User talk:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Campaign for less bull more writing. This user believes all admins must have written at least 1 featured article before being considered for adminship or agree to add their name to CAT:AOR In addition they should write one featured article per year or stand for reelection to retain their status
	We are here to write an encyclopedia

• Don't like where Wikipedia is headed? then join the Club!

• Archive 1 The Saga Begins (July 18 to November 3 2005):
• Archive 2 ARCHIVE HARDER!(November 3 2005 to January 9 2006):
• Archive 3 Fear And Loathing in Las Archives (January 9 2006 to March 18 2006):
• Archive 4 Revenge of the Attack of the Archives (March 18 2006 to August 19 2006):

Welcome to my Talk page. "Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me." --Dr. Hannibal Lecter, So please use rubber bullets, ok? ;> READY...AIM...FIRE AWAY!

But before you fire, do keep in mind I reserve the right to ignore and/or delete anything I regard as Spam, Trolling, Harassment or Vandalism. I want to be friendly and civil, don't give me reason to be otherwise....thank you.

As always, the more recent and relevant topics have been held over for your perusal and viewing pleasure.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 To my dear friends and Wikipedes 2 Pleeeease come back my friend! 3 Blocked 4 bigger fools 4.1 PAN-demonium 5 Welcome back man 6 Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase! 7 Thanks from one old bear to another! 8 Unfree images in user space 9 Welcome back 10 Article of interest 11 Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006 12 Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel 13 Polls 14 Ghirla Arbitration Case 15 Expendable Cogs 15.1 What is to be done? 16 1st poll: 16.1 Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships 17 Less Bull More Writing 18 Belated thanks 19 La Grande Armée 20 2nd Poll: 20.1 Poll 2 - Writing subjects 21 Re: Commons heeeelp 22 New portal 23 Chess? 24 Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships RESULTS 25 WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006 26 Thanks 27 Thanks for the laugh 28 Thank you 29 My RFA! 30 Hiya 31 ???

[edit] To my dear friends and Wikipedes

Belated Apologies for my long absence. As my colleagues and friends, though, you are entitled to more than a mere apology, but an explanation as well. Of course I could blame the Usual Suspects (Laziness and an outside life which has grown increasingly busy and interesting). But sadly, they have been joined by an insidious accomplice in the terrible form of an almost complete apathy. The motivation and magic just are'nt there anymore. I so wish it were otherwise. But until I can find them again, along with the precious commodity of spare time, my activities here will be greatly reduced. Please take heart, however, I'm not leaving entirely. I'm far too stuborn and have grown far too fond of this place and far too many of you, simply to abandon ship and go AWOL. I still believe this to be a noble and worthy endeavour. You won't be rid of me so easily;> Best wishes and regards to y'all --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What's up man? Sorry if haven't been online for a while and more to hear that the pedia is loosing a talented man... --Philx 04:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn, dear RDH, it was about time you showed up! Perhaps we should chain you to your userpage just to make sure you don't leave again? ;) Now sharpen that pencil and start writting military history articles again... pretty please, with sugar on top? Glad to see you around again! Cheers, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Phaedriel...my friend, admin-to-be and WikiSuperstar, I'm back. For now. Though I shouldve heeded the advice I gave to Lar and stayed the hell away from politics;> HUGS--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

PS Please check out my latest about my new friend Walter Christie. I'm a sucker for historical underdogs, noble lost causes and brilliant failures (I write articles for the needy and not the greedy, honey;). This guy was the Preston Tucker of tanks.

[edit] Pleeeease come back my friend!

Please come back my dear R.D.H.! I miss your humour so much. I feel like a part of me has died on here because you have left! You were & are my best friend on here & you don't care what the heck I'm like. Wikipedia is such a horrible place for people like you & me & we need to stick together to belong. Please come back. I have nobody else on here that likes & enjoys my company the way you did. I know this all sounds weird from someone who's never met you, but I don't have a lot of friends on here or in real life, but funnily, the friendship I struck up with you was one of the best. Please rethink your decision. You could come back & we could try & make wikipedia a better, friendlier place. I hope you check this page every once in a while. I'm so sad in your absense friend. Pleeeease come back! *Cry* Not even Phaedriel can cheer me up now, she's become an admin. She's been here for a short while, has less edits, but just cause she's a nice girl, all the guys vote for her. Kirill is off on his own storyline, with his military section. LA has disappeared it seems from sight. And now you've gone. If something doesn't change, I'm going to leave too. Spawn Man 09:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC). P.S. I am both honoured & grateful you made your last edit on my talk page. Let it not be the last though.... :(

Spawn bro, please don't tie your fate here to that of a burned out old man. You have MANY friends here...more than I. You're just not counting em all:) I know where you're coming from. This geezer was once a lonely, socially awkward teen who didnt know yet how to count his blessings (and sometimes is still). People and circumstances change. I've simply decided to sit it out, if and until they change for the better here. Are you really surprised by RFA's? They are nothing more than PP (Popularity and Politics:). Our friend Phaedriel is very popular, and for good reasons. Let's be happy for her. Kirill pretty much IS the MilHist project. One of my greatest disappointments here is I havent been more of a help to him:(. This project is lucky to have them both as admins and contributors and we're lucky to have them as friends and colleagues. But if you need it, by all means take a break! You've earned it M8! Also, if you wish, now that the Daily Pulp is De-funcked, I'll be glad to contribute all the reviews I did there to your rev page. They are only collecting cyber dust in my archives, plus since I helped fight to keep your page I may as well use it, right?:)So cheer up, rest and know that you are not alone!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You've been blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks and disruption. --Cyde↔Weys 17:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems the shoe fits. Sorry it makes you "uncomfortable".--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to know how simply expressing MY opinion and support on my friend's talkpage consitutes a "disruption"? Personal attacks are by definition personal, IE directed at someone. My comments were directed at no one in particular..no names are mentioned. They were simply the derranged rantings of a disgruntled old lunatic, until you acted upon them. So they must have struck a nerve somewhere.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, block reason should've been for the degganged rantings of a disgruntled old lunatic. --Cyde↔Weys 17:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you, for illustrating my point of how this place is turning into Wikigulag for its most dedicated contributors.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy the gruel. --Cyde↔Weys 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, enjoy the powertrip. ABUSIVE ADMIN POWERS ACTIVATE!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Could you find a less effective way to support Giano than through block evasion? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, he's my sworn enemy...anything I can do to undermine his cause and get him banned I shall endevor upon. Do you have any ideas?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm going to extend you block for not Assuming Good Faith toward yourself, watch out! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes you would do that wouldnt you:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah Ghostie, I came here to say thanks, and for once I have to say I agree with you, albeit "hemmoraging talent faster than Tsarevich Alexei at a body-piercing convention" is perhaps not one of the phrases I would have used - did you invent that one all by yourself? So what terrible deed have you been banned for? Thank goodness upstanding young subalterns like "Cornet BoG" are here to police the site. So - you're the expert - how does one evade a block , it may be of use to me some day. Giano | talk 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I shall gladly instruct you in the mystical dark arts of blockade running! With your Goat-Powered Dial-UP(tm) it should be a cinch. Should you, though, somehow, find yourself stuck with broadband it can be a bit tricky. Unless You have a router, in which case simply reset (or unplug) said router. Dynamic IP is the block runner's best friend. The second best is an open Proxy server. But that is an entire lesson unto itself, Grasshopper;> Basically, there is no way to keep a determined soul of reasonable intelligence off here. At least not indefinately. Though I must confess some jealousy-I only get banned for a day by the politeness police, while you face a month-long exile by arbcomm itself! Such is the disparity between our statuses here. You will have to teach me how to more effectively shake their raffters. Yes, sadly, the Tsarevich bit was entirely my fault. I needed something which hemmoraged profusely...ah Alexei! Then I needed a reason why he'd be hemmoraging...papercut? No...a syringe needle salesmens' convention? No, that would be silly, what would the primary heir to the Grand Prince of Moscow be doing there?! What sort of con would he be attending then where he would be in such peril? Ah Body piercing! So many younguns are into it these days. Hmm maybe I should've used Julius Caesar at a Ginsu factory instead?:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a very difficult life here indeed - and my recent experiences make me wonder if I should not become an admin myself - however, I am not very good with tools and gadgets, but come to think of it neither are those elected into power here (No, not you BoG - you are OK really) but there are quite a few here who could do with re-training! Glad to see you seem to have overcome your block! You would not have done if I were an admin!!! Giano | talk 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed so me old Mafiosi...if you were an admin, I'd be royally intercoursed on here ;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Likewise I'm sure!!! Giano | talk 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean you are ready for me to nominate you then? Seriously, give the word and I'll do the honours.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

An admin nomination given recent developments would be perceived, probably rightly, as a classic example of WP:POINT and is respectfully not recommended. On the other hand, I am not at all sure that the frustrated comments about the arb case warranted a block without even a warning (at least not any I've seen; I apologize to the admin if I missed something). The teasing back-and-forth seen above between a user and a blocking admin, during the block period, suggests that things haven't deteriorated to the extent seen in the usual block situation. But ... at this point, I think what is most needed is cooling-off all around, and for the rest of the (recognizedly busy and burdened) arbitrators to get voting so that the case can be resolved. And in the meantime some useful editing of the actual encyclopedia by all concerned (including me). Newyorkbrad 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misinterpreted the timing of events, Newyorkbrad. Ghost's block had nothing to do with Giano's arbcom case. I just thought him commenting on the arbcom case while he was blocked was poor form unlikely to help Giano much. He received no sanctions that I know of for doing so, though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification noted. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh! I'm dissapointed I thought he had laid down his editing life for my noble cause, and was about to give him the "GC" for valour beyond the call of duty, scrambling under the barbed wire and through the mine field to edit in my defence. Nevermind! No Ghostie, I don't think it a good idea to nominate me at the moment, not in fact at any moment, I would find it far too restricting, besides which all that mop and bucket business is not really my style, but thanks for the thought. Giano | talk 06:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bigger fools

"So who are the bigger fools here; those who choose to play along with the joke, or those who take it far too seriously and overreact?" <-- Or the person who taunts someone who is holding a gun AND who is also known to overreact? Disclaimer: pardon the violence-laden metaphors, but my political correctness editor shuts down when I think of Colbert. I suspect that many Wikipedia administrators have never watched The Colbert Report and do not have any idea what Stephen Colbert was doing when he talked about Wikipedia.....such administrators just see the vandalism and try to deal with it. However, there are probably some Wikipedia administrators who know exactly what Colbert was doing and they are now gunning for anyone who shows the slightest degree of sympathy for him. Welcome to the wild west wiki, keep your head down.....unless you put that target on there yourself. Maybe we need a hall of fame for Wikipedia martyrs? Maybe we need a martyr's barnstar.... --JWSchmidt 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no need to ask pardon here...I like violence-laden metaphors. Besides I think your characterization of the current crop of Wiki admins as a bunch of gun-totting, trigger-happy old west vigilantes is pretty much spot on. "We'll have a fair hangin' followed by a fair trial...YEEEEHAAAAAW!" I also like your ideas concerning WikiMartyrdom. In fact, I have several suggestions for nominees/recipients, starting with User:Karmafist, User:Panairjdde and User:Sam Spade. Sapere aude,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PAN-demonium

In effect, the case of panairjdde's bolck is quite, well, very interesting', blocked for simply having diverged with an admin for not writing or writing AD in a date. This makes me wonder if wikipedeia is a communism where the admins are members of the ceka. --Philx 10:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If not communism, in the worst sense, certainly authoritarian, petty minded and heavy-handed. I had small disagreements with Pan over AD vs CE. But it was never any big deal for us. Either are acceptable so long as the same is used throughout an article. We simply "shook hands" and agreed to disagree. It's clearly not a blocking offense nor worth driving away a talented, long-time contributor. Wikipedia's loss.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A question, can an admi be deprived of his\her powers? For exa,ple in the case of Panairjdde there's nothing to do? --Philx 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is nothing we can do. Admins can only be removed by Jimbo or the ArbComm, and this has only occured a handful of times. Slightly more have resigned, but for personal reasons and fatigue...not to make amens for abuses. There are some proposals floating about (arent there always) to try and make the defrocking of abusive admins easier. Including a voluntary recall list, of those brave sysops who are willing to stand down if their actions raise the ire of enough Wikipedes in good standing. I'm skeptical of anything coming out of it though. Adminship should be hard to gain and easy to lose..instead it is the other way around. Ciao for now bro,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Update: Pan and the blocking admin have had a discussion and seem to have resolved their main differences. The way has been paved for him to return, if he so wishes. A happy and unusual end for these sorts of stories. According to a study by an arbcomm member, only 5% of those given long term bans (lasting more than a week) return to become constructive editors again. This is something for admins and arbitrators to seriously consider, before they start handing down severe and disproportionate punishments, like circus clowns doling out cottom candy and balloons.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back man

Just hope you to stay for for a lot of time. --Philx 12:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks bro! Hope I can stay a while this time before the Worms arrive.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks from one old bear to another!

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) Thanks my friend old windy bear 09:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Anytime my friend! Say, I like your article on Mongol military tactics and organization. It is coming along really well. While I'm hardly an expert on the subject I do have something of a familiarity with the Khans' art of war. If you dont mind I'd like to contribute a little to it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfree images in user space

Hello, Ghost. I'm on Wiki-break at the moment, with a mountain of work to do, so I'll just keep this short. I looked in, and saw that you had reverted Shauri's user page back to Shauri's last version. Shauri was a delightful Wikipedian, and it's a shame that she left. But when she put this image on her user page, much less attention was being given throughout Wikipedia to the fair use policy. I (unknowingly) had a fair use image on my own user page at one stage. Statements from Jimbo in recent months have made it quite clear that we're to be very strict about this policy. Please don't confuse this with copyright law. I have no idea whether or not it's breaking the law to have a Charlie Brown image on a user page (though I suspect it might be). However, I know that it's against our copyright policy, which is stricter than copyright law, as the purpose is to build a free encyclopaedia — one that's free for others to copy and redistribute under the same "free" terms. We do have certain policies which forbid things that may not be illegal — the three-revert rule is one example.

On my way to your talk page, to post this message to you, I passed your user page, and saw this unfree image on it. By the same policy, I'm afraid it has to go. Please remove it as soon as possible. Admins are getting stricter and stricter about this policy, and it's not unprecedented for a user to be blocked if he re-adds an unfree image once it has been removed. Since you have on your user page and your talk page that you find copyright paranoia disruptive, I know that you don't agree with this policy, but it is being enforced very strictly, and the last thing Shauri would want would be for a friend of hers to end up in trouble because of an edit to her user page. Hope you understand. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 10:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann! It has been a while since we've "spoken"...not since the wake of your successful RFA last year if memory serves. Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand. I don't understand why an outstanding editor and admin such as yourself would support such a policy. One which is petty, unjustified and needlessly oppressive. Especially when our time and energy here could be spent doing much more pleasant, constructive and productive things...that is what I mean by disruptive. For the record, I've also grown opposed to the 3R rule. Rather than preventing edit wars, it has become a blunt weapon in them. I think it is time for it to be modified to be more explicit or sent sailing into the sunset. As for my darling muse Shauri, she is a big reason why I fell in love with this place and project last year. Anything I have to remind me of her and how it used to be, not so long ago, instead of what it has become helps keep me here. She is WORTH getting into trouble over...and I would not say the same for nearly anyone else still involved with the 'pedia. So do what you feel you must and I shall do likewise. But since you asked me nicely, as a friend, I will comply and remove the offending image from my userpage. I still feel strongly, however, that her page should be protected, EXACTLY as she left it...policy be damned. Our disagreements aside, I hope you have an enjoyable or at least productice break. Sapere aude, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Please do not accept/accept this quick/snail mail/belated welclome to hell/to heaven/to canada/back message from your arch enemy/therapist/friend {{Enter name|Spawn Man}} who wishes you a bad/great/awesome hannuka/christmas/nasal sugery/welcome back today! Many great returns my friend R.D.H./Sango/Phaedriel/Kirill/LA...

Maybe a bit OTT, but I thought you might like this all occasions card. Just copy & paste! -- Spawn Man 23:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC) -- P.S. Tell me when you're having a Candaian nasal sugery next & I'll send you another card. ;)

Thanks for the welcome and the laughs Spawn M8. Hey, are you still interested in my offer of contributions for your Rev page? If you want em, I've got em;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just post them on my talk & I'll edit them in... Spawn Man 05:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article of interest

This is the best article on our project I've read since this one. Here is not the ravings of some clueless crank, or mainstream media moron, but a highly knowledgable and reasonable commentator (a species even more endangered than the elephant these days) warning of a real danger. Please go and read it, while I mount my soapbox. There...not finished yet? I'll wait, take your time. Any attempt to impose a "one size fits all" solution to improve quality control is bound to fail...especially here on the vast and highly contentious En:Wiki. Worse still, as the author warns, it puts Wikipedia as we know and love it in danger of spontaneously disappearing and becoming just another website. /soapbox --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow dude. That's a very interesting article. I seriously hope the German model crashes and burns...I do not want that here.UberCryxic 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, compadre. I'm one of those Ugly Americans, who gets a bit edgy when I hear of "German Solutions";>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how the Germans are going to decide whether it is effective or not. Are the administrators going to decide that if enough complaints have been made that they should retire it or will they hold a vote to retain it? Or will they do something else?UberCryxic 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Knowing our German colleagues with their fastidiousness, they will do a highly detailed, stats-laden study on the matter, which they will proudly but reverently present to Jimbo. Knowing our Jimbo, he'll have a glance at it, then make a pronouncement along the lines of; "Cool...I wonder if this will work on the other wikis...I suggest we try it out." And knowing how things really get done around here, policywise, word will go forth to all the Wiki-governing IRC channels so in a matter of days it will become de facto, fiat law with minimal discussion by cabal community consensus. Et voila mon ami, nous avons un fait accompli.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel

Love the banner, it looks familiar somehow! I'm actually here to see if you would take a look at this page, I have had one bogus Duke removed (see talk) Ghirlandajo is investigating the Duc de Lille who "may" also be bogus. You know about the Grand Armee how accurate is that bit? There was once an attempt in the late 19th cent to dig a tunnel which failed, and I beleive Napoleon did once joke about a tunnel - what d'you know then? Giano | talk 19:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have to stop nicking stuff from you,G Man..tis becoming a(nother) bad habit;>. Yes, there really was a Duc de Lille, a few, in fact, but the one being referred to here I believe is Louis François, duc de Boufflers, who earned the additional title via his military exploits in and around the ville of Lille. First he captured the town in 1693 or 94 I think, becoming its military governor and making it the administrtive capital and military headquarters (place des armes) for all of Flanders. To help ensure it would remain as such, he worked with his fellow maréchal de France, the brilliant engineer Vauban in overseeing Lille's fortification. It almost worked, under Boufflers' leadership, it resisted the armies of Marlborough and Eugene for 3 months, longer than most anyother French fortress during the war (unfortunately Vauban not only built formidable fortificaions, he also developed highly effective techniques for overcoming them as well, which were promptly adapted by France's many foes, thus turning siege warfare into a true science...merci maréchal Vauban :). For his gallant defense (gallantry here being defined as not surrendering immediately or without a fight) Boufflers was rewarded with the title Duc de Lille. Though I have no idea if he had anything to do with the Chunnel idea. He could well have mentioned it in passing or in corrospondence. Regardless, nothing came of it. And he was'nt yet Duc de Lille in 1702.

Now Napoleon, wasn't joking about taking England. Though his main invasion force would have been embarked on conventional barges, he was also seriously considering supporting them by air and underground. "Give me a good wind and control of la Manche for five hours and I shall have England", was his hopeful, boastful threat. Those sketches you see are not fanciful propaganda, but a fairly decent represenation of what it would have looked like. The Grande Armée was originally formed as the Armée des côtes de l'Océan specifically for a cross-channel invasion scheme. He would not assemble 200,000 of his finest troops at Boulogne unless he intended do start some mischief. Following Bonaparte's downfall, drawings for the would-be chunnel were found, copied and widely circulated in the English press. I've seen them but can't seem to find any at hand. Napo was skeptical of the chunnel, mainly because he thought (right so) it would take too long and would lose the element of surprise if discovred. He was much more excited by the prospects of sending in an avant garde of select men in balloons ahead of the main invasion force. He had doubtless read Ben Franklin's famous 1784 quote-

"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover his country with troops for its defence, so that ten thousand men descending from the clouds might not, in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief before a force could be brought together to repel them?"

So even if it had been completed, the Napoleonic chunnel would have been a sideshow to the main event. But history took another course (English cusine would not be improved) and besides, Napoleon, while he could be bold and foreward thinking, was also highly practical and acutely aware of the technical limitaions of his time. As a result his plans often ended up becoming far more conventional than he could concieve or would have prefered. He was a conservative innovator that one. Cheers and ciao--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polls

Hi. I'm just sending out a message for a new study I will be undertaking soon. It will involve surveys & polls to gather information & trends of editors on Wikipedia & other subjects. The data gathering will involve yourself recieving a questionaire on your talk page for you to fill out. I will then collect your questionaire & combine it with data from other editors. If you would like to be a part of this experiment, or know of someone who does, place a "Yes" or "No" below this message. Remember, it's only for fun & you can choose not to fill out all or parts of your questionaire once they arrive. Have a nice day... -- Spawn Man 05:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Ghost says Bring it on matey!;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! As soon as I get enough people, I'll send out a questionaire. It looks like you've incurred the wrath of Jimbo Wales below! You must be really annoying to get him post here! ;) Thanks R.D.H.! Spawn Man 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Okey dokey blokey, ready when you are SM. I doubt I've really incurred Jimbo's wrath..if that were the case I wouldnt be writing this now. He sounds polite and thoughtful and I'm glad to have him on my talkpage as I am any polite, thoughful soul. We are having a small disagreement over focus that's all. I think editor retention should be given at least as much attention as Copyright policing. Especially if our goal in the next year is to drastically improve the Wiki's quality and reputation. Oh there's that darned soapbox again...why do I keep stepping on it;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghirla Arbitration Case

I loved reading your comment there. Since your statement is 700 words long, you will soon be asked to curtail it, as I was.

May I be so bold (and annoying) as to advise you to be careful while doing that, because I had to read quite a few lines after it to understand what you meant by "Fred Chess' above comments are correct, Ghirla was in no way responsible for Wiglaf's departure nor was Molobo." Also, Molobo was banned a few months ago, so if you want to continue collaborating with Ghirlandajo on Wikipedia, perhaps you should replace at least the second mention of his name with the name of somebody else. I suppose you will not have to dig very deep for one.

Since you are longer at this project than me, perhaps you already noticed all this - in which case please forget my intervention and forgive me for invading your talk page. Thanks for granting your attention, by the way. --Pan Gerwazy 10:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Pan, please be as bold and annoying as you wish! I'm glad you enjoyed my rantings and found some virtue in my arguements. I felt I first had to set the record straight regarding Wiglaf's departure, since he is no longer here to do so himself. He is entitled to that much respect and dignity at least. His reasons are personal and private. But suffice it to say, the article on the Varangians, was not the last reason he had to stay. Then I, suddenly, found myself defending Ghirla and (by extension) others like him...cantankerous, quarrelsome but still great contributors (you know the type;). This group has become a persecuted minority around here. I don't care for all of Ghirla's behavior, I'm sure he feels likewise towards me, but I detest scapegoating, kanagaroo courts, inquisitions and witch hunts far, far more! So I will gladly serve as his Voltarian Advocate by defending to the death his right to be a vodka-pissing asshole and a great editor. Given what the Clerk of the court seems to think of me [1] I'm surprised he hasn't yet "conservatively trimmed", my stements already. But fear not, the original is still in the history and diffs, as well as saved elsewhere, EXO-Pedia if you catch my drift. Should the editing task fall to me, I'll take care not to prune off or tone down too much. As for User:Molobo, check his contribs. For a "Banned" users he seems quite active of late...not to mention the absence of that scary "THIS USER HAS BEEN BANNED" sign on his page. I check in occasionally to see what the old boy is up to. I'm truly amazed he's lasted so long. At the rate things are going, he will win by simply outlating all his foes. Maybe that is his strategy...suffice to say I hope it fails. Thanks again for stopping by, for the compliments and helpful suggestions.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)(Or simply Ghost, to his friends;)

(on User:Molobo). He was banned for a year in June. User:Alex_Bakharev (a Russian!) unprotected his talk page so that he could defend himself, but he used that to delete all negative comments. I do not know whether the page should be protected again. All the moving about (and that is what you see him doing in contribs) started at the beginning of september. I suppose he got tired of Polish Wikipedia and now wants to write one wonderful article defending the Holy Motherland. Oh, and this is also me: [2]. You are the first one I ask to call me Pasha - now how bold is that? Thanks for your comments.--Pan Gerwazy alias Pasha the Belgian 03:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right Pasha (here's to Boldness;). It appears to have happened during my self-imposed exile. I'm none too surprised by the fact of it, but I find it rather sinister how it was done; by basically a single Arbcommie acting on his own initiative with minimal, if any, consultation. Even Molobo should be entitled to due process and a fair hearing, both of which he was clearly denied. Sure any hypothetical arbcomm case against him would be a slam dunk, but that doesnt make it a mere formality to be ignored. Why even Judge Roy Bean, one of my heroes, at least went through the motions of a trial before a hanging. Ironic too, it would be a Russian who would show him some small mercy. Or maybe he's just giving him some additional rope to hang himself with.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do I sign to join the Disgruntled Wikipedians' Breakfast Club? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider your membership preapproved ALoan;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expendable Cogs

Oh with that kinda attitude you won't for long. Not meaning to rain on your pep rally, but there has been an exodus of knowledgable, talented contributors this year. Click me, I'm the tip O the Iceberg!. Not all editors are expendable, replaceable cogs in this here machine of yours. Our community is increasingly at war with itself[3] in case you hadnt noticed. Especially troubling is the unilateral actions by some of the B-ro-crats over on Rfa which goes against everything the project is supposed to stand for. Maybe you could have a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Carnildo.27s_re-promotion

] Maybe you can help...hmm I wonder. Your humble Wikipeon,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I should clarify. We *will* have no shortage of *good* contributors if we are not afraid to get rid of the ones who are wasting our time. This is exactly right: not all editors are expendable, indeed none of the *good* editors are expendable at all. But a guy who uploads copyvios repeatedly for months and months? He's wasting the time of good people.--Jimbo Wales 12:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification, now I owe you some of the same. I was not referring to the case of User:Thegingerone specifically, but to try and draw your attention to a dangerous trend in our community which seems to be only growing more acute. *Good* longtime editors are not only exiting the project in droves, but it seems are being actively discouraged and in some cases even driven away. The recent treatment of two of my colleagues in particular, User:Giano and User:Ghirlandajo, I find disheartening and ominous. Especially considering the timing of these acts came in the midst of a highly contentious and controversial Rfa in which both took a prominent, dissenting stand.

Meanwhile actions such as this one[4] go largely ignored and unquestioned. Clearly some animals are more equal than others. If we must have a hierarchy, then let us have a meritocracy based on ability and deeds instead of a Nomenklatura based on politics or personality. I know our goal here, above all, is to create a great encyclopedia, but I don't think you want to accomplish it by allowing this project to decay into a Wikigulag, where contributors are worked to the point of exhaustion then simply replaced by freshmeat. The end result will be a mediocre work at best with a notorious reputation for unreliability and plain poor writing. We have all invested far too much in this effort to allow such to happen without a fight.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can only second what RDH said. There was a tremendous exodus of experts and simply good editors. User:Worldtraveller for instance, who had 20+ FAs under his belt, left for quite similar reasons as his userpage attests. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the main themes of RDH's arguments, but not with all the implications. There is discontent in Wikipedia, but I don't think it should be hyped up by picking isolated cases and using them to draw a pretty damning conclusion. The overall trends for Wikipedia are good. Furthermore, Jimmy is right in stating that Wikipedia is larger than any editor. Wikipedia is the machine. Good editors have left, but new ones come in every day. And more importantly they stay put. Some of Worldtraveller's arguments are ridiculous; I go in to AFD day in and day out and I can tell you articles that survive should have an 'L' for 'Lucky' at the top of their page. Most people there are fiercely deletionist, something that I myself don't agree with. I'm just warning not to balloon a problem that isn't there. On the other hand, we should take care not to go down a slippery slope. That is, simply because it's not that big of a problem now does not mean it cannot be in the future. We should work to prevent that state of affairs, and to that end I agree with calls that emphasize quality above quantity.UberCryxic 19:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with Worldtraveller too, but his loss is a mortal blow on the quality front. I could add Filiocht and Lord Emsworth, both high up Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, although both had good non-wiki reasons for going. jguk and Francs2000 too. User:Geogre is on strike; Giano and Ghirlandajo seem to be teetering on the brink.

Yes, the project is bigger than one editor, and there are always good new editors, but there something seriously wrong if we can't keep good old editors. For some reason, Wikipedia seams to eat people up, and then spit them out. And not care. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah definitely sad to see them go. I personally had no interaction with them, but I know their contributions were immense.UberCryxic 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I am teetering on the edge of going, but that is not meant as a threat, the project would survive without me just as it has since Filiocht left. The reason I am teetering is because I am unable to sit idly by and watch this mess largely created by, and permitted by the arb-com happen. So I either have to go, or do something about it. I am not talking about Jimbo's message above (which I assume refers to Ghost's dubious images) but the deliberate ignorance of the general way the community here is starting to feel, and the way any dissenters are threatened with blocks and bans (under a cover of multiple reasons - usually incivility) every time the arb-com spots a dissenting voice or attitude. The arb-commers seem in turn to be served by a lot of inconsequential buzzing little editors and admins, anxious to report perceived wrong-doing [5] in order to be dropped or crumb or invited to join the club - hence the "No Bull campaign" to weed a few of them out to start with. I don't believe there is a realistic overnight solution, but one just has to look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to see statement after statement by the same people on multiple and vastly differing cases to see their seems be a vocal, bullying and very unpleasant element there. Wouldn't the persistent statement writers just rather shut up for five minutes help write the encyclopedia. I've seen the word sinister mentioned, and it is correct there is something sinister there - people feel (I certainly do) hectored and nervous there - and it shouldn't be like that. At the moment, thee seem to be no clear definitions of rules that must be observed during proceedings, and the process seems to akin to being dragged before the inquisition. Here, just today, [6] an editor asks an innocent question on procedure and it almost immediately suggested by arbitrator this "could" be harassment - it was merely a simple question - what is wrong with these people? This situation must be changed - but how? Giano | talk 09:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not a big fan of Orwell, but, judging from my own observations, every big new social project with predetermined rules sooner or later ends with the Animal Farm finale. As ALoan correctly noted, they may trust that new editors will replace casualties who fall by the roadside along the way. No offense intended, but I don't see many new anchor editors in English Wikipedia appearing since December 2004. Humanitarian subjects are kept afloat by a handful of devoted wikipedians. Unlike our "busy" administrators, they work full time on the project. Once one leaves the project, the segment he was in charge of slowly but inevitably slides into mediocrity. I hope that this will change with time, but the current atmosphere does not seem editor-friendly at all. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you know about anything Ghirla? You are just part of the "fickle and ill-informed populace" [[7] who wastes the arb-com's valuable time by exppressing opinions. Just get on with your work here and don't express any more opinions otherwise you will be banned. Giano | talk 13:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bunchofgrapes joined in Ferbruary 2005, (August 2005, by any realistic yardstick - Bunch) but I take your point. On the other side of the coin, the MilHist WikiProject seem to be doing good work; and Danny's 3rd contest may start to address the balance. Perhaps we are in a transitional phase, from rapid expansion to polishing (Jimbo and Danny seem to think so, at least) and writers of "brilliant prose" will no longer be required?

I am not entirely sure who the pigs are turning in to in your analogy (who was our Farmer Jones? Enyclopedia Britannica? Stalin?) And I had no idea until today that Boxer was named for the Boxer Rebellion, as our article claims - live and learn. All those for storming the foreign cantonments say "aye". -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye! though I'm not sure who our Farmer Jones would be either...but I'm pretty sure Larry Sanger is our Emmanuel Goldstein ;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagreed Ghirla. Off the top of my head I can name several people (me for one, I came in January 2006 and will soon have 4 FAs...not to brag or anything), like Grafikm and Carl Logan, who've come here recently and have done great work. I'm sure there are many other people, but the point is that in the Wikipedia machine everyone who is lost is eventually replaced and then some. The mistake you cannot make is to think that you are somehow special, somehow above other editors. That is, to think that you are indispensable to the project, when in fact you are not. The same goes for everyone. Our allegiances here should be first and foremost to Wikipedia, not ourselves. The type of vanity in Worldtraveller's userpage, leaving like this is some sort of Greek tragedy and he has to inform the world of his pathos, is what could actually ruin this encyclopedia.UberCryxic 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is to be done?

Friends, comrades and colleagues, thanks for your comments and concerns. While we may disagree on minor points, on the big picture we seem to be pretty much on the same page (otherwise you probably wouldn't be reading this now, would you;). Our community is increasingly divided and at war with itself . As a result, the project is suffering. It is suffering a brain drain, a moral drain and an overall quality drain. What do we do to change this? Clearly "voting with our feet" is not the answer. Departed users, no matter how valuable, are rarely mourned or much missed. Their impact matters only if they are still around...even if they are no longer as active. Besides, nothing here can be changed from "outside".

So if not retreat, then what? Well we must fight obviously. Fight to make this project less of a machine and more of a community of encyclopedist once again. To do this, we must take back the pedia from those who want to destroy and/or control content rather than create it. We must return power to the writers and editors where it belongs!

There are many ways we can try to accomplish this. But before I start to go into them, let us be clear about who we are. We are not some secret group of "Wiki rebels", we are the Loyal opposition. Jimbo is not our enemy (nor is he God). We all share the same basic ideals, goals and objectives here. The Wiki "Power Structure" is not our foe either, though certain elements and individuals within it are.

One of these is Taxman, the chief instigator and mouthpiece of the Carnildo premature promotion outrage. I have repeatedly called for his resignation [8], and though I don't expect anything to really come of this (getting blood from a stone), it is of symbolic importance. I urge and encourage you, to add your voices to mine. If nothing else, we will be letting him and his like know that they can't run roughshod over us without getting scratched. This will, hopefully, give them pause before they try anything of its like anytime soon.

This is just one thing we can do in the shortrun. Others include, joining the No Bull campaign and, most importantly, voting accordingly in Rfa. Also signing and advertising the manifesto, if you are so inclined. Of course you don't have to agree with every detail in it (hell I don't), but there are more than enough good ideas and ideals to make it worthwhile.

Also, as your comments show, the idea of a Disgruntled Wikipedians' Breakfast Club seems to be taking off. In suggesting it offhand I must have hit a nerve and a need...a need which is currently not being adequetely met by the community. We disgruntled, grumpy contributors need a place within this place where we can relax and sound off to one another without fear of the politeness patrol or Arbcomm. A place where, unlike Esperanza, we can feel welcome and wanted, instead of ignored or invited to have a virtual saccarine latte (ESP's version of Victory Gin) and STFU. So let's create a page, make the club unofficially official and see what comes of it. For now, I've set us up a base in the basement of this here talk page. If you are reading this, feel free to join.

Aside from sounding off, we can assert ourselves by organizing a Wiki "Sit Down Strike". Only a small group of editors are responsible for most of the high quality content. If we put a temporary halt to our work, it will become clear just how much we do matter. There is a reason why the Martins and Sidaways don't contribute much in the way of actual article content...they can't. An organized strike would make this apparent. This doesn't mean you should stop working entirely. By all means, work in your subpages, sandboxes and offline. But in the article space, try and make only minor edits until the strike ends (Don't be a scab;). Some of us are already doing this informally, but if we organize and do it as a group effort, a collaboration if you will, it could have a much greater impact. If and when we go on strike, as well as our demands requests, should we do, we can determine later. For now this is only an idea...a suggestion. If they decide to play hardball against any of us again, then we will bloody well show them we can play that game too! They may mock us for threatening to leave...or pat eachother on the backs when they block us for minor offenses, but I assure you, if we pull together and show them our strength, their laughter will cease.

Any and all of these things we can do in the shortrun. In the longer term, I think it is pretty much agreed that Rfa is irrepairably broken and should be retired to the glue factory before it is cast upon the ash heap. It has proven a poor way to pick admins. In its place we need to devise a system based on merit, determined primarily and objectively by number of mainspace edits, along with a streamlined, straightforward, means of removing admin rights. I'm working on a proposal of my own now, but I'm all eyes to anyother ideas. Also, ridding the land of Afd, I think would be a good thing. It only seems to bring out the worst in people, without getting rid of the worst of the pedia.

Think about it friends and Wikizens, but above all never forget that, you are only a cog in a machine if you act as one and allow others to treat you thusly. "We are the music makers, We are the dreamers of dreams"-Arthur O'Shaughnessy--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I am Disgruntled, but I can't agree with everything that you write above. I would hate to see energies diverted into a witchhunt demanding the resignation of User:Taxman. I entirely believe that he has done what he thought was the right thing, in good faith. While I disagree with the result of the RFA, it is not the largest issue for me: it is just symptomatic of a wider malaise, and it is the wider malaise that I want to address (answers on a postcard if you have any ideas).

The fact is that I just can't strike - if I could, I would not be back. My article-writing energies have already been depleted over the last week by the on-going furore, and I have no intention of this storm-in-a-teacup of stopping me from writing articles.

Dare I say it, the best place to "relax and sound off to one another without fear of the politeness patrol or Arbcomm" is off-wiki. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say we had to take all of these actions. If you don't want to call for Taxman's resignation..fine. If you feel you must keep working, then do so. But we should try and find at least some form of effective collective action we can take. Otherwise, there is not really much point in having a "club" is there? We will continue to be picked off one by one and go from being disgruntled wikipedians to disgusted ex-wikipedians. So if you have any ideas or suggestions, please share them...I'm all eyes:). As for off-Wiki sounding off...been there, done that...it is completely ineffective. We want to do more than simply sound off, we want to bring about positive change. To do this we must be on-wiki and actively engaged within the community. Otherwise we are only atomized voices in the wilderness. If any change for the better is to come, it will only come from within the community, not outside.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think we agree on the "big picture." The community at war with itself??? Pffft. That's just demagoguery, no different than Bush calling the "War on Terror" a "war for civilization" in the 9/11 speech. It's rhetoric like this that I want to see abated a little bit. You're helping no one by being alarmist like this. Either that or you guys are pretty bad at recognizing what is and is not a problem in Wikipedia. And how is the project suffering? Wikipedia is more popular now than it has ever been before. Whether you like it or not, that should be the standard for how we decide Wikipedia's success. When people need information, they come here. They don't go to Britannica or Encarta, they come here.

We are nearing 1.4 million articles. When dealing with such a massive online database, one would naturally think that some sort of adminstrative and organizational apparatus is required. Wikipedia should first and foremost always be encyclopedic in nature, but obviously we need some sort of regulation mechanisms. To that end, admins and beaurocrats are required to do what they do, though hopefully in a more appropriate manner (well..."appropriate" I should say; most admins I've come into contact with have been very nice and helpful people...the stereotypes are just bullshit disguised as substance).

Ok now where you are right, according to me anyway, is that Wikipedia somehow needs to be forcefully reminded of its primary objective. That is, we are supposted to be constructing an encyclopedia. I think as a community we need to do something to motivate ourselves towards that end. Maybe have bots posting a glaring message on your userpage saying, "HAVE YOU CONTRIBUTED TO AN ARTICLE TODAY? Go here to help out" and stuff. Something like that wouldn't be a bad idea. Think of it as us being sort of in bad shape, and we need to exercise to become healthy again. Well the main problem in such an endeavor is motivation, and somehow we have to acquire that again or strengthen it if we already have it (and I believe we mostly do).UberCryxic 19:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

All due respect, dude, but you are not a disgruntled wikipedian. You haven't been around long enough yet to become one. Stick around...become embroilled in some more heated edit wars, Rfas and RfCs. Glad you like that painting of the Polish lanciers de garde on parade (I admire your good taste in art:), but did you know how much I had to fight to keep that image on the 'pedia? Yet it still got deleted so I moved it to the commons and now its been deleted there. Such battles take a toll.

I also resent you comparing my points to "war on terror rhetoric". You have no point of reference...you were not here before the Seigenthaler incident, nor even, I think, for the userbox wars. Hence you have little idea how it has changed...or you are deliberately blind to it.

But for myself and a growing number, Wikipedia today is not the same place we fell in love with. Collegiality and collaboration have become increasingly rare phenomenia. Confrontation and conflict are all too common commodities. The current mechanisms for dispute resolution, mediation and participation are breaking down. As a result, the power structure has become more authoritarian, bureaucratic and arbitrary. The very size and growth you tout as signs of success are the reasons why. Wikipedia is a victim of its own success and is starting to collapse under its own weight.

Try and see beyond the numbers. Of all the hundreds of thousands of users, only around 12,000 contribute more than 5 edits per month average. Included here are bots, sock puppets and serial vandals, bringing the number of legitimate, regular contributors even lower. Only around 3,000 users make any sort of substantial contribution, [a partial and somewhat dated list]. That's less than 1%...waaay less. The pace of new article creation has slowed while article deletions are way up. And while Wikipedia is still the 17th most visited internet site, last year it was in the top 10.

For many, including me obviously, the project is in decline. Nagging and bot spam won't get people to contribute...why should they if they are only expendable cogs in a machine? In fact, such tactics would most likely backfire and drive away potential writers. To borrow your metaphor- why bother exercising and getting healthy, when there is a cancer eating away at the body? But you are not ready to accept this yet. When you are, you are welcome to join the "club", but I cannot assure you it will still be here nor I to greet you as the proprietor.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your comments on how well qualified I am to talk about this matter and stick to the matter itself. The label a "community at war with itself" almost sounds like a civil war. But all you need is a simple reductio ad absurdum proof to show that it's not the case: if Wikipedia were at war with itself, there would not be a Wikipedia. Nothing would be functioning. There'd be no new main page articles, no new FAs....nothing. People would just fight over everything and it'd be a huge mess. Unless you take the time to properly explain what you mean by a "community at war with itself," I'll have to regard this as jibberish. Communities at war with themselves don't survive very long. Either that or one side wins and a new community is born, but that sound too Hegelian so I'd rather not go there. My comparisons are more than justified: you are unnecessarily acting in a very alarmist manner. It's tough to extricate oneself from a theory or worldview that one has become engrossed in, but it doesn't hurt to do it once in a while. You have a conception of Wikipedia that....just isn't there. There are problems, but not of the sort or magnitude that you are talking about.

Again, I don't see this decline you speak of. You have no relevant statistics. As far as I'm concerned there's a group of a few Wikipedians who are dissatisfied with the way things are going. Yeah I got that, but you're a minority. You do not represent the Wikipedia community, which by and large is satisfied and working well.

I don't know what standard you're using for the internet traffic statistic. If Alexa, then Wikipedia has actually climbed steadily. If you're referring to something else, I'd like to know about it. But my sense is that Wikipedia's growth has been consistent. Article creation has also been more or less consistent and the English Wikipedia still grows by leaps and bounds. But let's face it: some articles out there need to be deleted for obvious reasons.UberCryxic 04:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1st poll:

Hi everyone! This is the 1st ever poll to be sent out. Please read the Disclaimer below & enjoy! -- Spawn Man 05:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Done Spawn bro. Answers are below (none should really come as a surprise;) Do you want me to mail them to you?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships

• Question 1: Do you feel that other Wikipedians are as nice (or as horrible!) as when you started editing Wikipedia as a registered user?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Roughly about the same. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 2: If you answered "No" above, how have other Wikipedian's attitudes changed?
  • A)They have grown nicer. B)They have grown meaner. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.

• Question 3: Are admins as nice as you think they should be? If you're an admin, try to be truthful...
  • A)Yes. B)No, they are nicer. C)No, they are meaner/grumpier. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 4: Have you ever been in a serious dispute on Wikipedia?
  • A)Yes. B)No, I've never been in a dispute. C)No, I've only been in minor disputes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 5: Have you ever been blocked from editing Wikipedia?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. (You can find out by checking "My contributions" & selecting "block log"). D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.

• Question 6: Have you ever met another editor on Wikipedia in real life?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.

• Question 7: Do you enjoy communicating or working with other editors on Wikipedia?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 8: Have you ever taken a "Wikibreak" due to stress from other editors?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)No, I've only taken a "Wikibreak" due to un-editor related stress. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 9: Have you ever collaborated on an article with another editor on Wikipedia?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Several times. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 10: Do you envy other editors on Wikipedia for their achievements or good fortune? Be honest...
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Q1: B Q2: B Q3: C Q4: A Q5: A Q6: A Q7: C Q8: A Q9: A Q10: C --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Less Bull More Writing

Does this mean you believe I should not be an admin? To put it another way, is the writing of Featured Articles the only acceptable contribution an admin can make to this encyclopedia? Raven4x4x 11:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raven. I don't know you and doubt I participated in your Rfa. So my natural response is to say, no, unless you get one of your Cricket articles up to speed soon. I'm not being snide, but honest. I see myself, and everyone here, as writers/editors first and all else, including janitorial duties second. The primary job of the admin cabal is to facilitate this and never lose sight of the project's ultimate goal. Unfortunately, too many admins now see themselves primarily as janitors/cops. More good writers are desparately needed if Wikipedia's quality and reputaion are to be improved. Admins should lead the way and set the example. Otherwise, they may have the power but they have no moral authority to police a community of writers. regards,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't doubt the need for more quality article writers, but I have no problem admitting that I'm not one of them. I'm not a great writer, and with university commitments I don't have the time, but should that stop me doing what I can to help out? I don't see myself as a policeman at all; I'm not a great writer so I try and help make things easier for people who are. I'm interested to know why you feel this is a bad thing, and how the encyclopedia would be helped if I wasn't an admin, which is the implication I get from your above comments. Raven4x4x 00:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Take what implications you will...but if it's any consolation, I see no reason why you should not NOT be an admin either, dig?;) Don't get me wrong, there are some GREAT vandal thwacking admins out there whom I deeply respect...Curps, Naconkantari, Sjakkalle to name a few. And all of them, like you, work quietly and devotedly behind the scenes to make us tempermental writers' lot a bit easier. Unfortunately, there are also far too many admins who see us as their subjects and their word as Wiki-law (see above for some examples). Until we evolve a more effective means of clipping their wings and culling the corps of these unneeded rogues, the only way to stop non-writing admins from running roughshod over writing wiki-peons, is to promote more writers. I'm having a discussion with Ligulem on these issues too, so please don't take it personally. Best regards,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish.

It's always great to hear nice things about yourself from people you respect. I remember how surprised and delighted I was when you showed up with smart, valuable content advice on the Epaminondas FAC; "Wow," I thought, "Wikipedia really is a pretty cool place; where else could you write and get informed feeback on an article about some obscure ancient general?" That FAC marks the moment I really got hooked on this project, and it was in no small part because of your comments. So, in addition to the slightly belated thanks above, I owe you an even more belated thanks for showing me why this project has so much potential when I was just starting out. Hope you can forgive the delay :-). --Robth^Talk 04:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My friend, your belated thanks could not have come at a better time...just when I needed a reminder of why I still bother to logon here. Now I owe you my thanks. So cheers and here's to admins who are great writers and to making obscure ancient generals less obscure;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] La Grande Armée

Per the GA reviewer in the talk page, I am now going to start removing some of the images, not because they are copyvios, but because there are simply too many. I will then renominate for GA.UberCryxic 17:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You did a very good job adding citations and trimming some of the smaller, redundant pics. But you trimmed too many. I'm going to readd Geracault's Chaussuer and the other guard cavalry pics in gallery form like the rest. Remember, my friend, our goal is FA, not GA;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true....or at least that should be our goal. For some reason though, none of us have moved very much on this article to get it there.UberCryxic 00:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We should reassemble the team, form a task Battle Group Grade Armee, and get this mutha done then;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is, incidentally, a Napoleonic Era task force that isn't doing much at the moment; if anyone has the time to prod it back into action, that'd be great. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you have a project and portal to run or something;->--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely cite the hell out of this article if I could, but I don't have many of the sources that you used. Consequently I'm hesitant to make any changes because I worry that a significantly different text would emerge, something that I don't want because this article is already great. I think the only people that can get this article to FA now are the ones who built it originally: you and Ansbach. What happened to him btw? Hasn't edited in a while.UberCryxic 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We also don't really need to assemble any team. I've found that the best and greatest work here is done by people working individually long hours at night watching porn in the.....oh crap, nvm. Haha just kidding. But yeah what we really need is just someone dedicated who will go in there, revampt the article (by which I mean add more citations), and take it to FAC.UberCryxic 17:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So it comes down to me again, does it....was afraid of that...LE SIGH. Aside from all the usual distractions (including pr0n;) and a terrible lack of motivation, my style of writing doesn't lend itself well to inline cites. I can tell you where I got something from, but not exactly where usually. And I like to rephrase it in my own words...to do otherwise, even if it's cited, is hardly more than "cut n paste" to my POV. My PoV also thinks this whole equation of quality=verifiability=inline cites is ridiculously anal and impractical. Not every article should, nor can, have inline cites. But once groupthink sets in you have a hard time changing anyone's mind. Ansbach, sadly, seems to have given up...for the same reason I almost did earlier. On the brightside of life, I'm having a wonderful fall outside of Wikipedia...a complete 180 of my situation this time last year. Hope you're having the same:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and it may come down to me having to make some major edits/revisions on your history section. I hope and trust you are cool with that, oui? In fact, worse case scenario, it might even have to be spun off into a separate article should length become a major issue. I hope you understand...in editing, as in war, sacrifices must be made for the greater good.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's cool. I don't see why the Grand Army would not deserve its own history article! There's plenty of sources to make that FA too.UberCryxic 04:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Poll:

Hi everyone! This is the 2nd poll ever to be sent out. Please read the Disclaimer below & enjoy! -- Spawn Man 09:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Shall do...answers are on the way!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll 2 - Writing subjects

• Question 1: When you edit or write articles on Wikipedia, do you specialise, or tend to write about a single or select topic range? For example, only frogs or only movies.
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)I have a few topics I write about. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 2: If you have more than only one topic range, what are the top 3 topics or subjects you write about on Wikipedia? For example, frogs, movies & cars.
  • A)My top 3 are... B)I have less than 3 topic ranges. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.

• Question 3: Have you ever written or edited an article about your home town or the city you live in?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Briefly. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 4: Have you ever edited what was, or turned out to be, a controversial subject or article in current news or on Wikipedia?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 5: Have you ever reverted vandalism?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.

• Question 6: Have you ever helped get an article to Featured Article status?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)I helped partly. D)I've edited a Featured Article after it was promoted, but never helped to get one featured. E)Not sure. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.

• Question 7: Do you find it difficult to think of things to write about on Wikipedia?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 8: On Wikipedia, do you edit articles to do with Wikipedia policies & voting etc more frequently than you edit actual encyclopedic articles?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)I have an equal mix of the two. D)Occasionally. E)Not sure. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.

• Question 9: Do you wish there was a Wikipedia article about your life?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 10: Would you like to expand the range of topics you write about on Wikipedia?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

• Question 11: Do you usually write about topics that are to do with your job, school or hobbies?
  • A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't work, I've never been to school & I don't have hobbies. :(. E)I don't know. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.

[edit] Re: Commons heeeelp

Bleh. Unfortunately, I have no pull there at all; I don't really even edit on Commons except for the occasional image upload. For what it's worth, I highly doubt he's doing it to bother you specifically; there are a lot of people on Commons who are more familiar with the rather stricter stance on copyright issues that has been used on de: and some other European editions. All I can suggest is trying to dig up the authors of those images. My apologies for not being able to help more with this. Kirill Lokshin 18:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin there, as I was judged too inactive and my candiature rejected there few months ago :( As for Ejdzej actions, I believe you should discuss them with him. I reviewed some of your images: some have source (I am not sure if our policies require an author, it is worthwile to add him if you can, otherwise you can always write author unknown and get it over with), but some like Image:RobertBurns.jpg are unsourced (another Wiki is not a valid source) and as such are valid deletion targets at any wiki.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Gents, thanks for the quick responses. I have taken your good advice and tried to appeal to him directly. Please add your voices to mine if you are so inclined. You are both highly regarded community leaders and smooth as hell;) Plus Piotrus can help out with any language difficulties.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New portal

Hey Ghost, thought you might be interested to know that the French military history portal is up and running. Your involvement there would be much appreciated!UberCryxic 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Merci pour l'invitaion. Je vais le regarder immediatement.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chess?

You up for a game of chess? I've started a game at Esperanza's game's room, but nobody wants to play the master! Thought you might want to as an aside? Hope you have a nice day R.D.H. Spawn Man 00:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh...someone beat me to the challenge. But I'll still be cheering for you on the sidelines when I'm not whispering advice such as (check out Nimzo Indian ;). Do you play GO also? Another cool ancient game of strategery.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships RESULTS

Hope you enjoy the results which you, the editors of Wikipedia, changed in every way. Have a ncie day! -- Spawn Man 10:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

--Panarjedde 21:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Anytime, but please, don't let it fall into the hands of the barbarians again;->--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the laugh

Your aside to Ideogram made me laugh out loud, which is a rare thing these days. Alas, but I fear that you may have only attracted him. As for your general observation, I have a couple of distinctions that I make, at least for myself:

1. There are people who believe that those who "know best" should ignore all users as well as rules to enforce this "best." I find their philosophy repellent. I believe that, if our RfA is broken, then our policy formation mechanism is shattered into a thousand pieces, but the faults are not in our users, but in the way we announce our procedures. If we need to restrict the franchise, that's better than ignoring all but those of the same opinion. If we need to break down each piece of a policy into smaller, inarguable chunks, that's better than not presenting it at all. However, this takes time and thought, and some people do not wish to devote that time and energy and therefore act.
2. There are people who believe that they know best, that their friends know almost as well, and that some other people can be worthy when they agree. They, however, do not act on these impulses except where there is a policy vaccuum. This is the more proper "IAR" group (ignore rules when the situation doesn't match the rules, but honor any rules that do cover the instance).

My feeling is that the two most active and corrosive members of the first class have been rebuffed by the decision as it stands. The second group is potentially like the first, but they tend to look for occasions of proclaiming a situation novel, when it probably isn't, and to interpret a policy very broadly or narrowly, but they don't just act and tell everyone else to go to hell. It's true that their attitude disaffects users by the score. It's true that their attitude shows up in sneaky places and prompts outrage, but they don't block without reason (usually), don't get revenge (very often), or look for occasions to get rid of people (generally). I agree that the philosophy has to change before we can be sure that the actions will change, that we need for Cyde not to believe things like this (if he does), Carnildo not to believe that his judgment is superior to another's, etc. However, there is no way for an arbcom settlement to address the philosophy without their stating something along the lines of "The members of this arbitration committee reconfirm their belief that users are the source of all power on Wikipedia, that any 'government' is a government by consent only," and they would have to do that voluntarily. I don't think they agree with the position or would volunteer to step into what looks like a polemic, so it's too much to hope for. It is at least a good thing that two of the most active and ungenerous persons are no longer in a position to carry nitro to a fire. There are still others, several, but actions are the only things that we can worry about. Geogre 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have provided some genuine laughs, which have become a scarce commodity around these parts of late (along with congeniality, collegiality and good faith). As usual, my friend, you manage to see subtleties where I see only starkness. To my view there are basically two groups here-Those of us whose prime interest is building the 'pedia (hello:) and those whose primary interest is controlling it. Also, to my mind, you deserve no small amount of THANKS, for successfully standing up to some of the key leaders of this latter group. I have never doubted your integrity but, I'm ashamed to admit now, I did doubt your metal (And have looked to a certain Sicilian compadre of ours to provide quantities of that quality:). You have pleasantly surprised me, and I'm happy I was wrong about you on that score. Who doesn't want to cheer for the seemingly milksop honor student who stands up to the schoolyard bullies?!...Except, of course, for the bullies themselves. You have done far more than I, in both building the pedia and standing up to the bullies, here. And you have even given me greater courage to do likewise. So it is the least I can do to provide you with some laughs and encouragement along with my sincere respect and perhaps even fashion a "horse" to run in your derby:> --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You are most welcome! Just never forget-You are a writer first, and a damn good one...don't let them turn you into a cop or a B'crat. Product is more important than process, and when in doubt IAR;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA!

R.D.H., thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support on my RFA! --plange 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiya

Thought I'd drop by & say hi.... Well there you go, I said it. ;) Spawn Man 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

You never visit, you never call! I'm beginning to think you're avoiding me? ;) You're still on my friend's list, but I hardly see any of you R.D.H. You're still my bestest friend... I'm gonna be sending this to all of my buddies, cause nobody's dropping by... *Sigh*... Spawn Man 06:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)