R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Remember kidz; REAL encyclopedias don't need footnotes!

You say you'll change the Constitution, well ya know, why don't you go ahead!

Hi, Welcome to my ex-userpage on the Infobahn's largest truckstop restroom wall!

I'm a retired field marshall, grand admiral, Astronaut, Bare-knuckle boxing Champ and Harlem Globetrotter. I hold PHDs in nuclear physics, Phrenology, business, philosophy, medicine, law and, of course, theology.

In my spare time I'm a rockstar, the pope and a costumed crime fighter.

But of course all this is really just an elaborate ruse...a fnord if you will, to protect my true identity as Jimmy Hoffa and Keyser Söze.

in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility--Joseph Goebbels

For those inquiring minds who wonder about my continued status here, User:Snickersnee put it quite well; I'm keeping my account - as long as WP exists, I reserve the right to participate. Just don't mistake me for a true believer. As with any ghost I will vanish and reappear at will. If you wish to contact this spirit, please do so via this hybrid user/talkpage by simply leaving your message below at the bottom. There is also Gmail and/or a Ouijaboard, whichever you find most convenient.

This user is a PROUD member of the Military history WikiProject since 12 September 2005.

This user has made more mainspace contributions to Wikipedia than Jimbo Wales.

Official Wikimotto:Sapere Aude or Póg Mo Thóin!

Alternatively:Encyclopedias are written with brains and pens, not mops and brooms.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Salad'o'meter™
	n00b	involved	been around	veteran	seen it all	older than the Cabal itself

Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject elections. I went into it expecting to just keep my seat and was astonished to end up with the lead role. I anticipate a rather busy six months :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Haut-Koeningsbourg castle, Alsace.

Thanks

		Milhist Coordinator election
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject election. I'm more than happy to serve the project for another six months! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Russian-Circassian War

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Contacting you

I see that you've mentioned contacting you via Gmail or Ouijaboard. But I don't have a Ouijaboard and I didn't see an e-mail address. Are you out there? Neo? BobDysart (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Lol, I see you're more active than I am these days, even with your retired banner. Just thought I'd stop by and say hi to an old friend. I'm over at WikiHow now. It's much more relaxing for me - anything to keep the mind occupied eh? Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just listen to nice songs like this and I cheer up...especially with 100 emails a day at times... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wales/ArbCom RFC

RDH, I've moved your second comment in the partial support section up to your first comment in the support section to avoid double counting. I hope you don't mind. Tony (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Aimed at me?

I assune this [1] was aimed at me. I don't understand why. Can you explain please? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why no, of course not! Perish the thought dear sir! Besides, given your trigger happy record with your block button, I'd be foolish to do so.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a serious question. Apparently, you're happy to fling insults and then retreat into jocularity. This does your reputation no good William M. Connolley (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Within your circles, sir, I'm quite sure my reputation is beyond repair. But in others, I would gladly place it up against yours any day.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You care about your accuracy to this extent [2] so that is good William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Writers it seems to me should be thoroughly ashamed of nonsensical errors...They should therefore strive above all to become masters of the whole craft of history, for to do so is good; but if this be out of their own power, they should give the closest attention to what is most necessary and important (Accuracy and clarity).--Polybius

Oh, come with old Khayyam, and leave the Wise / To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies; / One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies; / The Flower that once has blown for ever dies. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, I think I'm becoming a god!--Vespasian

Good notion

"1. It is the hard working editors who most need to take a more active role in Wiki-politics. Otherwise it will continue to be dominated by bureaucrats, process wonks, wiki-lawyers, zealots, Jimbots, IRC fairies and, yes, worst of all, naval geezers navel gazers.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)"

I would've phrased this differently, but I think you have the right idea here. Alternatively, those of us who are active can find a way to work better for them.--Tznkai (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(Well I'm sure there are some groups I left out ;) Indeed, and try to represent their best interests as best we can, while trying also to raise their awareness of what's going on, especially if it effects them. The current system (such as it is) does a terrible job at both and, as you point out, simply staying out of their way. Part of the reason for this is it is so easy to create new red-tape policies and bureaucratic fiefdoms, but it is very difficult to dismantle them.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Constitution

In case you're not still watching the Governance page, this would be of interest to you I think, and based on what you said this would be of particular interest. As a side note, would you consider using a talkpage again? Talkpages have built-in links for creating new sections. With this setup, one runs the risk of edit conflicts as one must edit an extant section or the whole page in order to leave a new message. → ROUX ₪ 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have a look. Glad to see someone else believes that an ENWiki Constitution is an overdue idea whose time is coming. As for the talkpage-some use their talkpages as userpages, I chose to do the opposite. Sorry for the minor inconvenience, but I like my lil hybrid page; it's 50% more fool efficient!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight

Although I have been on Wikipedia since May 2006, I have never understood what was going on relative to the behind-the-scenes stuff. For a long time, I did not even know there was a behind-the-scenes. Your post [3] was most enlightening. I think I better understand now (a little bit). The only part I already knew about was the Essjay controversy. I read through Durova's Sekret Evidence but don't know what to make of it. After a year or so, I did begin to understand that there were secret mailing lists and IRC channels; I don't know whether they continue or not. Anyway, thanks for the insight into some past history that may drive current opinion and behavior. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you! It is always nice to get unexpected appreciation, especially from an unexpected source! Unfortunately, the one I targeted it at did not appreciate it as much. I admit, like all histories, it reflects the biases of its author. And it does simplify for the sake of summary. So by all means, I encourage you to do your own research and reach your own conclusions (that's what I did:).

For more on L'affair De La Durova Et !! I suggest starting with this fine article by Cade Metz of The Register. In fact, I highly recommend all of his articles on Wikipedia. Of course there are also my dear old friends over at WikiTruth. I learned a tremendous amount from them about Wiki's dysfunctionalities. I'm also grateful to them for all the many laughs they have served up, because, well the truth can hurt. Although their site is no longer active, I can't recommend them enough. The Wikipedia Review occasionally gets some good scoops and heads-ups (most notably on Essjay) but at day's end it is only another web forum with a low Signal-to-noise ratio, so you really have to wade through a lot of muck to find the good nuggets. You may not see the forrest, but you will bump into many trees while trying to there. Finally, I humbly submit for your consideration my own Wiki-critical blog. It contains many select links to the above-mentioned sites and many others, along with my own rantings, ravings and poor attempts at insight with humor.

It is often difficult for us proles down in the trenches to know what's going on within the hallowed bowels of Olympus (and, make no mistake, they LIKE it that way). I'm fortunate to have some well-placed sources I've cultivated over the years, who have proven invaluable in helping me to separate the real from the rumor, though at times even they, themselves, have had difficulty telling the difference.

While the power of the secret mailing lists and IRC channels has diminished, they still exert an undue and unsavory influence, as exemplified by their effective killing of the nascent ACPD. I'm glad to see another working editor has now taken an active interest in Wiki-governance. It has become a big deal too important for us to ignore anymore!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I did notice your reply and read the articles you suggested. Wikipolitics overwhelm me and I tend to get a little depressed if I read too much about them. Recently I was accused of being devious in ways that I could not even fathom, so now I have a glimmer of what I was supposed to be doing (among other things, something about intentionally sabotaging AN/I through technical expertise, which I assure you I am incapable of knowing how to do). Also, I was reflexively against the council selected by some of the arbcom members, based on personal experience, but it seems you are for it. Is this because you know and trust the members? I think there are people in high places, including arbcom, that should not be there. But, as I said, I am going on personal experience and do not know about the corruption of any. I just see some very poor judgement and collusion. Are you pessimistic about the future? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Pessimistic? A bit, yes. But not as much as I was...in fact I'm optimistic enough to remove that ominous-looking Retired sign from off the top of this page. Remember, Wikipedia is more than Jimbo, or the cabals or the ArbCom or all the drama llamas. The overwhelming majority of visitors come here seeking fast information. Most of them neither know nor care how poorly this place is governed. That is why, ultimately, the contributors of quality content will always matter more than any Convocation of Politic Worms.

I do confess to taking a certain perverse pleasure at the scandals which expose those worms...those sad, pale mushroom people who fear the light. What truly frustrates and disheartens me, though, is when the quality contributors are under-appreciated, harassed, abused and even persecuted. Or when these talented, yet often temperamental, individuals start warring with one another over some trivial matter or misunderstanding which could be very easily shrugged off. We should be on the same side-fighting to improve the encyclopedia and the way it is run! But getting Wikipedians to agree on that is tantamount to herding cats:).

That being said, I must also confess to you that I do know certain key members of the ACDP, a few for years in fact. They are all good, hard working types whose judgment I've come to trust implicitly and whose characters I will gladly attest to. I believe you would too if you gave them a chance, but perhaps I'm being too optimistic there;). There are also one or two sitting Arbs (and a whole slew of former ones) I would not mind see standing before the AC as defendants either.

Awake still? If so congrats;) One major reason I changed my major from History, is something my mentor, Dr. Conradt; a Poli-Sci prof, once told me-Our job is to speak truth to power. Whether power wants to hear it or not...especially if not. As reformers and agitants, that is our lot too, and our rock. But we must take care as to which battles we chose to fight, namely the important ones and the ones we know we can win:). With best regards,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

From a possum that has somehow survived the info autobahn

I like the idea of speaking truth to...(sudden darkness). Please carry on...Novickas (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do, and welcome to the party Speedbump!;-)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment at Vote

There's an instruction not to include a comment with one's vote on oversighters. I share your opposition to Mr.Z-man, but ask you to remove the comment in order to conform to protocol. —SlamDiego_←T 12:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Too late.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hindenburg

Given that you've been around since 2005, I'm sure you know that disruption to prove a point is prohibited. Let's not play games. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Games?! Games?! This is not a game! This is serious fucking business! We are assembling all the world's knowledge for that poor starving kid in Africa! And you are so heartless as to call it a game! For shame!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi RDH. It might be best to tone it down a bit in future edit summaries. New editors might get the wrong idea. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, now go do something useful.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm doing a bit of work over at Commons at the moment which is rather useful. Would you like to help? We could always use more participants! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm currently working on North Carolina class battleship. Besides, every time I've tried to help out on the Commons, some admin with limited English capabilities has threatened to punch my ticket. Wish it were otherwise. Cheers,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a nice article. If you need any help with copyediting, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tis indeed a nice arty, but it's not really mine, I'm just adding some minor details to help it cruise safely through Class-A Review. It is nearly done now, bot thanks for the offer:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Boba Phat

Hi R.D.H. (Ghost in the Machine) -

I just wanted to thank you for your helping to support the notability of the Boba Phat article. It is clear that there IS quite a bit of significant sourcing; I am fully appreciative of your adding your 2¢ to help support this from an objective standpoint.... not to mention your Sonny Lester reference made me laugh out loud. You rock!

Very Best SheighZam (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome M'dear! I truly believe that Boba Phat has as much place here as Mr. Lester. Our opponents seem to think that including Mr. Phat somehow lessens Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. I don't see how it does any more than promoting Super Smash Bros. Brawl to featured status and displaying it on the mainpage. Plus, as I stated, deletionistas really got no soul ;)...Rock on!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to give cookies or any of that stuff yet, but I have a high five here for you :) Just starting to learn about this deletionist sect, and now it appears as though editors (I may be wrong by presuming the reference is to me, but I'm probably taking it way too personally as this IS my article!) are being accused of issuing more than 1 vote, which to me is preposterous. Apparently if there is ANY factionalism at all, it is those who all know each other on here for some time, and ban together to fight against an article that has, like you said, more notability than quite a number of the already-approved articles. So here's that High five!

SheighZam (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well as a diabetic I really should refrain from cookies, but I still love em so thanks regardless! I've always said that there are two basic groups on WP-those who want to add or improve content and those who want to control it. The deletionistas tend to fall into the latter category. What better way to control something than to have it destroyed. Besides, creating quality, non-cut & pasted articles is hard damn labor, right? It takes hours or even days. But it only takes minutes, or even seconds, to nominate something for deletion. And maybe a few minutes more lobbying one's friends to join the party and bring some kerosene. So now we have this firmly entrenched culture of deletion...with cliques, bureaucracy and a mega bong load of guidelines concerning what makes something or someone worthy of inclusion. So damn right there's factionalism here alright....out the yin yang in fact. Even though There isn't supposed to be...just as we are not supposed to take things personally here...and yet we do. Such is the nature of us beasts known as humans:) High five back at ya along with a 'Bama Bump--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:24, 15 October 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)

Please redact

Hey there. The first of these is really, really inappropriate. Please consider redacting it yourself. — Coren ^(talk) 16:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been removed. Please don't try to replace it. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No those are highly relevant questions. Sorry but I don't see how they are inappropriate at all. Mr. Bauder does not have to answer them if he does not wish.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

However relevant you may feel them, the first question is considerably far out of bounds.--Tznkai (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If and when the block evasion stops and there is some sort of assurance the repeated asking of the clearly indicated as innapporpriate question will stop, we can talk about the second one which seems to fall rather neatly in "irritating, but acceptable."--Tznkai (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean if I promise to be a good boy and STFU? Very well...but how am I supposed to do that without committing block evasion. Catch 22.

You log into your account and request an unblock.--Tznkai (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(On your user talk page. Just override the redirect)--Tznkai (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As an election clerk and administrator I have deleted your addition of the questions and your repost after warning, on the grounds of inappropriate posting of personal information.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Using Wikipedia as a battleground, specifically by using the 2009 arbitration elections as a vehicle for personally directed attacks that far exceed Wikipedia norms. diff (admin viewable only). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

We allow a stupendous amount of crap to go on in elections, but this was too far, and you were told so by multiple parties.--Tznkai (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(Sigh) R.D.H just emailed me to promise he will be good and not cause any more unnecessary fuss. He tells me he is unable to post on the page (??). Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems he asked Fred Bauder a question, which was oversighted and he was indeffed. From what I saw of it at the time, it was nothing not in the public domain and widely known on Wikipedia anyway, I did not see any lies. Nasty old things politics.  Giano  19:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not oversighted, deleted.--Tznkai (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He is unable to post on this page because this is a userpage. He is perfectly able to post on his User Talk page, which is currently a redirect here. He has elected not to do so. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

@Casliber was his promise to be good, whatever that means, come before or after this? I mean, I don't mind increasing WR's membership at all, its more the lack of any coherent understanding of what was problematic. As long as he gets that this isn't just my power trip, but also because of his conduct, that would assuage me that the indef is no longer needed.--Tznkai (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) before as far as I can tell, unless there is a goof with summertime. I was asleep at 5-6 am my time (Sydney). If I were not going to work in a minute I'd flip these user and user:talk pages myself. (bangs head on keyboard a few times) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked, but still a bit wary. RDH will have to tell me what IP blocks to undo as well.--Tznkai (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, I think that is fair. However, in his candidate statement Fred Bauder does say "As I have in the past, I will use my legal training and experience..." I think it needs to be clarified if that subject is off limits regarding questioning; otherwise, some other unfortunate is going to fall into the same hole as RDH. If that is the case, perhaps Fred should be asked to remove references to real life, especially those he finds sensitive.  Giano  20:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That does need to be clarified, and we should discuss it in this thread. I'm not sure about the other editors who spoke out against the content RDH posted, but I have not heard from or seen the opinions of Fred Bauder on this issue.  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have posted there. I had hoped such a delicate matter could be handled here a little more discretely.  Giano  21:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ghost Responds

Tznkai, you have checkuser powahs, baby. You can look up my lil ol IP anytime you fancy. But I shall leave that up to you. IF I really wish an unblock, I'll mail the request along with my IP on to an admin of whom I have, shall we say, a more favorable opinion. However, my promise to behave here is still good. I will only abide by it, please note, because I made it to Cas and Giacomo. My word to them, and appreciation for their coming to my defense, is what will enforce my behavior, not any threats from you or yours.

I'm still mulling my options...is it really worth it, to come back to WP? It is certainly no longer a very fun, welcoming, warm place...what police state is?! Maybe being unbanned yet still IP banned is the ideal state for me on WP. I have now joined the Review...and my first post there may contain der verboden question that dare not speak its name here. A whole lotta eyeballs would see it then...maybe even more than here. Or I may agree to a compromise and, with your excellency's kind permission, still pose my second (actually second and third) annoying question to Mr. Bauder.

Us ghosts have many options and all this drama is givin me teh vapors! I do appreciate the official unblock...though now posting from an IP is not as much fun, since it is no longer evasion. Ghost posting from--4.100.68.115 (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't use my amazing and stupendous, and awesome, and did I mention privacy violating tools except in very particular circumstances, but thanks for the invitation anyway. (The tool is in fact, not awesome or amazing or stupendous, but it does violate privacy). What you do on WR or anywhere else not here is really outside of my concern, care, or ability to do anything about. I do feel however, that its important that I point out a few things, not to you, but to anyone else who is reading and is interested in the civics aspect of this: I'm not part of the police, Wikipedia isn't a state (I prefer Max Weber's definition, and even if you wanted to make the label a metaphor or better yet, transform it into a simile, this website allows near complete mobility, users to argue things that are patently wrong, throw mud at the super powered staff, post long rants like the one immediately above, we have no secret admins that I'm aware of (and the existence of secret police is never all that secret, that would be how they operate, it is "fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station").

Yes, I did just mix a reference to one of the greatest minds in all of social science to Star Wars. Why? Because Weber proves talked about weighty things, which is what you are trying to make a block on editing a website sound like. Star Wars is not a weighty thing, it is entertainment, and yet people get really worked up about it, which is actually what goes on at Wikipedia.--Tznkai (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well someone with amazing and stupendous, and awesome supah powahs has unzapped my IP. If not you, I wonder who?
I admit I was wrong to call Wikipedia a state. It is more like unto an Ochlocracy, or Bartertown with a legal system only half as elegant and refined. And indeed sir, you are not a policeman but a janitor, who has been given police powers due to a flawed and underdeveloped system of governance. And while there may not be a secret police Per Se, ORTS seems quite capable of performing that function when the need arises.
I'm glad you brought up Star Wars, though...I'm a big fan boy (literally), plus it gives me the perfect opportunity to paraphrase one of its best lines; The more you tighten your grip, Tznkai, the more users will slip through your fingers.
I'm pretty sure ol Max Weber, like most esteemed scholars and academics, would view Wikipedia with disdain...or bemoan it, as do I, as a great idea brought down by flawed implementation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who unblocked your IP, since I don't know what your IP is. If I did however, I'd be able to look it up in the publicly open unblock log. I see that you've rephrased the questions more artfully, even if there is a a lot amount of question begging, it falls neatly within the amount of political silliness that we tolerate on Wikipedia as well as in life. So, thank you for that, even though I know you did it in spite of your opinion of me, not because of it. --Tznkai (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly have my faults...sarcasm, stubbornness and ill-temper amongst them. But at day's end, I like to think I'm reasonable. For future reference for all you Wiki admins and wanna-be's reading this; It is not best practice to make threats, cajoling and bans your first recourse when dealing with reasonable people. When we are all banished or driven away guess what, asides from yourselves, Wikipedia will be left with...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if I were to describe someone as sarcastic, stubborn, and ill-tempered, would you put them in the "likley to be reasonable" or "unlikley to be reasonable" categories? I happen to be of the belief that all people are reasonable over all, but are often not when you'd like, or even need them to be. As it happens, I generally agree that blocks and bans are poor tools, cudgels when scalpels are needed, but when something appears time sensitive, one acts with the tools available. In the end though, why complain? Your questions got asked and answered, your block is gone, and you've found a receptive audience off-site?--Tznkai (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as reasonable as someone who uses phrases such as We allow a stupendous amount of crap to go on in elections, and employs such blunt tools as a first resort, even though he, admittedly, knows better. But you are right...it all ended pretty well. I have found a new haunt where I'm having much fun and making many new friends. And I have you to thank for it...thank you;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the penismightier for $100, Trebeck!

Heh, RDH, just remember, the pen is mightier than the sword (that's what you were getting at, right?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You Grok well my brother! Of course us Military History types tend to have both...it doesn't hurt;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Aah, good ol' Heinlein, bless him for some seriously deeply-grody-to-the-max verbage :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: The word does encapsulate rather well what goes on here in some cool collaborations, esp. at FAC :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Heinlein is a seriously froody dude. — Coren ^(talk) 17:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

.....who really knew where his towel was at :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We need more groking and fewer Vogons on here dammit!;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

NYB does poetry so he can play the Vogon (?) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well he is rather bureaucratic and officious...but he's far too considerate and thoughtful to be considered a member of that species. Besides, the thought of him doing Beat poetry is hysterical.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its worse:

Written by the unwell, read by the unwise.

Wikipedia at its best:

Do I look like a fortune teller?

How can I resist a request from one so insightful:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey RDH. It's your long lost buddy Spawn Man. Been a long time right? I see some things never change (IE you battling with the powers that be). ; ) Drop me an email some time. Just thought I'd come back to see how everyone was - most of my old wikibuddies are all decommissioned. Shame. Well hope to see you around dude! : ) Cheers, 130.123.192.23 (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well ya know, the powers that-be still need a-fightin...since they refuse the honor of unconditional surrender and all. I saw you mentioned over on our mutual Cas' page that you were bored...damn must have been super bored to come back to this depressing place. You see how long it has been since I've checked in. Still at least we've found other, more fun ways to waste spend our time eh:) Cheers M8,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My ears were burning....ouch Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well I was thinking of coming back eventually. It does seem to be a more depressing place looking around but now that I'm at university doing my photography degree I think I might be able to add something to the photography articles here to help students and young photographers like I once was with their projects. ; ) 124.197.16.150 (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Boba Phat at AFD again

An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jun-Dec 2009

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This must be a mistake! But nonetheless thanks Tom! I truly appreciate it seeing as it's been eons since I've gotten anything so nice on here. Tis good to see our MHP, instead of dispatching its old warhorses to the glue factory, allows them to graze freely and even throws them an occasional sugar cookie in appreciation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey bro,

How are you? Long time no see. :D

Regards,

Spawn Man (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity will not abate

Well, as the section header says, it just refuses to! I just wanted to say that I hope all is well, Ghost! I appear to have missed a tremendous amount of...er...acrimony. Your return would be much welcomed! Those were good days... SoLando (Talk) 23:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Replying to old friends

Thanks for dropping by my cemetery to say hi Sol (and you too Spawn bro;)!

Good times indeed were those...and far too brief. But we still have our enduring friendships and fond memories, along with the Forlorn hope here of better times ahead.

Best to you m8's, Ghost

PS Apologies for my late response. Part of the reason was that accursed, buggy failure of a visual editor that was thrust down the community's throat by the usual band of misguided apparatchiks. The fault, dear Jimbo, lies not in our software but in ourselves- the HUMANWARE. So maybe you should try improving the culture and editing environment instead? But, as I said, that's a Forlorn hope. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)