit after it was reverted, see here. Since that explains the procedure, and sits in a section headed "How to request someone's de-adminship" I hope it's tight enough, but see what you think. Steve block Talk 13:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Got to take this back to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for de-adminship. Thank you. John Reid 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried. Listen, I'll distract the dj, you put something different in his pick pile. Thank you too. Steve block Talk 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried too. If UC wants to edit war on the proposal, we're going to have to generate more discussion, bring in more participants. I'm not up for tag-team edit warring to drive him past 3RR before we go over the hill ourselves. His political position has merit but his reverts have none; if he won't play ball and compromise in a civil fashion, he's just going to lose out entirely. John Reid 03:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nicely done. Steve block Talk 19:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Say rather, if you will, "nicely spoken". Unfortunately it has not had any effect yet. I shall be patient. UC is not a troll. John Reid 21:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

T'is done in the asking and in the answering, for both are deeds. UC put a link to the stewards in the see also section, hence my comment. Steve block Talk 14:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good. With a pithy but acceptably informative explanation. AGF really does work, sometimes. John Reid 18:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Roadmap

Hi - I saw this pop up on Recent Changes. What do you think of moving it to Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Roadmap, in order to avoid self-reference and to follow the standard for other Wikiprojects? FreplySpang 05:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Damn, what did I do, put it in articlespace?? John Reid 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, if you look, I got the self-link in the intro para correct and still created the wrong page. Thanks. John Reid 05:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wha' happen?? I created the page -- or I thought I did -- in true wikifashion, by redlinking to it from my userpage. The link there is correct. The weevils must have ate it. John Reid 05:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me just check ] ... Critters or not, it's an easy mistake to make. Thanks for fixing it up! FreplySpang 05:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You can speedy that rd, while you're at it. Thanks again. John Reid 05:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the barnstar! It's a completely forgiveable sin, of course. But it's certainly pleasant to have a nice note in the midst of all the "why did you delete my article yo udon't realize how important I'm going to be" flak. FreplySpang 06:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. So did you sign up for Roadmap yet? John Reid 18:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just read the project page. Interesting! I don't think my primary fields of expertise are within the scope of the project, but I've watchlisted the project page and will contribute any thoughts I have as it develops. Newyorkbrad 18:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You what? No watching! Participate! If you have a primary field of expertise, you can color in the map for that area. If you don't, then you are a stupid generalist like me, and can help organize the little maps into one big one. Either way, you're all drafted. John Reid 18:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me watch for a little while anyway, to give me a better idea what you have in mind, and then I will figure out how my own areas might fit in. How's that? Newyorkbrad 18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you're a specialist, though, the best thing you can do right now is to tell us generalists what kind of interface you want on this. We don't know anything in particular, so specialists will have to do all the detail work -- and few specialists are going to put a farthingworth of effort into figuring out an abstract metasystem. We need to make it stupid simple to note that B > A. John Reid 18:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD on Admin Standards pages

Please see this deletion debate. Carcharoth 00:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, shit. Thanks for pointing it out. John Reid 03:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

your statement

I like your statement quite a bit. I'm not familiar with you though. I agree with you about adminship not being requisite. On the other hand, RFA is a place where people can leave comments, and I can look them up later (like now). And, since I don't know you, I'd be inclined to see what other people I respect have to say. You might consider going up for RFA for that reason, or providing a spot for endorsements (we used to have those, and they were useful), or telling a bit more about yourself. For example, have you been in any serious conflicts? What's the deal with those couple blocks (no big deal probably)? What do you do in real life? Are you a serial killer? etc. At any rate, you nailed the statement for me. Derex 09:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to answer your questions but you should post them here, so all can benefit. If it's all right, I'll move your questions there and answer. John Reid ° 09:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, they weren't really meant so much as literal questions, but as illustrations of a point. I'd like to support you based on your statement. And I'm encouraging you to find some way to reassure people that you're just a normal bloke, without them having to wade through your edit history. Perhaps that will come in due course though as people familiar with you add questions. However, if you _want_ a question to respond to as a jumping off point, you're welcome to list those four as from me (without the lead-in about RFA). I'm particularly interested in the serial killer one ;) Derex 10:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that, thank you. John Reid ° 11:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Damn, Chacor's rude. Given that he got desysoped as NSLE (virtually impossible), he's really in no position to be fulminating about not trusting someone for a simple block. Derex 11:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and stuck them up. Derex 11:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Asked and answered; feel free to ask for clarification if necessary.

I agree that Chacor has been confrontational but I support his questions as strongly as possible. ArbCom has been granted a great deal of latitude -- perhaps too much. Prospective arbitrators should be raked over the coals, stripped naked, examined with a microscope, and subjected to a certain amount of gratuitous indignity, just to see how we react. I would not have thrown my hat in the ring if I did not welcome questions, including the most hostile -- which Chacor's are not. John Reid ° 11:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm convinced. I, too, have wondered about the profile. But the worst I ever mustered was smearing some poison ivy on a total jerkwad's desk, and that was 25 years back, in middle school. Would sometimes like the power to punch someone over tcp/ip though. Btw, plenty of candidates have been blocked, so it really is no big deal, unless it was a big deal, which it seems not to have been. Cheers & good luck, Derex 11:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I once killed a frog. 30 years ago and I still feel bad about it.

As I've said, I think it's healthy for editors to be blocked and mandatory for prospective admins -- b'crats, arbitrators, and anyone else given any kind of mop or broom. Blocking is not always for putting penises on George W. Bush and it certainly doesn't disrupt anybody's personal life who has a personal life. But it is a strong statement that at least one person thinks you're a dick. Nobody should be handing out those shoes who has never tried them on for size. John Reid ° 12:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Signatures stuff

I noticed your response on the Help Desk to someone asking about signatures, and I noticed you now have a (rather unobtrusive) link in your signature to the questions for your candidacy for ArbCom. I've read your user essay on sigs, and I was wondering what your opinion is on this (basically I think that signature links, which by their nature will be spread around a lot, should be to suitably specific subpages, as yours is, not to the main front page of the topic in question). Also on the topic of signatures, did you see the debate that took place at the Administrator's noticeboard here (plus a continuation of that debate at the Village Pump)? I can remember offhand 2 people whose signatures have momentarily disorientated me before I realised who they were: dab, crz (these are examples of people consistently maintaining a shortened version of their full username, which is OK, if mildly disorientating on first viewing). I could remember lots more if I could be bothered. I couldn't agree more with your comments about how those who are fickle and change their "signame" every week or month at the whims of their latest mood or interest, are merely revealing their (lack of) maturity. Carcharoth 10:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that inconsistency. I think the ° is minimally intrusive and I certainly want the widest possible participation without stumping on Pump. Notice I link to the questions page, not to my statement of candidacy. Hey, at least it doesn't blink!

Inlinks feature ("What links here") is kinda broken. Check inlinks for a new policy proposal advertised on {{cent}}; it may not be linked directly from anywhere but the creator's talk page but it will show an inlink from every place Cent appears. I rarely check inlinks for proposals, for this reason. In any case, I can certainly implement a redirect, and shall.

I can't sign myself "John"; there are other Johns. The reason we all got surnames is to disambiguate ourselves from others with the same given name. I don't insist on it by any means but I see no reason why most editors can't register with first and last name, just as they do when they enter an office building and ask for a nametag; I can't think of a good reason to write much on that nametag other than first and last name. This is not group therapy; we don't need to be "Bob" and "Ted". This is, in some ways, a game of Nomic but it's also a serious, public project; we don't need to be W00t W00t W00t. I will not be astonished if some admin with a misleading sig is blocked for disruption; admins should conform to a higher standard of accountability. Nor will I shed a tear when it happens. On the other hand, I doubt that most sigs cross that line.

I do promise that my sig will always read, more or less, John Reid ° 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbComminee

It's 4 am local and I'm off to bed after a bite. Feel free to grill me but please don't expect an answer until I've had my beauty rest. Thank you for your support. John Reid ° 12:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, your candidacy was the last thing I expected to see. This will be interesting. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom plays a key part in our community; I don't oppose it in any way. It must be respected. However, I worry that, as Lord Acton said, absolute power corrupts absolutely. My platform is simple: I will not extend ArbCom's scope beyond issues of user conduct. I don't look forward with joy to ruling over our community at ArbCom and I won't do it. I will simply decide issues of user conduct per community policy. When my term expires, I will gratefully step down. John Reid ° 23:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of our templates are missing...

If this TfD resulted in keep, who (speedy?) deleted them... Addhoc 15:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me cutting in here, John. See WP:AN#Removing_warnings_templates. The admin who deleted them can be ascertained by clicking on the "logs" link at the TfD discussion. User:Thebainer in fact. Carcharoth 15:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for linking me. You'll see my comment in the proper place. Sorry; I did try to salvage them from the fire. John Reid ° 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Email

You should add an email address to your account. A definite plus in the world of politics. --Alecmconroy 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always had an authenticated email address on my account. It's enabled; I just checked. Try again. I do entreat editors not to email me as a matter of routine; I believe all official business should be conducted, as much as possible, in the light of day. Any email to me will, however, be kept strictly confidential. John Reid ° 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Doh-- wrong person. Sorry bout that. Too many of you Johns running around here. --Alecmconroy 01:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know; I'm the only "John" running for ArbCom. Anyway, I can't get into my email now. You jinxed it! John Reid ° 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Pi-unrolled alteration

Hey John. I made a small change to your Pi-unrolled graphic, increasing the time delay on frame 34 so that the wheel pauses at the spot where the marker has reached pi. I think this change better emphasises that the wheel has completed one whole revolution, and the distance it has covered is equal to pi. However, I've never modified or uploaded an image file before so I wanted to check it by you, see whether you thought it improved the image, and help me with making the appropriate actions to upload the new version.

The new version is visible here. I'll watch this page for your response. Thanks. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 06:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you should know I'm the wrong one to talk to about that. I sweated blood over that graphic through more revisions than I care to count, two workshops, and two FP nominations. I'm afraid I'm way too close to my baby to spare a good word for any tinkering with it. Sorry. I'm only human.

If you think yours is an improvement, upload it. Let our community decide if it's superior. John Reid ° 11:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a joke somewhere there about sticky pie... :-) Carcharoth 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, not on the keyboard. John Reid ° 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Policycrufter

Do you have time to respond here? Thanks. Carcharoth 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks

Thank you for an unexpected smile. More of the same on your questions page, or at least I tried. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)