User talk:Privatemusings/Archive 4

This user is sharp as a marble. Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | current talk below

This user will make anyone a cup of tea, as long as he can have one too.

The sincerest form of flattery?

See [1]. LadyofShalott 06:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

heh! - I'm half surprised I didn't get an absentee block for such shenanigans! It's indubitably the rascal wayne smith up to mischief - he's a chap who's registered various domain names (like jimmywales.org) and sort of messes around with them a bit. I wonder if 'privatemusings.com.au' is available? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

M-intercourse

Hi
As much as I share your suspicions (as I mentioned in parallel at the image blacklist), the uploader claims to be the author, so {{di-no permission}} and {{di-no source}} aren't really the way to go. I would suggest to list it (or them, if you want, the SPA has two other images that haven't been deleted) at WP:PUF. I can do it too, if you don't want.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 23:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, though I'd hope that the situation is clear enough to warrant a deletion after 5 days without too much trouble - I'll follow the link through to the 'puf' page, and would probably concur that the two other images should probably go - I'll take a look at that too.. thanks for your help with this :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

G'day

Hello Privatemusings; that all seems like a while ago by now, no? I've changed my mind quite a bit about you since though, I see the odd (he he) astute and thoughtful comment from you every so often, and I think your a very honest and well intentioned person, who is unusually honest and open. Sorry if that make you blush! Anyway, though your kind words were appreciated, please dont think that I can be fobbed off with the Kingdom of, jeez, Leinster. The only reason that place is not part of greater Cork is we feel sorry for them, and we can't be bothered, really. By the way, is wiki-voices still a going concern? Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

/me duly blushes - it is indeed a while ago, though in many ways it's plus ça change, plus ce n'est pas la même chose... I was pretty pissed off to see bishonen blocked - that was clumsy and unnecessary in my view. I promised Cork to an Irish violinist I once knew back in London (it was worth it) - but heck, have the whole of Munster, and keep an eye on her for me - she can be a bit forgetful.... Re : Wiki Voices - I've had a hiatus for quite a while now, having spent a bit more time in that alternate reality known as 'reality' - though I just noticed (and this is very cool) that there's a chat happening in about 3 hours time - so the project is still going strong(ish) cheers, and even if I don't see you around - be sure that I'm reading - your content work really is exceptional :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Great; I'm king of Munster, at last. Dont worry about your Irish violinist, I'll grant her a farm or two, and throw in a forest, maybe even a mountain, just as a favour for youself. Anyway, must dash, taxes to collect, dont you know. Ceoil (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you know

Hi Privatemusings! You're lucky... 1503 characters :) JulieSpaulding (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

hooray! (though don't be too sure that luck has much to do with it ;-) thanks heaps, Privatemusings (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I'm going to verify the length and date for you and accept the book source in good faith (because obviously I can't actually confirm it without having the book in front of me). Congratulations! JulieSpaulding (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks for helping me dot the is and cross the ts - this is rather exciting! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Unfortunately the DYK guidelines are picky for some reason. I think it might be because the content is going on to the main page. JulieSpaulding (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tact, Usefulness and Demeanor

Hey Privatemusings,

We have always gotten along well and have had some interesting and fruitful conversations. However I have been concerned with the way that you have been conducting yourself on Wikipedia over recent months. Although I do understand the issues concerning sexual images, your methods of bringing this to peoples attention are in my opinion bordering on trolling. I believe also that if you continue with the current trend, your simply going to meet ever waining returns, and considering that those returns are minimal as it is, and the fact that you recognise this yourself, I suggest that you seriously get a grip of the way you preach your message. There is no gain for youself, this project, and the policies of the foundation as a whole if you continue the way are. It is for your own good to get in touch with the project. Pissing into the wind is never a good idea and it seems you have more than a whole colostomy bag coming at you. A change of direction would suit us all. Seddσn ^talk 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

dang it, I've probably missed you this evening, Sed.... I'll respond more fully soon, and look forward to catching up about this anon - in short I appreciate you coming by, but kinda disagree with you about a number of things, in a number of ways - I look forward to talking them through :-) (if you wanna) - your final sentence reminded me of a scene in the big lebowski, btw... do you know the film? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy (as ever, huh?!) - but this is important to me. I think your criticism is a bit misplaced, though your intentions are clearly good, and the thought is appreciated... you around? Privatemusings (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have a similar complaint. Firstly, this edit—which to me simply stinks of pettiness. Secondly, your "placeholder" at the Sam Blacketer 2 RfA page. [Whacks PM with cluehammer.] I think you know better than that. AGK 15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

curses! - I pootle back onto the wiki, and get all excited at a new messages bar, and tis but a grumble from someone I respect, for some small foolishness. You raised a smile my end by appearing to assert that to say FT 'resigned' is someone wrong (or petty), but the bottom line is that I really don't care what it says - I just think it looks silly to differentiate, and a minor anal streak reared its head in inspiring me to make my correction.

in terms of the rfa2 placeholder - I can't remember what I wrote on that page - I'm hoping it was something along the lines of 'don't write anything here until june 15th, per sam's request' - but it may have been a whole bunch sillier? Either way, you've deleted it as 'not appropriate' I see, so I consider myself duly chastised.... how you doing otherwise? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: G'day Kosh

Private Musings,
I saw your note. DOn't worry , I don't bite (at least not anymore). Yeah, I'm using two different computers to work with while on Wikipedia. One is a work computer with a strong firewall, and therefore a lot of the webservervices are not readily accessible to me. The page has been blanked (by PrivateMusings). I'll leave it blank at her request as I'm not interested in stirring up more drama.
_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 12:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the note, Kosh - I see the page has now been deleted, so I hope you figured out some way of keeping track of the source material for your article work which works for you.... I hope you're having a good, productive time around the wiki :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for James Annesley

On May 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Annesley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

well there you go! hows about that :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. More please? Ceoil (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WR thread

Gee, less reads than my blog. Well, at least they plugged [maybe that isn't the right word] my articles, although, too bad he didn't plug my photo poll as well :( YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

heh - the scary thing about your polls, monkey, is that they're so bloomin' long! Plus the worst thing about asking a crowd what it thinks is that they then proceed to tell you! - I'm all in favour of photographers choice in such matters :-) - This particular 'paid editing' thing doesn't seem all that earth-shattering to me, but it does look like someone was being a bit naughty. We'll see how it pans out.... Privatemusings (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah you noticed that out paid colleague neglected to mention some not so favourable things about his clients YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

indeed! I've tried to balance things a bit.. whaddya reckon? - I think I'll ask for a bit more help too.... Privatemusings (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ps. if you find any useful sources on BS, do feel free to flick me an email - I'm still digging around a little on this one :-) Privatemusings (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

re G'day

Thanks, will take a look into it later. Cirt (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan King (JK)

This article has been stable for 5 months. I've given it a WP:GAN ...& advertised the fact widely to JK-philes. But there's a huge backlog & we seem to be lacking for Editor review(s). I suspect JK's reputation is such (utterly invisible in USA, putrid monster in Britain) that few will willingly touch it. Help? ... Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.

O so yer Purples too? You wrote: "Im thinking of adding some detail on King's use of market research - thoughts? - Purples 2007"

-An important notion, & I want to see this- at least mentioned if not more. Dunno but *research* seems major to JK's personal style- even the entire career. I bet JK pioneered a kind of "total" commodification of musical elements, analogous to the "total serialization' of today's classical music. After "They all gone 2 the Moon" everything he did has the same bouncy BPM until he discovers reggae; now he's _all_ about synthetic reggae beat. It's like Gilbert & Sullivan without the Sullivan (the music). Sad actually, he could have musical talent. Old story... Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 13:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

that's a really interesting point (about all the tracks being the same BPM etc.) - I hadn't thought about it in that way before..... The market research thing was in reference to the somewhat notorious peices of paper JK apparently got various folk / kids to fill in, both out of interest, and perhaps as a rather odd sort of foreplay! (this is 'original research' in this form, of course, though there are some sources, I think :-) - it'd be great to get the article to 'good article' status, so I'll try and find time to dive in and help. Nice to 'meet' you, by the way :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm.... apparently I'm you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=298528800&oldid=298520604 Little grape (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

and dammit, now you've blown our cover by posting here! ;-) - I'll try and find time to jump back into JK at some point - you're spot on, of course (well I would say that, wouldn't I ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Symonds

Shouldn't the article be deleted? How is he notable? Enigma^msg 06:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

it would be my view that he's most definitely notable - but yeah, the article clearly needs work. I'll try and get to it - the idea of losing an article on him is a shame - though not much of a loss in its current form, I agree.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As you said, I'm basing it on its current form, which makes no claim to notability whatsoever. Enigma^msg 23:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Drowning, not waving

Thank you for creating {{Drowning, not waving}}. It's recently been added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing where it fits the bill very well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

heh... glad you liked it, david! (twas I who added it after seeing a note on the talk page, by the way :-) - now if I can convince 25 other people to offer their thoughts on the template, we could consider then moving forward to 'templates for comment' for a full appraisal.... why? I dunno - just seems to be the way to do things ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Whack! Yeah, thanks for reminding me...can we make it the Belgian beer hall and I will definitely try to get there...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ow! serves me right for playing with the bigger boys ;-) - next wed. meetup is actually part of the 'wiki wednesday' series, so the venue set at 'Atlassian HQ, 173-185 Sussex Street, Sydney' - on the plus side, I think we may end up with free beer and pizza - you'll have to put up with some idiots giving presentations though (well actually, just one idiot at the moment... but we'll see :-) - maybe see you there... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bishonen/block_discussion

PM, creating User:Bishonen/block_discussion is an inappropriate use of Bishonen's user space, and not helpful to the conflict resolution process. One aspect of the agreement for the two parties to chat was that it would be a one on one chat, so I intentionally created the block discussion page in user talk so that there was not an accompanying meta discussion hosted in Bishonen's user space. I should have protected the accompanying user page, but I didn't think anyone would break standard usage of the namespaces.

I have now redirected and protected it. Use your own userspace for this type of interference, and I wont interfere, or ask Bishonen to unprotect the page in her userspace. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

dear john,

by the time you read this letter.... oh hang on! (sorry, back on track....) - I hope Bish didn't view the actions as inappropriate, and I hope that ultimately they help transparency, and as such are indeed helpful. I don't read the 'agreement' as tightly as you, though mileage may vary. I hope any surprise you felt at me breaking 'standard usage' wasn't too onerous, but generally speaking I don't really have any problem with your actions beyond these mild disagreements.

I would note, however, that it's getting to the point, in my view, where the opinions of community leaders, such as arbitrators, on this matter are become more important - have you noticed the comments of folk like Raul and KC? - Do you have any view in the matter? I'd encourage you to speak up, and I actually believe that a statement from you (both the person and your role) would be greatly appreciated. If you value Bish as an editor, or if you feel she was treated in any way poorly, please speak up immediately. It's kinda important.

oh, and I mentioned you in passing at a meetup tonight - all good, of course ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ps. one thing which I find particularly comment worthy is that Jimbo mentioned that someone advised him to block Bishonen permanently. Are you surprised by this advice? Do you feel it speaks as to the judgement of the person who so advised? Does this raise any concerns? I feel these are important questions - do you? Privatemusings (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't fathom how you think your creation of that page helped transparency. The agreement was between Bishonen and Jimmy, and me, and I would rather not let your interpretation of it derail the ongoing one-on-one discussion.

I've been reading most of the related discussions, but have real world and arbitration commitments keeping me busy. If that makes me less of a leader, so be it.

I quickly looking around onwiki and inemail, and didnt find where Jimbo indicated that he was advised to block Bishonen permanently. Can you please find the diff for that; providing a diff is real important as you shouldnt throw around "he saids" like that without diffs. And if you can find one, the context will help me figure out what is being referred to. It might be a misunderstanding, or it could be something worth looking into. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I really just thought that the thread (well Raul's post in particular, honestly) was quite important, and deserving of some appropriate platform rather than being simply removed from view, that's all.

one private muse of mine is that Bish is a huge asset to this project, and it'll be really sad to see her leave - I really don't feel my involvement has in any way contributed to any derailment, and my comment about leadership was intended really just to cajole you into commenting in some way, before Bish wanders off......

The diff.s thing I could comment further on, being really a matter of trust - though I apologise for your time wasted sniffing round elsewhere - it was actually part of the discussion here - maybe it's only a bit surprising and depressing to idiots like me.

take care, and ta ta fer now... Privatemusings (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano

Please return to avoiding any further involvement of any kind with this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

dammit, I knew my little post at coren's talk page was going to get me in trouble..... but 'ain't it nice to see the attribution all fixed up! - I'll not return to the article 'til 2010 :-) Privatemusings (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)it does make me smile to compare the deleted revisions with the current article though - perhaps at someone point this will all come out for others to be so amused!

Hello

Hello how are you? I admire your work on wikipedia. Please consider mentoring me? Baileyquarter (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

well that's quite the most surprising request I think I've had for a while! - What made you think of me, bailey? - I'm flattered, and happy to share my thoughts on stuff, though some might argue it's more of a 'what not to do' than anything else! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw you mentioned in threads when I was reviewing historical contributions of users with whom i'm interacting at the request for comment on Jimbo's powers. You seem pretty cool. Baileyquarter (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

well that's very nice too! - so what sort of thing would you be after in a mentor? - I suspect that I'm probably happier just having a chat about things as they occur to you... what sort of things are you most interested in on wikipedia? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Following our chat...

...at ANI, something occurred to me. Hi.

I've thought about the question of whether it should be "against the rules" to call someone a "little shit". As the nature of a "rule" suggests, we can talk about the principle of whether one should always issue 3 hour blocks for calling people "little shit"s. On the other hand, we don't have to apply categorical rules like that. I would even suggest that our first, and fundamental rule is that we don't apply categorical rules like that.

Now, if you can impose a 3 hour-block on an administrator, 6 hours after they call someone a "little shit", and have that block generate a community-wide re-evaluation of our culture... then that's a good block. If that or some comparable effect doesn't result, then it was a bad block.

It's not about applying abstract rules. It's about what happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a reply... but not tonight :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

yup... I still have a reply, but keep getting distracted... soon! Privatemusings (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Heading Heat

At AN/I you said "I've cooled the temperature a bit in the section heading". Don't you mean "I've cooled the temperature a bit in the section heating?  ;)--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

heh! - boom boom! - you are indeed legendary ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You've got A Fucking Barnstar!

Yet another

Barnstar!

I'm awarding you this Fucking Barnstar for being a rather useful little shit to have around teh wiki. Keep up the useful contributions even if teh littluns don't appreciate them.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I never saw this one, made me smile which is much needed today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA at AN

PM, wouldn't you worry that an admin privilege connected to FA would corrupt that process? Wouldn't everyone know if someone was on their 8th or 9th who could get RfA another way? I think it's an intriguing idea, but problematic.

I would like to see more focus on article work and content contributions. But I'm biased. :) And I just looked through some new pages where there is a long backlog. Talk about thankless work...

I actually think the consensus process at RfA work pretty well, although it gets messy sometimes. I would like to see a better method to rein in problematic admins perhaps by allowing the community to set limits on certain admin actions when there is a frequent problem. For example requiring an admin to get consensus for blocks. I've even suggested an adminship category that allows gnomic work, but no blocking, for those who have no desire to engage in disputes of that sort (perhaps vandalism blocks would still be allowed). Anyway, have a great week. Stay out of trouble. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the note, CoM :-) - actually one of my main motivations in suggesting this idea is that we become less monolithic in our structures / processes - I would like to see adminship genuinely no big deal, so would like to look at various ways of encouraging all stable contributors to accept the extra bits and buttons (and put them down again if they don't want them, or can't use them usefully) - on a 'meta' level too, I'd like to see a wiki where pretty reasonable ideas (I really do think this is at least worth chatting about) can be explored in a friendly way, I think we can afford to slow down a bit :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This...

may be relevant to your interests. → ROUX ₪ 06:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

yup - just noticed it, and dropped a comment in... I think it's an awesome start to what I hope will be a really useful process - good on you! Privatemusings (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

please leave the personal attacks struck.There was no listening on the rude editors part and I have struck them, I would ask you to leave them struck. They include accusations of racism to mention only one part. T o say there was a round the block discussion is wrong. These remarks have been struck by off2riorob. simple(Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

replied at the original thread, and maybe more later? :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I knew the name was familiar! - My addled brain just pulled up the connection - and it was connected to this post of yours, rob. I remember feeling at the time that it was a little forthright, and a tad aggressive (kicking a chap when he's down etc. - albeit a sock running arbitrator who kind of lied through omission about his editing history, and gained positions of trust and responsibility etc. etc.) - my point in virtually all of these 'civility' tiffs is that we really should welcome good faith, honest communication of that nature, and indeed of the nature Giano posted in his conversation with Durova - there being points of value behind what you may consider to be invective. It's a fools game to try and 'draw the line' anywhere in language, as many much smarter than I can explain, but the real danger is that it offers lazy ways out of conversations that we really should be having..... whaddya think? Privatemusings (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You my friend... yes I remember all of my posts. You have to mention the issues surrounding my comment, and you say it well.

It may well of been a tad attackishy but he took it well. There must be line in internet discussion, two editors opposed, growing and moving towards the middle ground and some kind of solutive consensus is actually the only way to go. All insult throwing is worthless and destructive. I have had my issues here at wiki and have grown a lot, not just here but through things happening at wikipedia I would say I have grown in real life as a person. That is what I would like for you, me and durova and Giano and all the other editors. To overcome our anger and hurt and selfish desires and to come and play and learn and grow together. Best regards to you. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

well then, with a smile, I'll ask you how helpful you feel blocking is in that process? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano is rude and won't take it back and gets blocked, ok . or...Giano is rude and is allowed to continue being rude. Which is the most helpful? (Off2riorob (talk))

I think the best way forward is to accept the value from Giano's posts, and put aside the subjective assessment of 'rudeness' (particularly lest we fail to attend to the beam in our own eyes!) - in this case, I think there was a valid point in Giano's posts (regardless of whether or not I agree with him) - though it drew a predictable (regrettable to my mind) reaction. I think that the block in this case was a weak trump card, and the wiki loses. I'm happy to explain further why it's really important in my book to work hard on listening to all project contributors :-) (absolutely not saying that you would disagree with that, but am saying that an unintended consequence of the approach taken is that less listening and communicating actually occurs). Privatemusings (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no value at all in Giano's post in the situation relating to his 24hours. I think the wiki has won by his block. If I am repeatedly rude to any editor...I will block myself and then request the block to be doubled. what do you care about gianos rudeness anyway? Your friends with similar opinions about the project, yes? (Off2riorob (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

well here's the spot where we can pleasantly disagree then :-) - If you'd like to chat further, possibly so I can explain why I feel Giano's posts did indeed have some value, I'm happy to - but do remember that there's really no problem with people having different ideas and opinions about stuff! - I'm having trouble reading your last bit, it kind of runs the risk of being interpreted as a bit petulant (the 'what do you care' bit) - and the last sentence intrigues me, but I can't follow what it refers to (sorry!) - I consider quite a few folk around here my 'friends' (in an online kinda way) - although I think it's no stretch to say that the feeling isn't necessarily reciprocated in all cases! I'm most interested in chatting in this way because I hope you might be able to reflect on some of the downsides to your position, and consider whether or not you really think the best course of action was taken. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it came over a little petulant, I was actually attempting to go a bit deeper and asked you to voice your allegiance to Giano. ..To say it out loud...Giano is my friend and I don't care if he is rude...or...me an giano are from the same town so I always support him, wrong or right.. or.. please...... fill in the blanks for me..? (Off2riorob (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

no worries at all! - It was one of those 'text on the screen is a bit rubbish at communication' things (kinda like the giano situation, actually!) - I admire Giano for his tenacity and contributions to wikipedia, and have chatted with him around the place over the last few years, but don't really feel that his involvement particularly influences me one way or the other - I'd likely post equally in response to your being blocked over the comments at Sam's page, or if Jack were blocked for saying 'fucking' above. There's a bit of an irony here in that in the thread we're discussing over at the council talk page, Durova makes a point that if the pragmatic response to an action is not helpful, then that action is a bad one - I wonder if you feel that would apply here at all? (giano's asleep, we don't do 'cool down' blocks etc. etc.?) Privatemusings (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the block 100 percent. Actually, I would block him for ever, and only allow him back if he apologised and promised to move forward in a more respectful way, and if he did it again a longer block 24 days, and next time 224 days. Actually sometimes people have finished with something but they linger on ..in a bad way as they really don't want to be there and they are bored with the place or the relationship and they actually can get very destructive to the person or place and the energy actually is also destructive to them as well, sometimes it is better to just move on. (Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

< phewie! That's some pretty tough love right there! I'm not sure that your approach would scale very well to the whole wiki, and I don't agree with it in this instance either. I don't think you can legislate to create a healthy, friendly, atmosphere - some of the most productive corners of the wiki are, in my opinion, free of rigid application of pretty much any rules (and if there are any, they are dutifully ignored, as every good wiki citizen learns!). It's rocky road when we start projecting, or hypothesising about editors motivations for being here too - but it's very healthy that you can say 'I can't see that Giano is good for the project' - I'm certainly proud to say that I can :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, tough love. I am not saying that Giano is not good for the project, I am saying that personal attacks are not good for the project. I can say that without even knowing who the people are. You yourself are a very polite person and yet you defend your friends rudeness? I have found some things here that do not appear in reality and yet are bandied about by all and sundry...eg...we don't do cool down blocks...or....blocks are ..preventative and not punative......and..consensus..especially consensus.

and a few others that have yet to enter my mind this morning.

Let us start a thread to discuss this and have a setting of personal attacks and general rudeness is ok and lets see how constructive it gets. (Off2riorob (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal

As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

re G'day Fayssal

Hope you're good :-) - I must also take this opportunity to let you know that almost every time I see your username around the place, I get that catchy 80s electro tune in my head - your very own soundtrack :-)

What brought me here really though was your comment in the arbitration amendment thing that someone filed about 'my' case - it's all kind of a long time ago now, of course, but I did (and do) find the irony of JzG having run 'Cruftbane' as a long term sock rather delicious - the fact that Guy ran these two accounts all came out ages ago too, if you're a curious wiki-historian (or have present concerns, I guess?) then let me know if diff.s would be handy, otherwise I just felt it was worth clarifying what I was on about :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Heheheh! I've heard that electro stuff thousands of times until I got tired of it because at the times when I was a kid there was no more than one national tv station over here and The tune was used abusively in a bunch of extremely boring emissions. Thanks for bringing in old memories.

Well, if you have really important diffs that show any violation of the sock policies then please let me know of course. Otherwise, I still believe that calling people with names other than their own usernames or names that they'd not consider ok is not appropriate. I hope you agree with me. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

well the only 'violation' involves the 'internal' discussions which the decision in my case stated was prohibited (and further asserted that it always had been, I think?) - this is ages ago, and I have absolutely no problem with what Guy did (used a sock to edit in a bit of a different 'space' to his other account - sound familiar ;-) - the irony comes in when arbcom's missives leave no wriggle room to allow for this behaviour - so yeah - guy was 'out policy'. All this really adds up to is a wry smile, so I wouldn't sweat it really. here's another gem for you (I'm boogie-ing as I post now :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Really a big lol! Indeed, that is the kind of the tv set I used to use. You got to read what the summary provided by the uploader --> I always thought this house was scary.

Now, you've only given me one diff/link! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

well just for the record, Cruftbane's last few contrib.s sort of lead the way - there were quite a few chats around the wiki around this time about this (like this one - do a search for JzG to find it!) - there's quite alot of other stuff around the place (including, from memory, quite a reasonable explanation / note from guy explaining his motivations for running the account - here maybe? - My recollection is that it was clearly established, and discussed by all parties, including Guy, at the time - and it really wasn't my intention to focus on guy's specific behaviour as much as it was to point out that the arbcom's ruling in my case puts guy in a black hat... I could chat about why I think the arbcom ruling is probably a mistake, and was certainly inappropriate at the time - but then I would say that, wouldn't I :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You're in a Powerhouse Museum book

You left a comment on one of their flickr photos and they quoted you. An old B/W one YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

well it's a better reaction than being sued for uploading hundreds of 'em ;-) - the Powerhouse is an outstanding institution really leading the way in a lot of digitisation / open access / modern webby type things, so well done them! - now which book did they have the intelligence and good taste to quote me in? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Internet dog.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Internet dog.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Tagishsimon (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert

Grim's Dyke is now a hotel, but Sullivan spent all his money on women, pretty much. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 21:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the rest, poke me on Skype. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

CarriageWorks

CarriageWorks is one of the "nationally significant venues" defined in the draft Excellence in Research for Australia specifications, and one of only two that we don't have an article for. Any chance you are interested in fixing this omission? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised we don't have an article - is it perhaps at another name? Anywhoo.. the place reminds me strongly of much happy stuff at The Roundhouse so yeah - I'll definitely take a look, I found myself there alot last year, but can't think if I've even been this year? - next time I'll definitely get some photos anyways - it's a fantastic place, and hopefully will continue to go from strength to strength - there's a ton of stuff we could reference from their website but from memory, someone wrote a book about the whole transformation? (maybe more of a pamphlet?.... I'll dig around and see if I come up with anything....) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Still no progress here either :P  ;-)

Maybe now you can see from the AC Noticeboard what has consumed large slabs of my weekends. I have not been idle.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

ah in all seriousness, I hope no-one would accuse you of being idle, John - you work hard in areas where many wouldn't, and I hope you feel it's worthwhile. On the carriageworks front, whilst holding your breath would be a bad idea, I'm slow cooking something up.... mmmmmmm...... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closing

I just ran across this closing Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Valued_pictures that you did back in June. When closing as a non-admin it is important to note your status as a non-admin as it affects the rights of parties to appeal (any admin can re-open the closure of a non-admin for any reason - including request of another user; which is often much simpler than DRV) and it puts everyone on notice that although you closed as keep or NC, you could not have closed as delete even if you'd wanted to. Please know that I have no particular issue with your close and I fully support closure by non-admins where appropriate (and that I take a pretty liberal view in that regard); I just want to make sure that you are familiar with the practice as it ensures that you are following consensus as to deletion policy/procedure and that you don't inadvertently cause others to challenge the concept of non-admin closure by failing to follow those policies/procedures. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that doug - and thanks heaps for the pointer / advice - I'll certainly take it should the blue moon rise again, and I close one of those things.... good job on the 2nd close by the way - I hope playing together (in project terms) comes to be seen as better than heading to MfD or whatever in time.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Online

Hullo, are you online right now by any chance? I have a small BLP-related issue I'd like to run by you.  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm here :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! I've whipped you an email.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. After dealing with this for the first time today, I think you might be on to something in the need to rethink things.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

no worries - my energy to try and engage with what I view as a really serious problem waxes and wanes, but I'm glad you've helped sort this thing out at least.... I'll probably be in touch when I've a little more time... best, Privatemusings (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiVoices and elections

Hello Privatemusings, I noticed that you have posted to potential candidates about doing a set of election interviews. This sounds like a wonderful idea, although it has not been discussed with the other WikiVoices participants to the best of my knowledge.

Due to our troubles getting last year's ArbCom election and this year's WMF board episodes edited, the consensus among WikiVoices members has been to refrain from doing further election episodes as a project. You were not very active with WikiVoices during the time when these things happened and these consensus decisions were reached, so perhaps you were unaware. I am going to raise this with WikiVoices tonight, but unfortunately won't be in chat very much longer this evening due to a prior commitment.

Provisionally, would you consider moving your election interview project from WikiVoices into your own userspace? Your track record as an audio editor has been among the best that our project has ever had and I trust your commitment fully in that regard. Yet to outside observers this might look like the group has made an unexplained reversal from its commitment to avoid election episodes for the time being. Durova³⁶² 01:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

no worries - I'm chatting online with a few of the WV folk now, and I think it'll be easier (if I get anything recorded!) to just post it as part of the election pages. We'll see how it goes... Privatemusings (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, was offline several hours. Whatever happens I'll recuse from it. Durova³⁶² 05:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Chatting on skype

Dear Pete: yes, I think I would like to chat with you on skype. It actually was something I wanted to do a while ago but then I disappeared from the scene. I've never done a skype chat before so I'll need some guidance. I do have a good internet connection and a headset with a microphone so I hope that's all I need. I live on Long Island (eastern USA time zone) and have a more or less ordinary schedule for folks who live there. I'm not sure what time to suggest: you have the next move. Chutznik (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

missed this somehow! doh! - you'll do great with the gear you've got, so head over to skype.com and download the installer - set yourself up with a username, and drop me a line - then we'll talk :-) - look forward to it! Privatemusings (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Skype interview

Apart form your initial message, no sign of you online! I gather you're on the other side of the world, so maybe we need to synch up? Relative to GMT/UTC, what are your "on hours"? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for chasing this up, Fritz - it will likely have to be morning (earlier the better) your time, or evening (later the better) - I think I've sent you a friend request on Skype, which if accepted will let me know what time it is for you (and you me) - I'm on sydney time, where it's currently afternoon, and things are starting to get hectic! - If I'm in the office late today (quite possible) then I'll probably have the chance to look for you when you're up - 9am your time is 8pm mine - so the closer to that the better :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John O'Connor aka. 'Pal'

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is John O'Connor aka. 'Pal'. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John O'Connor aka. 'Pal'. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan King

Hi - saw you revisited this lately. I'm unable to find any current reference to his EU appeal, and it appears impossible to find any non-King sourced data re the 40m sales - any ideas? I've ref'd the Street-Porter article, which nicely flags up the warning that all may not be as it seems when blindly reprinting self-aggrandising claims.... Little grape (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

glad to see the 40m left unsaid in the current article... that's a better route I reckon :-) Personally, I have a feeling that the appeal is off the table - but that's just 'original research' - SlimVirgin has popped a Feb 2008 source in, I reckon we should revisit Feb 2010 maybe? Privatemusings (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices interviews

Are you still trying to do the rest of the interviews you were trying to line up? The voting has started already. Where ya been lately? You're harder to get in touch with than usual. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

am indeed intending to try to get to them - loved your contributions too! - busy in the real world == less time for wiki unfortunately, but am still around and about and enjoying catching up on various things :-) - hope you're good.... Privatemusings (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just listened to your Jehochman interview. I found it helpful. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ping

User_talk:Gmaxwell--Gmaxwell (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)