User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →

Contents

Slayer, In Flames

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

Advice

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

FAR

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

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

{{fact}} on Infinite monkey theorem

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

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

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

Civility/disruption warning

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

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

Arguing

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

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

Lies

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

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

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

  • Since those attacks were made after my warning and were pretty much an attempt at disrupting the discussion and frustrating the function of the page, I will allow some small amount of time (24 hr) to see what moderation/amelioration takes place. If there is any more disruption, then I will have to issue a block for that. Geogre 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. I've been away at a friend's, and only logging in today have I noticed the warning. I didn't notice any warning prior to this, so I'm assuming you've made a mistake Geogre, or I didn't read the message until today. Also, I made no attempt to disrupt discussion and frustrate the function of the page - you're mistaken in this definitely. I've been a regular at FAR for quite some time, and respect the process entirely. Can you, Giano and the others actually say the same? I don't think so. After all, Giano feels FAR is "the basement of Wikipedia". Please consider your own feelings towards FAR before making such a false charge at me.
The only person I owe an apology to is Marskell, and nobody else. I wouldn't class myself as making insults against you Bishonen, but you're merely someone who tries to help a friend out of bother. I wasn't eager to attack Giano as you say, but eager to point out the fact that each time he is in trouble, someone he talks to here seems to come to his rescue. This has been proved time and time again, not to mention now where Geogre has given me a warning, even though he is a participant in the specific FAR. If you feel I have done wrong, please have an independent admin to cast judgment on my actions, and not yourself. I fully realise these are "serious" accusations, but I stand by them.
I'd like to point out these people who told me weren't "friends", but people who warned me as to what I would be getting myself into - on that they've been proved correct. I don't rely on gossip, but experience, and experience on Wikipedia has told me it's best not to become involved in any page where Giano, or his circle of friends are participants. I had a lot of hassle with the Palladian FAR when I pointed out statements which I felt needed citation, and don't want any further hassle. I've made a choice not to participate in the "Restoration literature" FAR as I feel it would only attract further trouble that I'm not wholly responsible for. I'd rather leave it there and forget about this unfortunate incident.
To be honest I'm not wholly sure if I've made the correct judgment about you or not, and hope that what I've said regarding yourself I come to believe is incorrect. Indeed, we've never come across each other, so hopefully can come to some sort of understanding. Having said that, I believe 110% in my judgment regarding Giano, and base this on past experience - I just hope you're more amiable than him. LuciferMorgan 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ALoan

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

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

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

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

Hello ALoan. Thanks for your comments on my talk page, which are always welcome. Yeah, I'd agree with you 110% that the debate regarding inline citations has blown hot and cold over the past 2 years. I indeed respect people differences in opinion, and do yours and everyone else's. The main problem though is that criterion 1. c. is currently part of FA criteria - I'm trying to enforce criteria, and encourage those who disagree with 1. c. to initiate debate at the relevant page. I wouldn't say I'm embarassed at what I said, but embarassed at the way in which I expressed what I had to say. It didn't make me look that good, but oh well - can't change what's been said. LuciferMorgan 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is not me that you said would block or unblock Giano on grounds of friendship alone, without regard to the merits. I have said my piece above and will leave you to think about it.
Something similar to 1(c) has been there for just over 2 years, since 7 February 2005 - it used to say "extensive use of inline citations" and was changed to "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations".[3] The argument boil down to when it is "appropriate" to add inline citations (and, at that time, the cite.php thing was a twinkle in a developer's eye - do you remember inotes, and the fnote and ref templates? Shudder.) There are more links in the FAR to comments discussing similar points in the talk pages at around the same time. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC) LuciferMorgan 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I happen to disagree. The word "blatant" suggests I'm intentionally spreading lies with the knowledge they are lies, which isn't the case. At the time of writing, I felt what I said to be correct. I'll take a few days to decide if that was correct, or I was hasty and too quick to judge.
I notice also Giano happens to think something to do with IRC is the reason for all this - I might sound stupid, but I don't even know what IRC is. I made a comment when Bishonen wished for comment on Ideogram somewhere on Wikipedia, and that was it. To this day, I'm clueless as to what IRC is. Can someone tell me what IRC is and what the "truth of happenings" are which Giano refers to? LuciferMorgan 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
For me, at least, "blatant" does not carry quite the same overtones of intentional wrongdoing as "flagrant", although it does perhaps connote a bit more culpablility that "obvious": a bit of fact-checking quickly reveals the falsity of the allegations, and your comments certainly added more heat than light, from what I could see. Perhaps you simply stated your perception of the position (although quite where you would get such a perception from beats me) but it really is wrong.
Believe me - being clueless of IRC in general, and the "truth of happenings" in particular, may be a good thing. Let me just say that the ArbCom were satisfied that there were numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me just thank you for apologising to Bishonen. I am sorry if all of this attention is making you feel a bit beleaguered, but you need to be pretty sure of your facts before accusations of the sort that you did. I see that Bishonen has acknowledged your apology, and I hope we can put is behind us now.

Although we often disagree, you do some good work, and I would not want to see you leave over a matter like this. I would encourage you to take a short break before deciding whether you really want to leave or not. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Marskell

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

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

I wasn't aware I was repeating innuendo or gossip surrounding it - I didn't even know what it was until you said, and still I don't really get it. To be honest I'm not bothered - most of the things as concerns Giano etc. relates to the way they seemed to make a mockery out of FAR last time. All I've noticed, based on FAR experience, is they seem to all bombard a page all at once like they're teaming up on people. I wouldn't say I brought a grudge, but anticipated the same would happen with that FAR so didn't wish for it to. I appreciate your opinion Marskell, and I'll consider apologising to Bishonen - the only thing stopping me at present is the response I recieved on my talk page. I found them to be a little threatening to be honest, almost saying "Apologise or else", as if suggesting Wikipedia will be difficult for me if I do not apologise. Also, I don't take too kindly to the "less than responsible state of mind" and "eager to attack" comments, which seemed like sneaky jibes - I made those comments because I felt them to be wholly true, and felt those editors were making a mockery out of FAR. I think it's likely I would've apologised, but in light of those remarks from Bishonen I'm not doing so. At least I don't feel I will.
Also, the fact that Geogre was the admin issuing the warning left a lot to be desired - he had been part of the Palladian FAR, and should have requested an independent admin to take a look at the situation. I'm not saying anything about him, but to onlookers it doesn't look good issuing warnings if you're part of the situation. LuciferMorgan 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I get point 2 and agree - I'll make sure to remember it in future. LuciferMorgan 04:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yomangani

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

I felt what I said to be true at the time, a point I've stressed a few times now. You speak as though I'm saying things knowing they are lies - this isn't the case, and when I said what I said I believed them to be true. I don't appreciate everyone saying I was knowingly lying on purpose, which is wholly untrue. When I said what I did, I felt it to be wholly correct. In fact, if people actually took the time to read what I keep stressing, and actually believe that I did feel that way at the time and felt myself to be telling the truth, I would've actually apologised by now. Evey time someone calls me an intentional liar, it makes me think I shouldn't apologise.
I keep having WP:AGF thrown in my face every two minutes, yet am being told that I know I'm a liar - I'm not a liar, and don't appreciate being told I aimed to disrupt the FAR page. Nor did I find Bishonen's response "remarkably restrained" - this depends on your viewpoint and perception. Saying I intentionally am "eager to attack" or was in "a less than responsible state of mind" I didn't find so, and found rather derogatory. Indeed, she was "eager to attack" me on my talk page, albeit subtley.
I don't regard you as part of "the team" as you call them, nor do I recall saying such things to you. As far as I'm aware, you've done a good job saving a few FAs at the FAR/C stage, and do some good work there. LuciferMorgan 09:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't accusing you of intentionally lying and quite accept that you believed what you were saying to be true at the time. As to whether Bishonen's response was restrained or not, it obviously depends on your viewpoint, but if somebody had accused me of using my admin powers to act as the lackey of a user with a grudge, I think I would have given a somewhat more forceful response. Yomanganitalk 10:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
In that light I can see your point. I've been considering an apology for awhile, but to be honest I don't think it would be seen as sincere, nor I don't feel it would be accepted. If I made an apology I'd like to be seen as making an honest, sincere one which was of my own accord, as opposed to pressure from other Wikipedians. I'm unsure whether you understand this. LuciferMorgan 10:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do, and I'll lay off now. Yomanganitalk 10:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't a hint to lay off, I was just trying to explain my position that's all. How's the Anne FAR going? LuciferMorgan 10:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, the laying off was of my own volition. Anne is hopefully ready to go, take a look. Yomanganitalk 10:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen

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

A serious charge

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

To which I will add - your participation on RFA has been incredibly obnoxious, resulting in numerous run-ins with others there (including but not limited to: myself, Aloan, Piotrus, Giano, Bishonen, George). If you do not immediately stop, the next nasty comment I see from you will result in a block. Raul654 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Raul, your opinion is biased. If someone wants to report me for some kind of misconduct, can they have someone independent to take a look and take what action they deem appropriate? If I then get blocked, then fair enough. But I don't find it fair that people who've disagreed with me are issuing block warnings against me - all they have to do is ask an admin to take a look. LuciferMorgan 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's circular logic, if ever there was any. Anyone who thinks you've behaved attrociously will disagree with you. Are you asking that you only get a block from people who don't disagree with you? On the FAR, for example, I had had no words with you, and yet you consider me an involved party. Bishonen hadn't spoken a word to you, except to note how really outrageous the talk had been, but she's an involved party? You prefer it is people say nothing to you, jump out, and say, "Blocked?" That's rather screwy. Bad behavior is bad behavior. I concur with Paul August, by the way. Geogre 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking for someone who is independent of the situation to review the situation and take the action deemed necessary - as in someone involved with the restoration literature FAR, the Palladian FAR, or anyone else like Raul who has a bone to pick. In other words, someone who doesn't know me from Adam, who can then cast judgment on me as they deem necessary - as in review the picture. Do you understand? Are you getting the picture? I don't find it screwy, but due justice. I would deem it unfair that someone who has something against me like you or Raul to block me.

Keep: Not this argument again? First, repeating your view won't help, LM. Second, the interpretive elements here are very, very, very much not things requiring footnotes. If I cite that a bridge went up in 1740, then that it had traffic of 30,000 drays a day by 1750, and then I say, with no citation, that the bridge was vital for the city's growth, it's just a syllogism. There is no citation needed for the third statement. It can be disagreed with but it cannot be called unfounded. It has the limitation of conclusions from presented data, but not of being "some dude's opinion." This is the distinction between encyclopedia writing where a thesis is coherently and cogently argued and a nervous drudge's regurgitation of the library stacks.

The above is your commentary from the FAR of Palladian architecture, and as you specifically say LM (LuciferMorgan) this is why I consider your judgment biased. I also find it rather odd how I don't see you on FAR, but've seen you both times when I see Giano there.
Feel free to continue hounding me on my talk page though Geogre - I wouldn't wish to stop your pleasure on my account. LuciferMorgan 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a statement of personal animosity? Wow. You're showing some seriously thin skin on yourself at the same time that you lash out with quite violent and reckless language toward others. I was stating a view about articles, about the tendency of dull wits in general to try to assess quality not with their brains, but with a sieve. It was no judgment of character, but it was a judgment of the foolishness of a practice. I lash the behaviors, not the people. Geogre 14:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, because others have noticed, I'll mention something here. If you accuse me or Giano of being the same person, your reading skills and awareness of geography are seriously indicted. If you accuse me of only looking out for Giano, then you're full of beans: I'm interested, very interested, in combatting the takeover of FA by the people with a civil servant's mentality. I have been interested in that. I will be interested in that. When I see free minds who have written high quality articles without bowing a knee to the mobbing of "footnotes must be inserted whenever I'm confused," I will step in. In this case, of course, I wrote 80% of the article. However, in your comment above you make another attack on character with, again, neither proof nor reason; instead, it seems to be malice. Think poorly of me to your heart's content, but amend your manners in public, please. Geogre 14:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A request

Since given this edit, you seem to no longer believe that what you wrote here is accurate, I think that it would be helpful if you would amend what you wrote. We all make mistakes, and it is good when we discover them that we do what we can to fix them. Paul August ☎ 23:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, Lucifer posted to Bishonen before your above note. Having fourth, fifth, and sixth parties getting involved in this won't accomplish anything. Anything that needed to be said to Lucifer has been said. Let's leave him be. Bishonen can reply as and when she feels she should. Marskell 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about "the record" of that page, as it stands it still makes a serious charge. I think it would be best if Lucifer corrected it. Paul August ☎ 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(moved from Thanks section)

  • ....and so yet another Wikipedia editor bites the dust, having been drip fed poison. I visit FARC very seldom only when an article in which I have taken a long standing interest is deposited there. My sole encounters with Lucifer before the current review were on Palladian architecture's review (I wrote it - I have a right to be interested in it) [4] where Lucifer became more and more agitated and hostile in his comments. we now know why: [5] "a few Wikipedians I don't speak to emailed me and said I'm best off steering clear of Giano and friends" obviously was the cause of such comments out of the blue as this one [6]. The sad thing for whoever these mysterious people are who primed Lucifer is that he eventually went firing off at Bishonen who was the wrong target. Perhaps people like Sandy Georgia who make reproving comments like those above [7] should confine themselves to addressing the root of the problem, which is those drop feeding the poison, rather than those seeking to establish, however belatedly, the truth. I hope eventually Lucifer feels able to return to the project, and when he does he is made welcome - I do though wonder how many other innocent editors minding their own business have their inboxes filled by strangers emailing unsolicited lies and venom about their own particular enemy of the day. Giano 06:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with much of what Giano has said here, both in the sadness felt when we lose a good editor and the concern in this case about why. We are all volunteers working together to write an encyclopedia in the wiki environment and have some fun in the process. I can think of nothing more detrimental to that enterprise that a secret letter-writing campaign suggesting that other contributors be belittled or ostracized. If that has been going on, it's uncivil, destructive, and it certainly needs to stop. Newyorkbrad 08:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Giano's interpretation of events is welcomed, though they differ from mine. I recieved emails after the Palladian FAR, not before. My hostility towards Giano is / was 100% based on my interactions with him during the FAR process, and nothing else. However false or correct my opinions of him are / were, it's purely based on this. I'm not saying I've gained the correct impression of Giano, but I don't want people assuming emails influenced my opinion as this isn't the case. Indeed, I hope some day I get to see a different side of him somehow. When people weigh up his verdict on things, I want them to remember that I have a different view on things.
Also, in response to Giano's recommendation as concerns what SandyGeorgia does - she does whatever she's felt she wants or needs to do, and that's fine by me. She works her backside off on Wikipedia and does more for the Project than any editor I know, admin or not. Additionally, I find her calm and polite attitude to be most gracious and pleasing, and her opinions definitely have my utmost respect. Goodbye. LuciferMorgan 10:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We all work our backsides off for this project for one reason or another! I've just been re-eading Palladian's review [8] where you lost an argument. I don't see anything so terrible that it could have brought on this behaviour and attitude. Who are these mysterious people who have emailed you and why? You have introduced this subject, now once and for all we need to get to the bottom of it, no matter how umplesant it may be. You admit people have emailed saying things about me, I have a right to know who. Perhaps they will read this and come forward and save you from this embarassment in which they have placed you. Giano 10:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No good will come of this suggestion. Marskell 12:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • People always say no good will come of getting to the bottom of all this, which is why we never do,and it goes on and on and on. How would you like to have people emailing complete strangers about you? I blew the gaff on IRC that is all. Giano 12:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just seen the note on your main user page. I just wanted to say thanks for all your recent help with my articles, and I hope maybe you come back to Wikipedia. Angmering 22:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(moved) LessHeard vanU 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(moved) Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What's amazing about this whole affair is that the very people who should have learned something about poking and poking back and poking again don't appear to have learned anything about where that path leads. What is accomplished by having five, six (I've lost count) admins poke at Lucifer? Wasn't anything learned from the entire Giano affair? I understand Marskell and Yomangani commenting to Lucifer, because they have been involved with him at FAR. I understand Kirill commenting on the FAR, because he was the first admin to comment. After that, everything else amounts to the same kind of poking that hasn't worked well in the past. Sad state of affairs, this. Do people not have the ability to move along and get back to work/fun/play whatever they call this? Be well, Lucifer. And if you do come back, may I give you some advice? I will:-) You're going to get premature greys if you let one article or one editor or one FAR bug you so much. It's just an article; is the outcome really important enough to get upset over? And ... when people are kind, or displaying emotions of the kind I can relate to and understand, I try to remember the very real human beings behind the written word on the screen. When people are cruel or uncaring or arrogant or belittling or demeaning, I remind myself their words are nothing more than a collection of ASCII characters—I pass 'em right on by, and don't let them into my real life. Don't take the ASCII characters so seriously. I don't condone the tone you took on the FAR, Lucifer, but I think I understand the emotions you may have been feeling. As you can see from your talk page, it's not worth getting yourself tangled up in this sort of mess—comment on the work, not the people, if you decide to return. And avoid complicated people—on the internet, and in real life; they're not good for your health and longevity :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that, by default, I was classed with the "poking" admins. That saddens me a little. I have done my best not to poke and to move along, while at the same time recognising that a pretty serious (and false) allegation had been made. I hear what you say about complicated people, but that is a function of the human condition. Anyway, I shall try my best not to say anything further about the matter. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who moved my post; I don't much care, but don't do it again. Some editors just do not seem to have a stop button; I don't want to be part of it. I came here to thank Lucifer for his contributions and to encourage him to adopt a different philosophy should he return. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If you bother to check the history the only person who has moved your post is you. The post above yours was in fact moved [9] yours remained stationary until you came along. Which is why I replied to you directly underneath your post which is customary. Giano 17:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved your post. This started as a small section relating to people thanking LuciferMorgan for his help and contributions on various topics, and nothing to do with the preceding matter(s). I wanted to keep it separate. I may start another section entitled Thanks for everything (outside of above debated subject(s)) from other editors who do not care to be involved in such matters, and move my 'thank you' there. You may find you and your debating circle on your own again, but at least nobody moved your precious text.
I would comment that I find the phrase

"...don't do it again."

really rather aggressive. So you won't mind if I reply in kind; "Fuck off until you learn not to piss on your neighbours lawn!" I don't care what kind of friend you were to LM, but watch your language around me, matey! LessHeard vanU 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "don't do it" either, it shows a certain lack of manners. However, there must be something about people who love the FARC page:-

They just hate having their mistakes pointed out. Giano 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, honestly, can we just stop the back and forth now please? Yes, perhaps Sandy should have said "please stop it" (from the diffs, it looks to me that Sandy's comment seemed to have moved because some comments above were moved below), but I'm not sure that matters very much who "moved" it or why or whether Sandy's request would be given a 100% approval rating by Miss Manners - and this talk page is not the place to be discussing it. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sandy if you care to read her posts ALoan, is accusing admins or "poking" LM whenthey were merely asking if him to retract a serious accusation. She has escalated this situationand is now reverting because she sdoes not care for what she has started. Lucifer has said he has been emailed by a few people about me - I would like to know who? Giano 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern, Giano, but I am a big boy; I can live with being accused of "poking" (although I am not entirely happy with that characterisation, as you will also see above). LM has apologised; Bishonen has ackowledged the apology: there is little more to be said.
I am sure we can all speculate about the senders of the e-mails, but LM's e-mail correspondence is as private (or as public, depending on how secure you think the internet is) as yours and mine. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ALoan, here and above. Paul August ☎ 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Marskell 13:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, Giano has a point, here. If you want to say, "I was warned that Giano and his friends were awful," then why are you wanting to say that? Are you saying that to reduce your responsibilities by deferring them onto others, or are you saying that to complain that you were misled? If the former, then it's ridiculous (I'll explain in a moment). If the latter, then it only works if you want to say who misled you so that further deception can be avoided. Ultimately, LM is responsible for his own words. I get e-mails from blocked users telling me that Admin-X is a horrible, baby strangling, puppy-kicking monster. I go check things out (or not, if it has been spammed). It rarely is the case. I get my wiki-friends characterizing users this way or that, and I hold my peace and make up my own mind. I disagree with them, or I agree with them, or I agree with part of what they say. Regardless, therefore, this is a dodge. LM is responsible for the words he uses or responsible for not researching matters or responsible for being gullible. All of these leave us right back where we were: the need to think independently, speak moderately, and remain temperate. It also leaves us with the responsibility to make as much good out of our mistakes as we can. Geogre 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
But ALoan's point is ultimately a trump: the person who uses the handle LuciferMorgan on Wikipedia is under no obligation to divulge the content of his e-mails. (Certainly not to any of us.) And even if he did, all we'd have is a pile of double hearsay.
And I must observe one irony: despite much gnashing of teeth over intemperate use of language, not one of the admins here even mildly rebuked LessHeard for telling Sandy to fuck off. Marskell 18:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
User:SandyGeorgia and I quickly came to an understanding. Perhaps those admins were aware of it. Whatever, I should be extremely grateful if you would refrain from attempting to drag other editors into this matter, and therefore request that you do not mention my name in this context again. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 21:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and Sandy seems to have a problem with her start button too [13] Giano 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Re "User:SandyGeorgia and I quickly came to an understanding": that's good. Sandy doesn't need "fuck offs". And I wasn't trying to "drag." LessHeard posted to the thread, so I thought it fair to refer to his post. Just tangents on top of tangents, at the end of day...
As for "start buttons", I suspect it's irrelevant. I think we should stop talking here. Marskell 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tim (Marskell); let's all move on, work on whatever articles or Projects take our fancy, and let the past stay firmly there. LuciferMorgan 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from The Beatles WikiProject

Add mine for the help you have given to us at The Beatles WikiProject. LessHeard vanU 22:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (moved LessHeard vanU 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

I wish to extend my deepest thanks to LuciferMorgan for his steadfast advice and tremendous help over the last months. Who can I turn to now when I need some advice about things that are completely beyond my comprehension? A very sad loss to Wikipedia. I wish you well, LuciferMorgan andreasegde 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to echo the sentiments expressed above, and I sincerely hope that you may reconsider your decision to leave. Very best wishesImage: Smile.png Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lucifer, just wanted to acknowledge and thank you for your help and guidance on cites with Punk rock and Nick Drake. I've noted your good work on FAR for some months now; its an important function sorely lacking in editors, hope to see you back there soon. + Ceoil 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(replied via email). LuciferMorgan 22:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for your input to Slayer related articles :) M3tal H3ad 08:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence
"The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service", with which I totally agree regarding LuciferMorgan. From all of us 20:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LGBT Coordinator Election Notice

This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of "Coordinator" for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. -- SatyrTN (talk • contribs)

Hello back!

Thanks! It just suddenly occurred to me as I was updating my user page that I had absolutely no idea whether there was any point in doing so, given that I had no indication anybody ever looked at it. :-) Angmering 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

LGBTProject template

Hi, LM! Thanks for the tagging you're doing on articles! I noticed on some of the pages you've tagged with the LGBT Project that you're doing it with {{Template:LGBTProject|class=}}. I'm sure it's just a copy/paste job, but you don't need the "Template:" in there. And if you can, go ahead and rate the article when you do it - a rough estimate is fine at this point, since we'll refine as we go along. Thanks again!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/u/c/User%7ELuciferMorgan_Archive_7_c871.html"