User talk:GRBerry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has created a global account.

Template:WPChristianity sidebar {{ChristianityWikiProject}}

I am also user GRBerry on Commons, Wikispecies, Meta, and (although I speak no German) de.Wikipedia. Messages intended for me on any of those projects may be left here, in which case I ask the poster to indicate which project they are talking about. GRBerry diffmeta diff

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived to User talk:GRBerry/Archive 10. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Email advice: When able to be active on Wikipedia, I am more likely to read this talk page than I am to read email, as the email goes to my work email. So please reserve email for items requiring 1) confidentiality, 2) the format (forwarding other emails), or 3) some other really good reason for using email. Also, to help it get through my spam filters and to my attention, have the email subject line begin with "Wikipedia". If at all possible, I will respond on Wikipedia, because I believe that transparency is important, and each user I email lessens my privacy. GRBerry

Contents

At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by Werdabot, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.

New sections belong at the bottom, not here.

[edit] Re: RM

Heh, I'm fully aware of the history of the article (I was the last person to stub it down and kill it). A little humor from time doesn't hurt though. east.718 at 21:08, March 4, 2008

[edit] WP:AE

Hi. I was just reading the discussion at WP:AE and I noticed your comment that 1) after arbitration, enforcement is left to administrators that are not arbitrators, 2) enforcement of arbitration decisions is left to uninvolved administrators [1]. (1) is patently absurd. Arbitrators are normal users who are voted for a high level of trust by the community for diificult decisions. It has never been the case that they are prevented from taking particular actions by this position. Indeed, it is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that users who are particularly trusted should be restricted in this fashion. I don't know where this impression has come from, but it is not a useful one and has never been the case. On the other hand, (2) is, of course, true, but like any admin, being an arbitrator is in no way "involvement" in a case. All administrators examine evidence of conduct and can decide to block for it if standards are breached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn (talk • contribs)

[edit] Hi GR

Oh well, all seems to have worked out in the end. Had 4 months off Wikipedia to do some proper work like a big project on Duns Scotus. Best Peter Damian (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review

If you have the time or inclination, I'd like to request that you review a DRV closure. There is also an associated discussion at User talk:Neil. In addition, Neil has started a thread at WT:DRV.

I would be gratefully interested in your thoughts/opinion. Thanks in advance. - jc37 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I opined at WT:DRV. GRBerry 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
(I think you misunderstood the tenor of my request, but whichever.)
As you note, I've seen other closers suggest relisting at AfD.
And I personally think it's odd that you consider there to be is a difference between the closer listing and the closer suggesting that others list.
(And while I have a guess, I'm still not certain why others were so afraid of further discussion.)
Anyway, my intention when asking your opinion was in the hopes for your insight (ie. learning), and if it turned out that your opinion (which I've respected in the past) would be that there was something awry, that I would defer to you.
So that's what I'm going to do.
I've reverted my closure. Feel free to close as you wish.
Thanks again for your insight. - jc37 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with suggesting a relist by an editor who wants it deleted. Your saying that any admin can speedy delete if no relist occurs was the problem with the close. GRBerry
Perhaps it's because I'm more active in CFD/UCFD (both of which have changed the "D" to discussion), but I felt that sending it to AfD was to send it to "further discussion", not to nominate it for deletion. Which was the whole point of the closure. I felt more XfD discussion was probably necessary to find consensus. As those commenting each had their own separate opinion. - jc37 18:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You'd have been fine and gotten no significant feedback if you took it to AFD as part of the close, even as a "technical nomination" without opinion on your part. It has been a while since I've done a technical nomination myself, but ending the nomination with a statement like "Opinions mentioned at DRV included keeping as a separate article, merging, and deleting. What is your opinion?" might have worked well.
I think a significant difference between CFD/UCFD and AFD is the number of editors who attend to the area generally. Many more editors are active in article space issues than in thinking through categorization. Thus there are different standards. (A second difference is that to merge or rename a category, you technically have to delete the old, while for an article a merge should not include a deletion.) GRBerry 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but (in my experience at least), it's more the technical aspects and intent of usage that's different (such as WP:OC). While an afd may devolve into keep/delete, it's not the only option, and probably shouldn't be the only option. (As was noted even by those commenting in this particular DRV.)
And yes, I've done technical/neutral noms myself. I just thought it made more sense to defer to those more interested, and allow them to nom. Especially since they obviously knew more about the subject of the article than I : )
I already explained on Neil's talk page why I added the last clause, and, in general, I've found it's usually best to add an "in case of..." clause when relying on the actions of others.
And thank you for your thoughts and comments. In the past, I've asked other DRV regulars, but I noticed you active on that page (and as I said, I respect your opinion), and so asked you. In my opinion everything about Wikipedia can be an ongoing, daily learning process, and asking questions, even if you feel you may be assured of the answer, is often a "good thing" : )
Thanks again. - jc37 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] RE: Zorpia.com's deletion closure

The request was closed because no one has done a userspace draft. But I wonder what userspace draft means? I asked the other guy and there was not response. Web 2.0 Junkie (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Users can use Subpages in their userspace to write drafts of articles that may or may not merit existence, or to work on one before it is ready for the encyclopedia. An example would be you writing this one at User:Web20junkie/Zorpia. GRBerry 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

For crying out loud, would it kill you to say "I disagree" rather than call that with which you disagree "lies" and even "malicious", which is personal attacks of the worst order? You know better, why are you being so very nasty? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Malicious" means that something was done with intent to harm. The material removed as malicious was clearly presented with the intent of harming Moulton's reputation and stockpiling false evidence against a future discussion. When an uninvolved party, such as myself, considers it, no other conclusion is reasonable. That it was very problematic is evidenced by the fact that even a corrected version was odious enough to be courtesy blanked.
I don't believe I've used "lying" recently though I have used closely related words. One of the things that angers me most about Wikipedia is the way many purportedly trustworthy editors here actively, and as far as I can tell intentionally, make false statements in order to win political points. It poisons the atmosphere for everybody; and I think Wikipedia would be better off if we treated lying during dispute resolution much more seriously than we do. For the consensus editing model to work, we need to be able to trust that when somebody says something, there is evidence to support them. Unfortunately, we can't make that assumption and don't sufficiently sanction those who intentionally mislead other editors. GRBerry 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You could be wrong about the intent - the intent may not be to harm. You could be wrong about false - it could be a perception, or disagreement. You are still defending accusing people of being malicious and telling falsehoods with no evidence other than your opinion - which can be, and indeed in at least one case I know of today, flawed. Please AGF and stop poisoning discussions with such attacks. They are divisive to no purpose. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question

I know this is nit-picking, but was your edit to WP:DELREV#Adil Najam a vote, or a comment? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It was an opinion. GRBerry 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English translations of the Creed for possible future liturgical use

I noticed you closed English translations of the Creed for possible future liturgical use as speedy delete, copyvio. The entire text of that article is also located here. I was wondering, if you had the time, if you'd consider the text there, the arguments made at the talk page, and see if that content needs to be blanked there for the same reason as the AfD you closed as delete, copyvio (and if you believe the same identical text there is a copyvio and needs to be removed, you may want to leave a note with User:Invocante, who has been leading the push to include this text). Thanks for your time and consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 01:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was aware that it was being discussed in the context of use in a larger article. There is a difference in what we can use as a stand alone article and in a larger article. It certainly isn't of the clear cut urgent removal type in that larger article. Upon initial review of the larger article, I can't see why the large texts of other versions are any more appropriate than that one is, but it definitely doesn't meet all the conditions for G4 speedy deletion. GRBerry 01:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I think you are confused...I am not under any civility restriction. I have seen you mention this matter several times, and though you may feel I deserve one, I am not under one. Anyway...I just wanted to clarify this. Best.--MONGO 02:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are wrong. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. The restriction Tango put you under remains in force even though he is no longer an admin. GRBerry 02:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That was not addressed by arbcom (the Tango restriction) and was not agreed to by any consensus...[2]. His unilateral restriction was surely one of the considerations of misuse arbcom was thinking about when they desysopped him. I guess I'll ask arbcom for a clarification about this matter. My request in the meantime, in light of the desysopping of Tango, is to not misconstrue his unilateral ruling as anything more than evidence of his abuse of tools, his position and his attitude, as determined by arbcom.--MONGO 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Hi, GRBerry. I agree with your comment on the JzG arbitration page that it's hard to see what useful remedies the case might produce. Then I got an idea: maybe use simple behavior modification to reward positive behaviors and punish negative behaviors. ArbCom could appoint a couple Admins whose judgment is widely respected to keep an eye on JzG for a period of six months. Using principles of operant conditioning they could react swiftly any time he crosses the line and apply a short block -- say, 2-10 hours. And if he responds well to a situation, they could praise him. These blocks would be applied without discussion on ANI or AE so that, per principles of behavior modification, they could be immediate. For someone who's addicted to Wikipedia, as many of us are, a 2-hour block would definitely be punishment, and an opportunity to take a sort break and cool off and have more balance in one's life. And given that these blocks would be short, they would be less controversial and could have a lower threshold for application than is currently the case on AE. This system would have the additional advantage of making sock puppets evident -- if during each short break someone new appeared in the discussion upholding the view of the blocked individual, it would be an obvious sock. We could call this remedy Discretionary Admin Supervision, or something like that. Maybe something like this could finally achieve the goal of encouraging JzG's extraordinary contribution while extinguishing behaviors that are antithetical to a cooperative working environment. TimidGuy (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Novel idea. Widely respected is less important than 1) respected by JzG and 2) actually care about his behavior. But this is something that you should suggest to the ArbComm, not to me. I won't be the one deciding what to do. GRBerry 15:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good point. Where should I post the suggestion? On the ArbCom page? As a comment? TimidGuy (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears the committee intends to hear the issue as part of another open case. You could suggest it on the workshop page of that case or email one of the arbitrators. GRBerry 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore Epp assessment

Greetings GRBerry, I see you assessed this article as Stub this afternoon. Since the assessment, I've added some additional reliable sources. Cheers, JGHowes talk - 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article needs additional content, not just additional sourcing. It is weak in describing his personal life, his ministry before B2tB, his ministry as a ministry, and his theology. Most of these areas could be expanded just from the existing sources, without even attempting a google search. GRBerry 13:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Living Stream Ministry

Dear GRBerry,

I wanted to inform you regarding user:Angrygirl who is maliciously inserting her/his hostility into the article Living Stream Ministry. This is the 5th time I have reverted her/his edits. Please look into it (history) and also I have left the notes on his/her talk page. There is no communication and response from the other side.

Also, please help me in letting this known to those wiki admins, who are responsible for saving an article in such circumstances. Yours faithfully, HopeChrist (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The difference of a #

Thanks for your observation that WP:NOTNEWS != WP:NOT#NEWS. The oversight is extremely embarrassing but you brought it up in a way that didn't make me feel any stupider than the oversight itself. I think I'd have felt even worse had it gone unnoticed until later. Shereth 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Rosemann in Postmodern Christianiy

Why do you think Rosemann doesn't belong here? One of his books at least is a dialogue between Foucault and medieval Christian thought. He has also contributed to volumes of the Radical Orthodoxy group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.7.108.186 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to express uncertainty on whether he belongs. What I'm certain of, is that if he belongs it would be as an internal link to a Wikipedia article on him, not an external link to a web page at the university he is employed at. The external link would belong on his article. Also, you were putting him in the section for "Leading thinkers" of Postmodern Christianity, so the relevant evidence would be that other postmodern Christians consider him highly influential in that outlook/worldview/philosophy. So find the respected reviewers who have so labeled him and be prepared to cite their reviews. GRBerry 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reading

Reading is not writing. Writing is not writing about things that are being adressed on Wikipedia. Tihs is not a badsites issue - that red herring is getting quite old at this point. It's about evaluating if the actions you are taking help or hurt or don't effect the encyclopedia. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go further. Posting to Wikipedia review is more valuable than posting to the official mailing list. I read both and post to neither, incidentally. You are beating a dead horse with your attempt to get people to stop posting at Wikipedia Review. GRBerry 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)