User:Geogre/Talk archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. 17

Contents 1 Move Request 2 List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy 3 Dear Geogre 4 Lingeron 5 Your Afd philosophy 6 Lingeron 7 Thank you dear G! 8 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop 9 Youth Ministry AfD 10 Input 11 Charles Augustus Murray 12 TTJ 13 Am I confused 14 Hello 15 Battle of Blenheim 16 IRC 17 WP:AN, WP:AN/I 18 Self-unblocking 19 Geogre for ex-sysop! 20 Geogre for the Main Page! 21 Copyediting 22 Template wikilove 23 Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_10#.5B.5BStar_Wars_Galaxies_Emulator.5D.5D 24 I deleted your Main Page article 25 ANI 26 Image:Rouge-Admin.png 27 Disconnection suckitude 28 Request for Input: Ebenezer Cooke 29 Deletion request. 30 William Taswell 31 The proper study of encyclopaedists 32 Potential actions 33 Kudos for Komments 34 AFD 35 ZOMG NPA RPA 36 I've become manic 37 Philip H. Farber 38 User_talk:Publicgirluk and the accompanying AN/I discussion 39 Your idea 40 New Rule 41 ArbCom FYI 42 I demand a recount! 43 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox 44 Nobel Prize 45 The, um, situation

[edit] Move Request

I closed a move request for the Committee for the Safety of Nuclear Installations yesterday following the requisite five-day period because the request was malformed. But the editor who made the request is clearly correct in that the page ought to be moved from Committee for the Safety of Nuclear Installations to Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations as that is factually correct. Would you be able to perform the move for us? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, now I have a headache, but I think it's done. Geogre 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

and thanks from me too ! Bob aka Linuxlad 14:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

De nada. I just had to find the acetominophen. Quite an adventure y'all have got going, there. The article could use some beefing up, but I suppose you know that and were just starting. Geogre 14:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy

Just a note to let you know the article has been completely rewritten in the time since you voted on AfD. dryguy 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh god. I can't look. Letsee, how does it go; Lincoln had a secretary named Ford and Ford drove a Lincoln? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The keep voters, most of them, were not crazy. They suggested rewriting it to be like a Snopse page, an article about the "coincidences," including when it began, how it spread, how it got a boost by the Internet, etc. If they succeed in doing the rewrite, it will be worth keeping, supposing only that the rewrite doesn't reiterate the thing in the process of discussing it. It's no improvement if you write about it and then have "similarities" tacked on by an eager reader. I'll look after a while to see whether or not I can change my vote, but I'm wary even with a rewrite. Geogre 17:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The rewrite is very much worthwhile, so I got to vote to "keep." It's a nice thing to do and what Wikipedia is about. Gallows reprieves are always dramatic. Geogre 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Geogre! I'm very grateful to you and everyone else who has given the article a second chance. dryguy 20:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Geogre

I'm sorry to hear your head is hurting, dear G - here's something to drive that pain away... and something you shouldn't actually have, but hey, it's Saturday! :) Hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 17:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Heck yeah! The funny thing is that the one I can't have is not the one you think. I take Coumadin (not because I'm that old, but because of a bit of a mishap of birth that required a fix), so I'm not allowed to have aspirin, but the beer is more effective and delicious. Thank you. Geogre 17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lingeron

I decided to unblock Lingeron so we can get some more evidence, especially since controversy was starting to erupt. If this ends up being incorrect and based on speculation, it could lead to severe consequences. I had to take the safe route, at least for the time being. — Deckiller 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if this issue looks like bad practice — some objections were raised, and I wanted to make sure we had all the cards out on the table before we kept a block in place. I do think that, even if Lingeron isn't a sockpuppet, we should block he/she for the other issues. — Deckiller 06:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you link to a diff of the controversy? Again, it's fine if we want to run check user, but check user policy is to not request in the case of the obvious. I don't think there really can be severe consequences. Everyone is following policy in the various areas. Since I haven't had to deal with the user much, it's fine if she's unblocked while a check user request is processed. Geogre 11:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and don't sweat the lifting, etc. You did the right thing. I blocked an obvious one. Questions arose, and that's all it should take to shorten the block -- no hard feelings. The questions were valid. Check user followed. Confirmation came. Block reinstated. That's absolutely fine and no hard feelings toward anyone. Shoot, it's all encouraging for me. I wish more indef blocks were carefully considered. Geogre 12:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; glad to see it's all been taken care of now...until the next sock :) — Deckiller 19:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Afd philosophy

I wanted to tell you that I was quite impress with your essay outlining some of your AfD philosophy-in particular your sentiment I think that the logic of eventualism applies equally to absences as stubs. Eventually a Wikipedian will create a good article, just as eventually a Wikipedian will fix a stub.. It has an almost userbox-ish appeal to it and I find it a very even keel and moderate approach. I do believe there is value in stubs but there is also value in the AfD process. While I do think that the veterinary surgery page would have been expanded in time, the AfD prod quicken that growth and as a whole Wikipedia is better for it. The system is not perfect but in cases like this--it works. :) Agne 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of expansion. I don't mind changing my "vote," either. AfD isn't supposed to be clean up, but if it gets people to work, then that's a nice side effect. One of the things, I guess, that bothers me is that it seems like passions run high over something that is, to me, questionable. There are two reasons for leaving a "The sky is blue" substub. The first is that it is actually valid but stunted. The other is that one believes that the very sketchiness will invite contributions. The third reason, that we shouldn't disrespect the author, doesn't apply, if you ask me. I think a single sentence can't satisfy the first valid reason, nor do I think it will work for the second reason, and that's what bothers me. Are we keeping these because it's going to hurt the feelings or disrespect the author? Shoot, no one wants to be mean, but that's just not reason enough.

Again, I'm delighted if that article got expanded.

Thanks for the compliment on the philosophy. Some of my stuff is out of date, probably, but I do feel like it's somewhat my duty to be consistent and to be explicit in the way I interpret the policy. The most vital part, to me, is that we don't treat AfD as a battle or weapon. It's an ugly part of the site, but I'm convinced that it's necessary (and overburdened and unweildly and in danger of collapsing). Geogre 11:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that AfD is not suppose to be about clean up but in a way it sort of has evolved to serve that purpose. To be honest, I think there needs to be a little better "notice" system for when an article has been AfD so that more editors could get involved in improving the article (if it can be). The 6 day AfD timeline is sufficient time to see if an article can get better if adequate notice can be given. If it's crap, then very much like your organism analogy (which I also like) then the waste should be expelled. I have to admit, I'm personally bewildered at the need for all the obscure anime characters, schools, and articles dedicated to an individual album.

I think the area that we most agree on is the need to keep AfD away from being a battlefield. While I have been very impressed with your moderate demeanor, I do think "Ugly interaction" with more aggressive and not so tactful deletionist is what breds inclusionist and the more ugly the encounter the more extreme the reaction. Just as I think that extreme deletionism is bad, so too is extreme inclusionism--which again I think is a reactionary position. Trying to bring the AfD back to more common and civil ground is a worthy goal. Agne 18:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lingeron

I wasn't sure if Lingeron was right or not about you, and if she really was a puppet or not, but after that response, I at least now know one out of two. - MSTCrow 22:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. Geogre 23:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you dear G!

Thank you for the lovely birthday wishes, dear Geogre! :) As I inevitably approach the dreadful age, I get more and more concerned every time I hear it, I must say... but I'll postpone this thoughts for next year, I swear ;) I kept you a piece of cake - now don't be shy and eat it all! Hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the cake. You see, there are some serious advantages to passing the midpoint in things. For example, you can start telling everyone how you remember when things were different. You can excuse being irrascible. You can start complaining about the routine aches and pains and get actual sympathy. Similarly, I realized a month or so ago that I had gotten fat rather than overweight. What a wonderful realization that was. Now, I can look at that piece of cake, and where otherwise people would have said, "That's fattening," I can answer, "Too late!" and gobble it down. Congratulations on another year and for that other business. Geogre 14:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am expecting the "what am I doing with my life / what would I like to do with my life" existential angst in the next few years, but how do you known when you are half-way? A person might live to be 100, or 120, or just one more day... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel like you're growing up or dying? If the former, you're not there. If the latter, you're past it. If you feel like you're a grown up who will need to make important decisions, then enjoy those 3 months. Geogre 14:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am definitely growing up. More cake please. :)

In other news, I have 2 1/6 of my own new catgeories - 2/3 of Category:Famous rhinos (sharing with a less notable Canadian rhino) and 1/2 of Category: Famous hippos (sharing with an odd hippo/tortoise couple), and all of Category:Famous giraffes.

And I saw the skeleton of Jonathan Wild on Friday. If you are in London, he is at the Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons on Lincoln's Inn Fields. Free entrance. He is the one hanging up in the background here. Couldn't see the remains of Chunee, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that is just silly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't me. Category:Famous tigers is a bit sparse too. User:Mike Selinker being rather thorough in Category:Famous animals. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have about 30/32nds of Category:Literary dunces, but if we get a category of famous dogs, we'll have to start a new wiki. There is one famous giraffe, eh? I wonder how many famous lemurs? I also wonder how long it will be before someone starts up the inevitable "people are animals" argument. Let's keep the dog far hence that's friend to men. Geogre 16:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we have 70-odd articles in Category:Famous dogs, one of the most populous sub-categories of Category:Famous animals, along with the slightly pedantic Category:Famous cetaceans. But then there is Category:Famous lobsters and Category:Famous red pandas (but for some reason no Category:Famous crabs or Category:Famous giant pandas, let alone Category:Famous puffer fish...). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop

Thank you for your supportive comments here [1] They are appreciated. That Fred Bauder thinks I can be banned instead of Eternal Equinox has caused me to have a severe sense of humour failure. In retrospect, of course instead of making light of Eternal Equinox, I should have taken her very seriously - which is what she wanted - but frankly she and her edits on our talk pages were (at best) a joke - so one could either laugh or cry, and crying has never been my style. That Fred Bauder thinks Bishonen should be "cautioned" is, in short, disgusting. She seems to spend hours and hours trying to create harmony on the site, and takes her responsibilities as an admin 100 times more seriously then most of the others. I think the Arb-com now needs a huge kick, and to rid itself of insulting and incompetent buffoons. I expect I shall stick around Wikipedia, but at the moment mu entheusiasm for it is at an all time low. Sorry this is a (sort of) spammed message, but when I saw all of your comments for the first time this evening, I felt a quick response was necessary, but that makes it no less sincere. Thanks once again, it's nice to feel supported. Giano | talk 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I understand your frustration, but you have to always remember that Fred's one voice. I disagree with him, of course, and in strong terms, but you simply can't let his view shape your mood. If you do, you are ceding power over your moods and edits to someone else. Secondly, though, I have a feeling that there is a backstory to his motions that we're not aware of, but he could also just be making a mistake. People make mistakes, sometimes say hasty things, and sometimes misapply, but the most important thing I can say, I think, is to feel as bitter as you'd like, but don't let it color your edits. Let him back out or back down, if he chooses. If he chooses not to, then wait to see whether anyone else agrees with him. I very much doubt anyone will, and remember that several people have your back in this instance. I know that your previous experience with that truly absurd pedophile thing has jaundiced your view, and rightly so, but this is not a replay. Things are going to work out, and Fred's voice is alone here. Let's let that slide as much as possible, because there's nothing good that's going to come from pointing out his error more than once. Geogre 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youth Ministry AfD

You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth ministry. Apparently, long after the AfD was well underway, someone moved the page and then put a (mostly) empty stub in its place. The article actually being discussed is now at Youth Ministry (Evangelical). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• If that's so, then someone is vandalizing. Doing the redirect while under AfD is rude but permissible. Replacing the redirect with a junk article, on the other hand, is absolutely out. This is something I may have to put on my boots for. What a mess. Geogre 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It was definitely not a good idea to do it during the AfD, but I don't think it was done in bad faith. The user had gotten a consensus for it on the talk page, and probably didn't think it would make any difference since the AfD seemed to be headed towards a certain Keep consensus anyway. So it was jumping the gun a bit, but I wouldn't call it vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the redirect that's vandalism, but the overwriting of the redirect so that the AfD header pointed to the wrong direction. Without word, the closing admin would delete the stub and not touch the other. Now, if it's a sure keep, that's no big deal, but if it had been a consensus delete, then it would have basically protected the article from the AfD. That's why it's vandalism. Let's suppose that you know that an article is going to get deleted after it's listed on AfD. If you moved and then overwrote the redirect, the closer would delete the former redirect, preserving your bad article. It can't be allowed. Geogre 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Input

Could you please take a look at this and see if you can offer any useful advice? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have a couple of thoughts. My first attempt at the thing was [2] this. Additionally, I got into a longish exchange a week or so ago with someone from the "other side" on schools. I'm not sure it's at the level of a Platonic dialog, but it does outline some of my thoughts in a clearer (maybe) form. Here [3] it is. Later today, I'll try to come up with something less verbose, more schematic and objective. My central point, over and over again, is that each item in an encyclopedia must be unlike the common run of things. Almanacks, directories, censuses and the like list "all" of something. Encyclopedias contextualize concepts and explain the singular. To the degree that a school, or a restaurant or statue or building, sets out an uniqueness and importance (the stuff you're outlining on your page), to that degree, it's a proper and necessary article. Geogre 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm intentionally sidestepping the issue of what's subjectively notable and what isn't; instead, I'm just deferring to schools that can support an article, however inane. As long as we aren't taking the school's word for everything, I'm happy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• See, I can't accept that position. It's not that I don't think there are schools that should have articles, but I'm hard line on this. I think every article has to establish its usefulness, and that usefulness must be explanatory. If it's not, then it's just not encyclopedic. I wouldn't do the "nn must go," but I would take the time, each time, to explain that there has to be a reason for an article. The question "What harm does it do" is not the right one. "What good does it do" is the proper one for all articles, schools and pizzareias alike. Geogre 17:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Usefulness" isn't really a useful measure, is it? As I'm fond of pointing out, tonight's TV listings for a major city are useful to millions, verifiable and NPOV -- I'm not sure if what makes them inappropriate for Wikipedia can be encoded, in fact. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Usefulness is an excellent criterion. That usefulness must be explanatory. I.e. it has to explain the meaning, context, history, and effects of the subject. This is not "useful for starting my car in the morning." It is not "useful to students trying to find their class." It is not "useful for oatmeal eaters." It is useful in explaining the full range of meaning of the subject. That full range includes several things that might have as minor components all of the above, but the more useful the article is at explanation, the more appropriate the article is. If it fails to include cultural context, history, and effect, it's entirely out. "Tonight, Lucy will be on" is not explanatory: it is a fact. The fact might be used by someone, but there is no discourse involved. The fancier term I use most often is "discursive element to the article." Geogre 17:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, kneejerk reaction when I see "useful". Agreed that articles should be usefully explanatory. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning on WP:V pretty heavily for a definition of "notable" or "useful," here; if the school is sufficiently noteworthy to have multiple non-trivial sources, then it's notable. Considering a school is going to have to be in the news or controversial or historical to meet that objective standard, it excludes the vast majority of "Foo Elementary School is in Foo, Bar, and has X students and classes in Y and Z" while not encumbering users who are making actual articles (instead of inane, unexpandable stubs) on schools. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Augustus Murray

He seems like an interesting, hippo-obsessed chap. Could I interest you in adding some quality research to my scandal- and anecdote-obsessed oeuvre? (Or is that oeuf?) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in the last week (cum laude, laudamus ad te Christe) of this second summer semester. I want it to end. I want it to end. Oh, please, Lord, let it end. Anyway, it ends on Friday, and there will be MUCH rejoicing. Next week and the week after, I get to not teach (gratia ad Deo), and I may actually go in to the library again at that point. Geogre 14:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TTJ

Hi Geogre, this is bloger I accept the changes you made and I added as per your request. please review, and tell me what you think.

BTW I took out the fallowing sentence,

“As part of an ongoing debate in the Orthodox Jewish community, the True Torah Jews effort represents one of the more vigorous defenses of the messianic expectation.”

since in Orthodox Jewish circles even with a positive opinion on Zionism the messianic expectation is not a subject of debate. (Or didn’t I understand your point?)

Bloger 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello anybody home?????????????

Bloger 01:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't answer because I didn't really have a comment. You know the subject far better than I ever will, I'm sure, and I wish you nothing but success with it. What would probably be the wisest course now is to either go back to DRV with your new version or go to AfD with it. You could simply reintroduce it to article space, with a note on the talk page explaining that this is a complete rewrite that addressed the concerns of the original AfD, so it is not a G4 speedy delete candidate. That's the least "legal" course. If you recall who nominated the first article for deletion on AfD in the first place, I'd drop a note on her or his talk page and invite a look at your new version. I think you're doing everything the right way and trying very hard to make a solid article that serves your organization, and I wish you every success. Geogre 22:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for your time and encouraging words.

Just so that you know, the TTJ is not my organization nor am I a member of the board the only relations I have with the TTJ is, that I happen to know the president of the org. and being that he was born before the PC, he asked me if I can help him publicize his org. on the web.

I have since Written three other articles and edited several others completely unrelated to the TTJ article.

Now to the point:

I will consider reintroducing the article. Would you be so helpful and indorse it – if not on content - at least on the basis that it satisfies “verifiability” and “notability” in your opinion?

Bloger 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I will, but I'm not clear, still, what you mean. You're going to simply move it to article space, and you'd like a comment on its talk page? Or are you going back to DRV, where I can move to all recreation? Geogre 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I’m leaning towards a new article space for several reasons 1) more people look at it this way 2) you get seven days until deletion as apposed to five in DRV Etc.

Bloger 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, not true, actually. If people think it's a recreated article, it becomes a speedy deletion candidate as G4, and that can happen very fast. That's why I wanted warning and why I think you're better off going to DRV at the same time at least. Geogre 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand a G4 is only a A substantially identical copy is it not so?

Bloger 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Am I confused

Have I picked up the wrong end of the tree here [4] I cannot beleive this has come back to haunt us yet again, tellme I am mistaken......please? Giano | talk 07:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I've had a year to digest my feelings on the subject, and so, if it does come up again, I think I can present them in a clear manner. If we're having this again, let's not dilly dally. Instead, straight to comment RfC. Geogre 11:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

agreed! Giano | talk 12:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I meant content RfC. Anyway, there has to be a solution beyond TfD, which will result in the same garbage as before (most people saying, "don't force it on anyone" and others declaring, "See?! There is consensus to put this on every page!"), but rather try to establish some policy on the placement of templates and boxes in general. I think I can make a decent case for how we should go forward that won't alienate the box turtles or template cutters and which will still enable those of us who work on biographies to preserve our formatting. Geogre 13:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Supposing I ever catch my breath again, I'll start a page in my user space outlining a ... well, let's not say "policy," because my policy suggestions always get rejected, reformulated, and then adopted a year later. I'll signal the other concerned writers when I get a draft going. Geogre 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, folks, tell me what's wrong with boxes and templates. I've [5] begun writing up my idears. Geogre 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all you have written so far, would you be very kind and place this [6] on your watchlist, as I will soon loose the plot completely with them all, and I don't feel very eloquent at the moment! Who are they to say it is "mid-importance" but very kind of them to rate it FA standard seeing as it is! Giano | talk 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Who read the article aloud for the spoken word version? I've always thought that was one of the stranger things -- huge amounts of disk space so that there can be a books-on-tape version. Geogre 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, all done with the Template Thoughts. There is one thing I could have added but didn't, and that's that non-unanimous Project boxes should always be allowed on the talk pages. So, feedback welcomed. Geogre 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No they should not always be allowed, as they seem "official" so are hence misleading. The biog project being a prime example with their ratings system which in truth is completely meaningless. Giano | talk 21:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

On a talk page, I don't have a problem, as they constitute just another comment. On the article page, I have a big problem, as they jump in front of the article. This is in addition to their heraldry claiming to be official. Geogre 02:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi Geogre, you are the first admin I could think of. Template:Welcome is protected, and someone has suggested on the talk page that some interwikis be added. So, could you copy and paste this text to the bottom of the template whilst going around the block? It should take all of 30 seconds. I appreciate it, AdamBiswanger1 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm so efficient I do favors even when I'm not here. (Truly, I am a wonderful being.) Geogre 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All hail the Geogre! Let us sacrifice fruit and incense so he doesn't eat our children! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

(Try a sacrifice of friéd cheese sticks, for truly they are pleasing to me, and I prefer them to thy children.) Geogre 11:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My mother always said, when you don't have any fried cheese sticks, just eat your children. I couldn't let you get away without any work, so here ya go: [[:q:Template:Welcome]] [[:wikt:Template:welcome]] [[:b:Template:Welcome]] [[:n:Template:Hello]] [[:s:Template:Welcome]] [[:wikispecies:Template:Welcome]] [[:commons:Template:Welcome]] [[:m:Template:MediaWiki Welcome]] [[:mw:Template:MediaWiki Welcome]] AdamBiswanger1 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's more fun to make children than fried cheese sticks, but it's easier to know what to do with the cheese sticks than the children. I'm unable to do anything with the tags just now (on an outdated Apple), but, if Grapes or one of the other actually knowledgeable and industrious admins doesn't do it before me, I'll be able to do it after I get home and to a more uptodate computer. (If you need a powerful argument in thunderous prose, I'm your man. Stuff with codes and things, I muddle through.) Geogre 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

a HEM (suggestive throat-clearing) AdamBiswanger1 00:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Blenheim

Hello Georgre. I have rewritten the article. It is now a much better and clearer and is now also fully sourced. If you the time and/or inclination, I would be interested to see if you think it has improved, is less Anglo-centric, and deserving of FA status. Thanks. Raymond Palmer 22:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Blenheim

A pleasure to read. This is my first detailed reading of the battle itself. From my point of view, it's always that thing that happened that set the rise of Sarah going and led to the Tory triumph in a few years, the rise of Walpole, etc. I was glad to support and delighted to see our articles on the Augustan era pick up some scholarly artillery. Geogre 12:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

I was rather surprised to find, upon reading your comments at AN/I, that some other people take the same view of IRC as I do. I personally find it totally inappropriate when people "find consensus" on IRC and act on it on the Wiki. There's no getting people to stop using it, of course, but it's good that people are aware of the potential for harm there. Friday (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer here so that things can stay consolidated, in case we later feel the need for an essay coming on. The big thing about IRC is that it is neither good nor bad. Like all technology, it's primarily innocent, but its effects aren't. (Sorry for speaking as if there is an audience, but it's high danged time that someone write something policy-like on the matter as a reminder.) (It's a reminder because the IRC pages themselves say that IRC is not Wikipedia.)

1. Rapid communication is a wonderful thing, but it is a different thing from Wikipedia, which is slow and recursive.
   1. Wikipedia means writing something, leaving it for all to view, all to change, all to hash out, whereas IRC means the moving finger writing and having writ moving on.
   2. IRC's rapidity means impermanence and, in fact, that it is an action rather than a document, even if that action takes the semblance of writing.
2. IRC is a conversation, an ongoing conversation that is always in the middle, so it cannot have an end.
   1. You cannot have a conclusion in a conversation that is predicated, by its very existence, upon being forever. You therefore cannot reach a conclusion, because someone is always joining the channel and saying, "Why is the topic the way it is?" The conversation is endlessly repetitive and yet never capable of a definite position.
   2. Consensus is never final on Wikipedia. If there were, for example, 90% saying that all high schools must go or stay, that would be near consensus, but it could be reopened and reconsidered and undone the next month by a new discussion. On IRC, consensus is never extant. Because IRC is a process rather than a document, there is no definite moment at which consensus can be measured, much less announced.
3. Quorum is the biggest problem on Wikipedia, and it is the fatal problem on IRC.
   1. One source of fights on Wikipedia is that someone announces that meta/pages/projects:imaginary numbers has discussed this issue thoroughly and agreed that all imaginary numbers should be accompanied by a sound file, and then that someone goes along and begins plastering the sound file everywhere. The rest of the editors never heard about that discussion, never saw it, never agreed to it, and then find out that there were three people there and only one vote. We similarly have "policy" announced from obscure areas. The difficulty is that "consensus" is always "consensus of whom?" In other words, unless a representative sample of the involved editors and readers takes part, pure unanimity is meaningless. On Wikipedia, determining how many people have opinions is difficult, ensuring that a representative sample takes part is very difficult, and reaching agreement among them is a Herculean effort.
   2. On IRC, you have a list of channel participants going along the pane, but you never know how many are actually "there" at a given moment. Further, you have no idea whether those names represent Wikipedia names, if the names represent even Wikipedia editors at all, and whether those names are experienced Wikipedians.
   3. On IRC, silence is consent. If one person announces an action and there is one person agreeing, that will be taken as universal in-channel agreement, or can be passed off that way. Given the number of simultaneous conversations, the private tabs, etc., it's an absurdity to think that quorum ever existed, much less that it was aware and infinitely less that it agreed.
4. "Votes are evil," they say, but only because votes are subject to artificial influence on Wikipedia. On IRC, votes are Satanic.
   1. People argue that voting on Wikipedia can be influenced by "associations" and factions. These people are right. I have seen School Watch blow up an AfD discussion on a hoax article, because the people voting didn't read either the AfD discussion or the article in question. It's true that votes are unreliable. I have also written policy proposals that confused the hoi poloi, who voted against it because they were sure that it would do something that it expressly forbade. Despite that, I remain convinced that in all areas a vote is better than a unilateral action. Since I trust no one, I trust everyone. When everyone speaks, the aggregate voice is better than any solitary voice. Additionally, a high participation ensures that dissenters at least feel that they are not being targeted or oppressed.
   2. IRC is Satanic when it comes to votes. A person who is a "regular," who passes witty and pleasant comments all day, can easily distort an on-wiki vote more effectively than any talk page spammer or meta association. We disallow talk page notices, in general, and yet in 5 minutes I can summon more voters via IRC, which leaves no logs and no traces, than I could with a script talk page spamming the entire Wikipedia project. Similarly, pleasant fellows from IRC can get astronomical "pro" votes on an RFA, when they may not have actually had more than a few hundred edits, very little participation in policy, and vague answers to the questions. It is not that these voters are wrong, nor that they are right, but that the vote has been amplified one way or another by a trackless medium.

Anyway, that's what I think about IRC. It's a cool tool, and it's a fun place to hang out and talk. It's a great pressure valve for the frustrated. It does great things all the way around, and I don't want to see it banned or anything. However, it is paramount for us to be explicit and monotonous about the fact that IRC is not Wikipedia and should not be part of Wikipedia. Geogre 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This so needs to be an essay somewhere. I am a big fan of IRC and I use it a lot, including gathering advice about what to do, and dare I say it, a little politicking from time to time but you are nevertheless spot on in most of what you say. Plus you're just such a good writer. ++Lar: t/c 11:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, on both fronts. Where do you reckon it ought to be? I'm all for letting folks know about it, and letting folks improve it, as I'm sure that I've missed a thing or two, but right now it's sort of "Thoughts about IRC." I use IRC a bit, as well, mainly to blow off steam and practice my puns, but I get really itchy thinking about the people who spend all day there gathering unto themselves powers. Geogre 18:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN, WP:AN/I

I often find myself to be in accord with your comments here passim, but I must offer special compliments for your participation at AN and AN/I; on several occasions of late I have read there a contribution from you and thought Wow, his thinking mirrors mine almost exactly (save for its being more coherent and more cogently expressed). I came hither to write that in ignorance of your remarks apropos of IRC, and so now I've something more for which to give you props. I'd not recommend using your rhetorical and analytical skills whilst amongst those native to the state in which you now reside :) , but their use is appreciated here, at least by this editor. Joe 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! I wish I could turn it off when the redder members of the red state were watching, but the most I've managed so far is a reputation as a mumbler because of my sotto voce running commentary. The only way I have avoided the pitchforks and burning rail so far, I think, is that I have cultivated a zen-like adherence to the center of indifference. "You think that Zionism is good, but only because it will usher in Armageddon? How nice for you. I never could be sure of the solution to the problems of the middle east." I really appreciate the compliment, as I had noticed you, too, saying things that I was about to say. Geogre 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-unblocking

The Geogre, where did you get the impression that crzrussian brought the issue to ANI himself? (Or any of the other issues that dmcdevit brings up, either.) I don't see him expressing any notion of doing that, rather the opposite (going his merry way, as you say). These are his messages on Fred Bauder's page,[7] [8] and this is the original thread on his talkpage, now archived. Bishonen | talk 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

First, I waited for the subject to change from "should this guy be in trouble" to the more portentious "unblocking is a demotion offense," and I commented on that. In general, I don't think there is an "always" on Wikipedia, and not one for "admin unblocking self" by any means. I also think that a single admin blocking another could very easily get out of hand, if the blocking admin knows that the other fellow will be demoted for unblocking. So, first, I didn't comment on that particular case, and, second, I thought what was being enunciated was seriously enough wrong that someone had to show some dissent. I was thinking about what would happen if we let this stand as a capital offense. However, if I had to say something about this particular user, I would argue that this incident by itself is insufficient for arguing for recall. I don't know what else there is, as I have not investigated the longer history, but this particular incident would be sufficient for a stern talking-to, but not "recall." Geogre 12:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me add to the above: I don't think he should have unblocked himself, but what I see in those messages was a pretty open willingness to endure the block but a belief that Fred was making a mistake. If Fred were wrong about what was intended, then the block would have been a nothing and Fred himself would not reblock. It's not proper, but it's hardly a horror. Secondly, though, you know how I feel about the NPA "semi-policy." I see this episode as some justification of my fears. What he did was tasteless, but then he got blocked for the non-existent portion of NPA. He undid the block, and nearly immediately someone else was posting it on AN/I, where he said that he'd take whatever was coming. My arguments against "Personal Attacks are Blocks" were that the whole thing depends on someone interpreting the difference between an attack and a personal attack and a strong argument. I don't want the most blushing lily to be judging me -- there is enough of that in life. If anyone wants to block anyone for a personal attack, then make sure the attack violates community standards by taking the matter to a wider forum. Single handed blocking is questionable in any but the clearest cases. This wasn't a very clear case. Geogre 13:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You two keep disagreeing and I'm going to stop believing you are sockpuppets. My two cents, unasked for and unwelcome -- self-unblocking is a litmus test, a possible early warning sign that you haven't thought it neccessary to study up on what things admins should and shouldn't do with their buttons, and have been instead playing it by ear. The act itself is nowhere near enough to mandate desysopping, but I think it is enough to open up a broader check... and if someone's added themselves to the category that says "I don't mind people asking for a recomfirmation" (which to my mind is what Category:Administrators open to recall means), then asking for that check is appropriate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was with you for the first part, but the second part...huh? Ok, if you want to see it as a canary in a coal mine, that's fine. I also think it should trigger careful looks at the person who did the blocking. If I blocked Tony Sidaway because I felt like it, would he have to wait for the block to expire or for someone to notice, carry it to AN, get feedback, and get it shortened? If he unblocked himself (my block summary might be, "Felt insulted"), would that be a trigger that he was suspicious? My point is that I don't buy Fred's block. I agree that unblocking himself wasn't proper, but if we let something like that rise to the level of mandatory investigation, we may be handing a tool to wheel warriors and factions to use against one another. Geogre 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't like Fred's block. It was hasty at the least. Not the point. If you blocked Tony Sidaway because you felt like it, he would have to do what any non-admin would: scream on his talk page and post {{unblock}} templates. Any other course of action, including self-unblocking, is completely the equivalent to a non-admin using block evasion to either make their case or go on their merry way after a block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not equivalent to block evasion. I agree that it is not proper, and I have agreed all along that it is not proper, but it is not hiding. It is, in fact, a rather obvious gesture, one designed to attract comment. If he were to create a new account or use an old puppet, then it's likely no one would notice. That's my point: there is something inherently more honest about saying, "I'm unblocking myself. Let's force a discussion" than "U block me O Noes i can not B blockd!" (Also, I'd love to see either Tony or Snowspinner do what any non-admin would have to do, but that's another matter.) Why, though, is the discussion solely upon how evil Crazy Russian's unblock was and not on the hair trigger block Fred handed out, when he didn't have a handle on the context? Why isn't the attention back on the absurdity of NPA, where it belongs? Geogre 22:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Fred isn't in Category:Administrators open to recall? The debate is really more about what that category means than about the self-unblock, I think. But as for block evasion, there are two types -- sneaky and open. I was thinking of the "open" type, where the person announces who they are and why they are evading their block (usually because it was "illegitimate"). EE did this all the time. So did Freestylefrappe/KI/Tchadienne, very recently. Is the "open" evasion more acceptable than the sneaky type? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

EE wasn't open about it! She would get caught and then confess. Even then, she would try to deny it for a while, and she was no more open than Maggie is. So, is open evasion better? Yes, if it is designed to draw out the discussion and is done with a clear expectation of respecting the community. The point is that a unilateral block is worth what the blocker is worth, and blocking for NPA is extremely tenuous. Unilateral blocking for NPA is absolutely out, in my opinion. You must report such a block to AN/I and get feedback, IMO. If the person throwing the block won't do it, I support the person unblocking and doing it. The point is that such a unilateral block for something that isn't policy is totally outrageous. In this case, the autounblock was not sneaky, not criminal. It was improper, but improper and sanctionable are different matters, and improper and impeachable are shockingly far apart. I regard the users who try to hide the fact that they're evading blocks to be the actual evaders. The others may be scofflaws, but they're not sneaking about. We know where to go to find them, and we can hit them with a real block through ArbCom action any time. The sneaks are walking away from their positions and words. Geogre 02:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre for ex-sysop!

From DRV:

no, you should lose it because you support admin right abuse. Disagreement iss not the thing here. But hey, you have CONTRIBUTIONS in the Main space of 4000 and deletions of around 3000 or more. This could be another reason to ban you from being an admin for some time. You should learn how to CONTRIBUTE Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do I sign? 4000 articlespace edits is atrocious, you should be desysopped immediately... because clearly with only 4000 edits you have NO IDEA how to make contributions! Now who's with me in this noble quest? Bishie? Giano? Grappa? It would be for his own good. ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, apparently the contributions is not the issue. If I had only 10 contributions but zero deletions, I'd be up for a medal. (I kept hearing strains of "March of the Clowns" while reading his comments.) (I also was reminded, again, of Henery Hawk.) Geogre 11:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thinning seedlings and pruning are so very hard, but the garden won't develop to its best advantage if the gardener is not brutal from time to time. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I still prefer the organism analogy: empty calories go right through the body, and AfD/CSD/xfD is the alimentary canal of Wikipedia. The troll above is even funnier in context, though. Y'all should see DRV for the really comical shadowboxing he was doing. Geogre 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of the story where all the body parts try to determine who's the boss, and the asshole, to support its claim, just shuts down for a week... You might like this one too btw: User talk:Tobias Conradi#Mails received. Cheers, trialsanderrors 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Precisely the point: all creatures must excrete or die, as one friend of mine put it. If'n we don't poop (and flush), we die. Tobias really can't tell the difference between an attack and a joke? Wow. If that's the case, I don't think we can help him. That's the sort of deficit characteristic of... well... certain psychological differences. Poor little bunny rabbit. I really should do some more non-contributing soon, but I've been enjoying not going to the library. Geogre 11:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Microstub restorage crusade the second: Bad Eisenkappel is up at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 11. ~ trialsanderrors 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness! What is with that guy? If he wrote articles as long as his insults, he wouldn't be having trouble like this. That he doesn't write English very well isn't even his main problem. Geogre 02:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre for the Main Page!

Hellooo! Bishonen | talk 03:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Saturday? Eeep. Well, that means no sleep for me that day. (I really should learn out to contribute.) Geogre 11:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting

Have copyediting manuals been written by people who share your perspective? I'd love to improve my skills as a copyeditor, and with that goal in mind I've been using Tony's exercises to improve my ability to identify redundancy and such. As you point out, however, there are other schools of thought. It seems to me that writing is both a science and an art—some things are just badly written, while some things are stylistic differences. Can you recommend anything that accepts a broader array of "stylistic differences" while still identifying characteristics of poor writing? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Strunk and White Elements of Style is still the standby from my point of view. I approach writing from a more scholarly point of view than Tony1 does. I don't regard either as wrong, though I regard both as "wrong for this or that." I.e. if the goal is to write with minimal ambiguity, then the stylesheets favored by corporate America work. They sacrifice some entertainment and most of the aesthetic pleasure to achieve clarity and actively discourage elaboration. On the other hand, scholars in my field frequently speak of how well written a given article is, and they presuppose that it's clear. This, then, is when they are assessing for variation in sentence structure (e.g. using complex sentences and compounds generally and then using a simple sentence when seeking to deliver a "point," or using simple sentences generally but then going to a compound-complex when summarizing), precision in nouns and adjectives, and variation in verbs. (Verbs are the most important way to improve one's style. See how many sentences you can go without using a to-be verb, and it will probably surprise you.) However, there is nothing, really, that can be used as a single sheet -- at least that I know of. I spend my days teaching basic college writing, so I don't run into advanced style guides all that often. That said, I loathe style guides that would forbid the periodic sentence, which most business writing sheets would do. I still think Joseph Addison and Jonathan Swift are models. (Yes, I am an antique.) Geogre 16:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I had a professor who forced us to take a paragraph from an essay we had written and rewrite it without any "to be" verbs. It was brutal. I probably don't remember that teacher's advice often enough these days. Thanks for the style manual suggestion; I didn't realize that E. B. White had written more than the fantastic Charlotte's Web and other children's books. I haven't read Addison, but Swift is one of my favorites too ("A Modest Proposal" is pure genius). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• They should make a public-service tv spot, featuring a craggy-faced native american shedding a tear that America allows people to grow to adulthood without knowing Strunk and White. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(Fade in) [Scene: American Indian, single feather in his hair, staring in the middle distance] Voice: Every year, tens of thousands of sheets of paper litter America's landfills. (Camera moves in tighter.) This paper is enough to deplete our forests, pollute our streams, and contribute PCB's to the environment. (Camera zooms, revealing a tear rolling down the face of the chief.) And the worst crime of all... (Camera begins to zoom out) is that this paper has been used for meaningless business memos. (Camera pulls out to a 2 shot, revealing that the chief is reading a piece of paper that says, in bold, "MEMO for coworkers doing lunch.") Please, only use paper if you have something to say and can say it clearly." (Fade out to super of chief's face and graphic: "This message brought to you by the Strunk & White Society for the Abolition of Business Writing.) Geogre 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Awesome! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have crossed a Wikipedia threshold - I went to one of those public depositaries that allow you to take away written materials without payment and I BORROWED A LIBRARY BOOK!!! Just to write a Wikipedia article. Wow. You should be so proud.

Look at Dürer's Rhinoceros! I need another volume to complete the task (which will entail me walking to another branch to get it) but FAC here we come. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you alright, ALoan? Do you need an aspirin? A muscle relaxant for your back strain? New lightbulbs for your eye strain? Books, you know, don't light up from within, the way computer screens do. Anything we can do to help you in your time of crisis, just let us know. :-) (I'm definitely going to check out the article. You should also look to see if Norfolk did any of those boastful interviews/essays of his. He likes to reveal, after the fact, all the incredible references he dug up for his novels. If he does, he'll turn you onto a great many discussions of the plots surrounding that Pope getting the rhino.) Geogre 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Very strong article already. What I was getting at, and this is entirely optional, is that there were worlds and worlds of plots involved in getting that rhino. There was a genuine rivalry and question of due subordination with Portugal and Pope. Geogre 11:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you, by chance, actually read Quicksilver? (Have we discussed this before? It's ringing a bell.) I've read plenty of books I thought were awful and it doesn't usually hurt my feelings, but that one was especially stinging as prior to it Stephenson had been one of those authors for whom I really looked forward to their next work. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I have read that one, and I was pleased that I couldn't knock it apart. He did the best job of accuracy, especially to topography, of any author I've seen. Further, he kept the anachronism to a minimum (and lost it altogether in vol. III, where he gets quite sloppy). I actually thought his portraits and places better than An Instance of the Finger Post and Lempriere's Dictionary, although the latter was cleverer and better researched. (I didn't care for the Ian Pears novel at all. The narrative trick of it was old news to me by then, since I read 18th c. novels, and I'd read The White Hotel by D. M. Thomas already, as well as The Collector and others that did the trick less pedantically and faddishly.) I'm about 1/2 way through The System of the World, but I'm reading Imaginary Cities by Italo Calvino at the same time. It lends itself to reading in bursts (Calvino, I mean). Geogre 02:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Quicksilver was actually my introduction to Restoration England and contemporary Europe, and a brutish and nasty one I must say it was. Stephenson's (much-touted) conceit of writing it in fountain pen and (I deduce) without the interference of an editor of any sort left me quite bitter. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? Oh, I could sense the absence of an editor. He could have tightened almost everything, and his descriptive passages are clumsy, but he did a great job of accuracy. In the third volume, he gets near to the people I know very well, but he shies away at the last minute from actually discussing Swift or Wild or the others. He stays with his imaginary lords for the most part, which is wise. What put you off about Quicksilver? You're the first person to actually dislike it enough to comment that I've encountered. Geogre 02:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I just found it long, dry, and wildly unrewarding. Without a grounding in the era, most of it was either an uphill struggle or a plain bore. If I read it again, I might appreciate the accuracy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked vol. 1 so much that I grabbed vol. 2. I regretted ever reading vol. 2. In fact, it left such a bad taste in my mouth that I didn't touch vol. 3 for months. Now, I'm reading it, but I'm watching for juvenile bullsh*t like what he did in vol. 2. So far, we have a plot with Waterhouse (fine) and one with Jack (juvenile and stupid and anachronistic). Geogre 02:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, Do you know Joseph Williams' Style; Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace? 'd be curious what you think ot it; it's less prescriptive than Strunk and White, but gives useful advice, especially in the second half of the book, for bringing sentence variation and other scholarly moves (i.e., "grace") into clear writing.--Hickoryhillster 11:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template wikilove

I love it. I will go practice my basilisk love freely. Oh, what's this? A DRV debate dragged to my page? What luck! Geogre 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and best wishes on a main-page day! I see the lead words have already acquired some italics that appear well-argued for and in some sense correct, but still strike me as just unpleasant. I'll also note that when I was TEN I enjoyed defacing things with naughty words, tee-hee: I sincerely hope the current torchbearer for that occupation is around that age, or mentally retarded. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The fuckcuntpissshit vandal has been at it. What's unusual about him is that he's at it every night, practicing his lonely artform, trying to get his message out to the world. He is tireless and thankless and unhonored among his kin. Poor little bug eater! I have to rely upon the kindness of strangers, as I must sleep at some time, some time soon. Geogre 02:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_10#.5B.5BStar_Wars_Galaxies_Emulator.5D.5D

I have proven without a doubt that SWGEmu exists via thousands of links on google, as well as ones that I myself have posted to private sites. In fact, it was even on the frontpage of Slashdot. Let me put it this way -- if this article gets deleted, again, I am enough against it that I will simple put every other article that qualifies for deletion under the same pretexts up for deletion as well, such as Duke Nukem Forever -- I will also repaste the SWGEmu article again, and again, because I am so far against it being deleted that I am willing to put the time and energy from my schedule into doing that. Ameise -- chat 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I love a nice cogent argument. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I stopped giving out cogent reasons for it to not be deleted, as the fanatics who ignored them and deleted anyways, even though absolutely no Wikipedia regulation supported it's deletion. Ameise -- chat 20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

DRV is not a new AfD. The only questions on DRV is whether the AfD was conducted legally (it was) and whether new information would be likely to change a re-run AfD (it won't). Barring evidence of improper procedure or new information, the default decision is to endorse. Now, please conduct your campaign on the DRV rather than talk pages. Geogre 02:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I deleted your Main Page article

Yep, I did. I'm sorry, I just got jealous. On the up side, only two people cared. ;-) Bishonen | talk 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

What the? Other than Mr. Fuck Cunt Piss Poo, and Mr. a, it has bored the vandals. It seems that some of them actually do react to the article itself. I assume that the article really needed to be deleted, probably for being a G1 substub. Geogre 12:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, what is astonishing me is that I'm not getting the pedants, either. Every other 18th c. topic has gotten quite a few of those people (you know who I mean) to edit and correct faults or complain, but this one hasn't even gotten them. As I've long said, the field is wide, wide, wide open for a doctoral student with common sense. Geogre 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It was your mister etcetera that I got rid of, you may thank me at your leisure! (It was a little scary, check out the comments.) Bishonen | talk 13:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

Ah, yes, our performance artist dedicated to his vision. (And the article is remarkably pristine. It's a crack up.) Geogre 13:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

I have no doubt that you were being sincere and trying to assume good faith, but I was worried that his edits left us open for lawsuits. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Understandable, and why we have that as a CSD. Like I said, I was trying to think of the psychology of a person like that and, actually, not trying to be nice as much as save us further aggravation from yet another paranoid on the warpath. Sometimes, I advocate being nice because of the milk of human kindness. More often, it's because I think it's the best way to neutralize and bore the attacker (the Akida or Tai Chi solution). Geogre 11:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rouge-Admin.png

I've put Image:Rouge-Admin.png on IfD. I find this image is non-encyclopaedic and divisive. --Ligulem 18:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fine. Let's see what folks think of it. I'm quite sure that it was not divisive in its intent. If it has been divisively used...shrug. Geogre 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ah. Well, that's all rather too bad. By the way, I have an answer for "What to do about recalling administrators," but it would need to be something for ArbCom rather than general policy approval. There are ways to solve this problem. In fact, it's not a very difficult problem to solve, if we all take our mellow-in pills. Geogre 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that the blue pill or the red? OK, what's your answer? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm writing it up, now. Soon, a link will appear at the top of my page. It won't seem to be about what it's about. I'll let the select and elect know about it, though, through dark allegories and sublime hints. I need to write it now, though. Geogre 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've linked to it, now. No one will figure out where it is, I'm sure. Geogre 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disconnection suckitude

Our landline has been down all day. Yes, the actual phoneline, that the ADSL uses, is dead. :-( So, If you've been trying to Skype, it's not me forgetting to turn on the program this time. The phone company may get the problem fixed by Thursday...this sucks so much! Anyway, you can e-mail me by using the uni address only. The usual wikimail goes via Carl's server which is of course also down. I'm posting this message via either the neighbor's wireless LAN (the neighbor doesn't know) or some form of piggybacking on Carl's modem (we have two landlines, that's how this is possible)--not sure which, at the moment. Anyway, I'll be baaaaaaaaaaack... eventually. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

I wondered where you had gone. I'm assuming Carl can be online without racking up enormous $ debts (or the symbol for Eurokronor). Are you unable to browse consistently, only fitfully, or seldom? Phone companies the world over are sluggish at their most motivated. :-( (Yeah, I had been trying to skype, but if you're on a modem connection, that's out.) Geogre 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It costs an arm and a leg to do it the dialup way, sure. It's free when the adsl is working, as I suppose I have to admit it nearly always is. I can't what you'd call browse, no. Skype is a distant vision. Heck, I couldn't even post a message to you all day today, because the tech support wasn't around! No e-mail for the foreseeable future, other than to the work address! I feel like a cavewoman!

At least now I've had a chance to download my sandbox in edit mode, so I can reduce the metropolis to embers offline. Actually, one should work like that from time to time, as opposed to getting distracted by all the "You're an admin aren't you, could you please..." Bishonen | talk 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

Oh, gah! I've been there, and it's horrible. This combined with your recent planned wikibreak and your upcoming wikibreak, and here you have a whole Internet break! Ugh. (I got Merryland today, so I'll probably have to write something about it.) Pooh. This is awful. :-( Geogre 20:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't those people at the telco know you're an administrator? Their article is going to get such a going-over! Geogre 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I of course have wireless connection now. I'm surprised you don't have satelites or whatever on your pocket of Europe Bishonen dear. It thrils me no end to know my edits are being read by all those aliens circulating about in outer space - have I ever mentioned the spaceship that I saw landing on Etna? - It was full of little men with heads like babies with televisions growing out of the top? Giano | talk 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, your neighbors are probably delighted. I bet they'e downloading porn via your wireless network as we speak. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

My broadband went down for a week a while ago - it was like having an arm chopped off, wasn't it girls and boys. Oh yes it was. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember this one time my broadband went down for a day -- turned out I had pressed the secret "standby" button on the cable modem which nobody had told me about. After the tech support fellow on the phone laborously diagnosed that problem, I was tempted to tell him I was having trouble with the foot pedal and/or couldn't find the "any" button, but instead just hung up and slunk off in shame. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Giano, those are Teletubbies. Be careful, because one of them carries a purse and can infect you with gay by watching him. That's what Jerry Fallwell's people say, anyway. I've had broadband for 2 weeks now, and I'm ecstatic over it. I'm even looking into things like Guild Wars. My connection is actually faster than my work one, which is a T2 split a bazillion ways and run through ancient routers and switches (and, of course, filtered by Bess). I used to relish the tech support calls from this one teacher. She insisted on an iMac (the rhomboid ones), and most often the problem was that the power cord had fallen out of the back. (Hey, Apple, nice design, putting the plug at a 45 degree angle!) Geogre 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't joke. I have been caught by the "not plugged in" bug more than once (phone line or network cable, not power). Turning off and on again does not help with that one.

Anyway, Geogre, does this look like linkspam to you? The user in question has done it many times but it looks quite helpful. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like there are two questions, there. One is, "Is it a dedicated spammer?" The answer is yes. The user is probably associated with the site he's plugging. The other is, "Should we do something about it?" The answer to that is probably no, as it's an .org that he's including. It is, therefore, a non-profit site, and it has high educational fiber, so I don't think we need to undo his plugs. (Some orgs, of course, are not very non-profit...kkk.org, for example.) I tend to want to mobilize against even helpful coms, because they're making money and getting money by the Google page rank boost coming from being in our see also sections, but the orgs are supposed to make nothing. Geogre 11:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Input: Ebenezer Cooke

I'm a new Wikipedian who recently started an article an article on Ebenezer Cooke (Swift's near-contemporary who satriized Maryland), and, sinc eyou seem to be Wikipedia's resident 18th Century lit expert (not to mention Nobel Prize winner), I'd love your input, if you have the time and inclination. Thanks.-Hickoryhillster 11:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You bet! Welcome, first of all, and welcome to the dusty, glorious era. (BTW, Maryland was quite the hot topic, as I'm sure you know, given the propaganda it got in Moll Flanders. I'm pretty convinced that there is an unrecovered underground of recruiting literature from the dissenters. It would be fascinating, from a post-colonialist point of view as well as a New Historicist point of view, just to see those polemics re-examined.) Geogre 11:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. There were other "country bumpkins are wretched" poems, of course, although the use of the Hudibrastic probably owes much more to Jonathan Swift than to people like Robert Gould (I point to him as a contemporary). Some of those who work on Swift have discussed the way that parody inevitably replicates its target's greater argument as well as a reduction of that argument. The knowing fool, the satirist who opens the door to laughing at himself, is a particularly American figure, but it would be a hallmark of later literature in England (e.g. Oliver Goldsmith in The Citizen of the World and even in many of the essays in The Bee), and 19th century writers enjoyed Goldsmith quite a bit. Therefore, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that Cooke is contributing to a national character in this gesture, even if it would become a central gesture. Was Cooke presenting himself as Tory? Maryland became a ground where the dissenters rushed in and where the old mercantilists were there, too. These groups wouldn't agree on that much. Interesting article. As ever, there is more we'd love to know, but what is there is excellent. Geogre 11:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the very quick, insightful, and generous feedback. Good point about the knowing fool and national character--i'm going to check my sources to make sure I'm not making their arguments sound more like American exceptionalismthan they are.--Hickoryhillster 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion request.

Again with this, This time at commons: commons:Deletion_requests#Image:Rouge-Admin.png Your input is valued. Bastique▼^parler _voir 17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh. Well, I explained my view of it. Honestly, it's ok if it is replaced by something more appropriate, but I don't buy the argument that it's being considered for deletion because of its offensiveness. If I thought that argument were sincere, I'd say nothing at all. I'm concerned that it's not. Geogre 18:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Taswell

Hey, do you still have access to the DNB? I don't. If you'd like a little job, could you look up William Taswell for me? The 17th-century one. (I think there is a later William Taswell, just ignore him.) My WT wandered about in London and observed the horrors of the fire in 1666, as a 14-year-old schoolboy, and eventually wrote about it in his "autobiography", a short piece. What I'd like to know is when he wrote it down, if anybody knows--obviously, this is a very good source if he kept a journal, less good if he's just remembering/distorting his observations many years later. I like William, he seems like a good kid. He was horrified by the street violence against foreigners that he saw. Was he alone and at a loose end in London? Stuff like that. I know he had been sent home from his school because they had to close on account of the plague.
This is his autobiography: "Autobiography and Anecdotes by William Taswell D.D.", ed. G. P. Elliott, Camden Miscellany II (1853), 1-37. The next thing will perhaps be that one of those clever people who frequent your page (not much like the crowd on mine!) finds it on the web for me (the wandering glass says HINT HINT). Bishonen | talk 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

All hits for "Taswell" in ODNB:

• "Tanswell [formerly Cock], John (1800–1864), lawyer and antiquary, was born at Bedford Square, London, on 3 September 1800, the sixth son of Stephen Cock and his wife, Ann Tanswell (or Taswell), a relative of the Revd William Taswell (d. 1731), rector of St Mary's, Newington, Surrey."
• In the article on Edward Lake (1641–1704), Church of England clergyman: "With his wife, Margaret (1638–1712), Lake had three daughters who survived him, Mary, Ann, and Frances, who married William Taswell DD on 21 May 1695 at St Mary-at-Hill. Taswell later published a collection of sixteen of Lake's sermons."
• "Langmead, Thomas Pitt Taswell- (1840–1882), legal writer, was the only son of Thomas Langmead, gentleman, of St Giles-in-the-Fields, London, and his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Stephen Cock Taswell, a descendant of an old family formerly settled at Limington, Somerset. He assumed Taswell as an additional surname in 1864." (Seems to be the same family.)

That's it. (And all three of these ODNB biographees are red links here.) Tupsharru 06:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Darn. The middle one, probably--though not necessarily--but not usefully so. Thanks, Tups. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

Are his dates definitely 1651 to 1682, or could it be that he wrote/finsihed his account when he was 31? Perhaps he lived to 1731, and is the one who was burgled in 1716? Same name, same parish - same man, or close relation? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I assume you've checked Questia already, so I won't bring that up. I can try to find him in the DNB, but my next breath of air (away from all these meetings) will be Thursday, and that will be a stolen breath. I will try, though. We really need those old editions in a single place somewhere. Between young couples refusing to give birth to new textual editors and the death of the old textual editions, good old collations are an endangered species. Geogre 21:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Clever people" indeed. He scorched his schoolboy shoes on the hot ground near St Pauls, it would seem, 4 days after the fire started.[9] I have found a reference to "Volume LV Miscellany, Vol. II, Camden Society, 1853 - Autobiography and anecdotes, by William Taswell, D.D. sometime rector of Newington, Surrey, rector of Bermondsey, and previously student of Christ Church, Oxford, AD 1651-82, ed. George Percy Elliott"[10] (or you could buy a copy for £12) and someone of the same name was burgled in December 1716 [11] Another William Taswell was at Oxford in the 1570s (cited here) and there seems to an author of a recent history journal article, William Taswell, “Plague and the Fire,” History Today vol. 27 No. 12 (December 1977) pp 812-817 here. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am all but done on Dürer's Rhinoceros. Comments welcome. I would WP:FAC it tomorrow, but I will be on wikibreak for 10 days from Friday, so may WP:PR it instead and FAC when I come back. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And thank you, ALoan, I might buy it. Dürer's Rhinoceros is looking great. Oh--/me has brilliant thought--nearly done and you're going on wikibreak, is it? This is too good an opportunity to pass up. --/me runs to rip the article untimely from the womb and FAC it right now. "Look what I found out in the namespace, just sitting there, this needs to be an FA immediately, pronto, now!" Bishonen | talk 10:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

If you so wish. I am not going to have time to deal with FAC comments in over the following few days or next week, until about the 29th. If anyone has the time, resources and inclination, I refer to a couple of desirable extra references from the 1970s and 1980s in the peer review. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember the 1970's and 1980's. There was no scholarship done that score. No one cared about animals...except the lizards crawling out of the ceiling due to their use of LSD and speedball. (Bishonen: three lefts make a right, not two wrongs.) (Also, remember how happy everyone is at the end of Cyril Tournier's play.) The article is great. We need to watch out for the maven of FAC who is now very upset at the world, though. Geogre 11:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been to FAC since Deus Caritas Est in March (which was always a bit dodgy, being so new) and Simon Byrne shortly afterwards (which was a big cheat, as Signore G wrote it). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Right - I am out of here.

For light relief, peruse this interminable discussion of erections in Paris. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Have a good break. I've been in meetings and pooped all week, but that's really nothing to complain about. Still, it has led to lower participation than usual for me. The biggest hard-on in Paris has to be the Academie Francaise, even if it's not the tallest. (Why these lists? Why lists at all? What exactly is learned from anything like this? Highest point of elevation, maybe, but the tallest bulding at the bottom of the hill may be nothing compared to the medium building at the top of the hill.) Geogre 20:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The proper study of encyclopaedists

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belhaven Hill School

I'm trying to shift the focus of the schools debates from the various "stuck record" arguments that have bogged editors down for so long onto the finding, reading, citing, and evaluation of sources, using the new WP:SCHOOL criteria to do this in the same way that the WP:CORP did this for companies and products. As an editor who has done that very thing in the past, please consider helping by setting an example. Please independently consider the topic at hand from the perspective of locating and evaluating (in terms of its provenance and depth) the source material on the subject, and see what conclusions you come to. Uncle G 10:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I will. Not only have I tried to ask people to consider each school on its own, but each article on its own. Another thing that I wish we would do is think about -- given the fact that now userboxes are deletable if they are "divisive" (and that language is fuzzy) -- how divisive it is to have factions and watchlists on meta of any sort. Routine and automatic votes are illegitimate. Geogre 11:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know if you're watching, or caring about what I say, but I think one of the delete voters brought up an interesting loophole in the verification standard. A reputable outside publication could include governmental surveys. These will need to be excluded for the verification to have any standing, as we would exclude also Yellow Pages as external publications on a corporation or US Tax Returns. In other words, they would have to be considered not independent publications, since they were publications from the licensing governmental agencies. Additionally, it would be helpful if we were to establish a requirement for the discursiveness of the externals. I.e. not that they mention, but that they discuss the school. Even then, though, we run up against my usual complaint -- that we have established the viability of the subject but not the value of the article. The reason for being a stick in the mud about this is that, if we say to "keep," we are leaving something uninformative and unjustified on Wikipedia while we wait for the charitable Other to do the rewrite. That may seem like no very great crime, but I can assure you that the insufficient article will be cited as precedent by others writing poor or null articles (if you look at WP:DRV, you'll see the argument made at least once a day). Finally, there won't be a reminder on that article that it is in dire need of help, so the casual reader won't know that we don't like it and don't accept it but only retain it as a seed. This can be very bad, as the talk:Aphra Behn will show. Geogre 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential actions

Re your posts on an Arb's userpage concerning potential actions if the ArbCom were to enact the remedy under discussion, I will take up your suggestion that "anyone is free to ask me what my 'dire' actions are planned." (I also saw your clarification on the same page.) Very fortunately, the inappropriate proposal that was under discussion seems highly unlikely to pass, rendering this discussion primarily of academic interest I hope, nor would I support any action that could undercut the independence of ArbCom -- but I'm very curious what you, as an experienced and dedicated user, had in mind as actions that could be taken. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My chief concern in all our deliberative areas is quorum. On the deletion pages, it's a lost cause, but on policy and enforcement, it's an important consideration. For example, I'm against community blocks where a person does it and then announces on AN/I that they've done it and that anyone is free to shorten the block. I'm similarly against asking if a community ban should be issued, waiting all of four hours, and then issuing it. Because .en has global editing, and because there are primary English speakers from Nova Scotia to Perth, we have to recognize that the earth is round and give at least 24 hours on anything. Even then, how many people saw it? How many were informed in the issue and saw it? How many saw it, commented, and were uninformed?

So, if this were to take place, I would ask, forcefully, that all ArbCom members be polled to specify precisely what policy Giano violated and to agree to this specific sanction. I would not be content with the usual "who happened to look and cared enough to comment" or "who didn't want to fight with Fred again."

Were the polling to show consensus, then I would set up an RFAr of ArbCom's action. Whether I would wheel war over the issue or not, I don't know. To me, this is so far beyond the limit that I might consider it. It isn't that I endorse Giano's comments, but I thoroughly object to sanctioning for them. The worst one can say is that Giano was "gaming" the threat line, but I don't think even that is supportable. Giano was demonstrating his superior intelligence and dismissing the child, and he clearly scorned EE, but would I be subject to a month's block for saying, "Go play outside" in the deletion summary of a speedy delete on Lord Viper-Slayer77's screen name biography? The "personal attacks" policy, such as it is, has no enforcement section because it is so thoroughly impossible to enact as to be absurd.

Who determines what is an attack, what personal, what a threat? If I urge you to go stick your head in the oven, I have been rude, but I have not threatened you, as I have not said that I will do or cause to be done anything harmful: I have merely expressed my wish that you experience harm. Can I say that your edits are awful without being understood as saying that you are awful? Can it be my genuine evaluation and not an insult? Can I ever think poorly of anyone? If I use flowery language (which I do, personally) and avoid vulgarities, am I less insulting than otherwise, if I mean the same thing?

Seeing this "policy" used is alarming. Seeing it used to justify a month's block is outrageous. It's outrageous enough that the principle might be worth protesting by unilateral action. It is definitely outrageous enough to demand more voices, more opinions, more review, and a plebicite of ArbCom. Geogre 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I agree with you up to a point, though not quite all the way. It is clear to me that Giano's comments to EE should not be the subject of a block of any length, much less a month; as I have posted elsewhere, to the extent that his comments could be subject to any criticism at all, the situation is being magnified because he happened to be dealing with a user who was enough of a problem to cause an arbitration case, but not quite enough of a problem to have yet earned a community ban. I've said my piece on this on two Arbs' pages and on the Arbitration page.

However, if you are suggesting that there could never be a valid block or ban for personal attacks or incivility, I can't agree with that. I've posted evidence this week as an uninvolved user in an ArbCom case involving the most egregious personal attacks and attacks on a user's deceased family member that I have ever seen either on or off Wikipedia. The fact that the offensive remarks in that situation were to the effect that "I'm glad your relative is dead and I hope you die soon too," rather than "I will kill you," is hardly a mitigating factor. There are situations where WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL do need to be enforced by Admins and the ArbCom. I am sure that if you know the situation I am referring to (I don't want to publicize it further by linking here), you would have no objection to a community ban or an ArbCom ban in that instance. I agree fully, however, that Giano's comments to EE are not one of those circumstances nor do they remotely approach one.

Your suggestion of an RfAr concerning an unfair decision by the ArbCom raises intriguing self-reference and infinite regress issues which fortunately will hopefully remain of only academic interest. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• The last time I tried to answer this, I killed Wikipedia. I'll try to be more careful this time.
• I'll be happy if my hypothetical monkeywrenching remains that way. I don't want to give ideas to the malcontents, but there are times when a certain preponderance of disagreement by users in good standing ought to be able to force a poll of ArbCom members, in my view, and there should be a certain weight of no-confidence that could trigger a re-evaluation of a decision. I've never wheel warred before, and I'm loathe to do it ever, but, if it came down to it, I might have to because of the strength of the principle (not the particular person/edits) involved.
• As for NPA, the thing is that we blocked people before that ... thing came into existence, and we can block and sanction without it. The "semi-policy" simply says that we should not make personal attacks -- a statement so obvious and common that it hardly needs to be made -- and then offers no sanctions. A person may be blocked, and a person may also be given the Medal of Freedom, for making personal attacks.
• The dreadful troll you mention is blockable, and instantly, because of disruption. We look at the balance of his edits, and we assess whether they are intended or effective in producing encyclopedia articles or in preventing them. If the latter, we block. We needn't weigh the words to see if they are "attacks" or "personal." They're counterproductive and designed to stop the editing of another user in good standing. Therefore, they're out. The "semi-policy" of WP:NPA, in fact, prevents us from proper enforcement. You shouldn't have to look for magic words and particular dirty words. Instead, we assess behavior as a whole and by community standards, and if I eloquently and circuitously provoke and poke, I may be judged as disruptive, even though I succeed in getting you (the hypothetical "you") to utter the expletive. Now that we have WP:NPA, people are getting rule obsessed and provocative and trying to trip their antagonists into something they can run and tattle on.
• The small minded application of this rule bothers me endlessly, because I think its net effect is not to help us in any way and is to generally drag us down into endless charges of "I felt attacked" and "you assume this of me and therefore it's personal" and other nonsense. The person you mention should have been blocked already. It's a book throwing situation and a clear example of goonery. Geogre 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed response which has given me some food for thought. I'd be interested if you could give me a link to the prior discussion that you mention in your first sentence, if it's not archived too deeply.

I think you and I would agree on the proper outcome in 99% of instances, including Giano's, though we might use slightly different words. (Giano has not done himself any favors in the past 48 hours, however. Telling an arbitrator that "you disgust me" is, at best, infra dig.)

Charles Matthews' logic on his page contained a logical flaw that no one has picked up on yet, but I think it would be a tactical mistake to discuss it right now (plus the time had come to put an end to the discussion on that page). I'll post about that when the EE case is over.

In the other situation I discussed, the person mentioned was indef-blocked long ago and would have disappeared from the collective consciousness by now except that he has the right to participate in the arbitration case, which I suppose is necessary, but yields an odd result given that he's indefinitely banned and hasn't made any effort to challenge the ban. I hope the damage can be contained if that case moves a lot faster to a conclusion than EE's has. Newyorkbrad 22:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, "infra dig" - is the arbitator who wants to be sent private messages, away from the public forum he has initiated. The arb-com are now compromised, unless they now disown such a statement by Charles Matthews, which is not likely to happen. I have merely been the catalyst to expose a long brewing flaw in Wikipedia's chemistry. Giano | talk 23:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know all that much about the fine points of ArbCom procedure here: I know that the ArbCom clerk indicated that evidence could be submitted privately in one case (and I can imagine circumstances, though not here, in which that could be justified), yet a reference on another Arb's talkpage indicated that actual private submissions are very rare. In any case, Giano, I think and hope that this discussion is mostly of academic interest by now; the chance of a majority of arbs voting in favor of Fred's ill-advised motion is now vanishingly small. I know I started the discussion on this page, but how about if we all say dayeynu and go back to writing some articles? Newyorkbrad 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

While I do appreciate the stand you've taken, Brad, I must protest the notion of Giano going back to writing some articles. He never stops, and this brouhaha doesn't seem to be slowing down his content production any, as you'll see if you check out his contribs. It looks to me like a new FA is coming along very nicely there. Bishonen | talk 12:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC).

Giano, I don't share your desire at this point. I agree that there are flaws and fissures. The reason I don't want to add pressure to them is the same as it has ever been, and the same as everyone else, I imagine: if there were a rupture, the resulting flood would wipe out the swine and kine alike. (I'm sorry I'm being so poetic. I seem to be locked in today.)

NYB, I was writing a response to you when the Wiki host went down this afternoon. I was joking that it was my message that killed Wikipedia. I don't think it was me, but it's possible.

There is, as you probably can tell, history to my feelings about NPA. It was first drafted by someone as, I thought, a unilateral and high handed measure to protect himself from debate. As it started, it was "you can block anyone who insults you and remove their comments." A crisis occurred when this person tried to enforce what he was calling "semi-policy." It had not been approved, although he said that he had posted it and gotten no dissent (posted in a private place), so he was saying it was "semi" policy. When the policy debate started, many of the problems I forecast were discussed. The "remove personal attacks" got split away. The "can block at will" got sheered off. That left nothing much, except that it set the precedent that I had also (I'm such a Cassandra) wailed about that people were now running about like the peasant in Monty Python shouting, "Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

The problems are that that is now at such a fever pitch that new users think it's how things ought to be, and people are unwittingly acting as if the "block at will" has been reinserted. I know that I look like a nag when I keep telling people to read the thing carefully, but I'm doing so for a reason. I want them to note that the policy part is virtually null and that they can't block on that alone. We need to appeal to each other. One of the things I say a lot is that I trust no one, and therefore I trust everyone. Because I don't trust you, or Giano, or Bishonen, or any one other person, I trust the voice of all of you together. That's why I oppose the heavy use of WP:NPA. We ought to be getting several pairs of eyes before we use the block tool. Anyway, that's my view. Geogre 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just discovered that Charles Matthews is an Election Candidate. Naturally I wish him well and understand why he's looking to kill some admirals.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My goodness. I had some real difficulty in understanding what on earth he was saying. Something about distance learning (we're a college, now?) and our tails. Yesterday, I wrote with sentence fragments and mismatched clauses. Today, I can't understand jargonation. I must have finally gotten that brain tumor, because, when I read what he wrote, I can't figure out what he thinks is worth offering the foundation or us. I thought I could sense a bit of a motive, but not a philosophy. Geogre 11:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos for Komments

• Your comments on WP:AN/I-RPA & NPA were right on track. There is no "standard" and people use them as they see fit. And when someone disagrees/fixes/amends then it moves closer to an actual personal attack. Ok, that sounds circular, but I think you get it. Anyway, if some movement to change gets started as a result of this thread, drop me a line, I'd be interested in participating. Thx. — MrDolomite | Talk 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The important thing to remember is that making these things policies would be the change. No one seems to realize it, but neither actually is policy at this point. See above for some of the history, as well as additional thoughts on the problems. Geogre 12:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

I sympathize with your principle that we should judge articles on their own merit. With the 1,3 million articles in the English Wikipedia, we could perhaps afford to start purging crappy articles based on their crappiness, even on some extremely notable topics, making way for the rewrites from scratch that are often necessary. The problem is just that many or most nominations are based on the perceived notability of the subject or of subjects of a certain type, and the result of the AFD is then taken as precedent for or against that subject or similar subjects, even when the only thing that can be concluded from reading the article is that the article is bad. Tupsharru 13:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• You know, I was talking to Bishonen yesterday, and I saw that there is Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot. I was going to delete it and cite WP:RPA, as anyone creating garbage like that was certainly offending me and forcing me to do a basement-to-attic rewrite as well as reserving the writing credit for someone with nothing to say. I was joking when I said it, but things like this make us look horrible. Consider the talk:Aphra Behn. I have known for ages that the article is garbage, but I just don't feel like rewriting it. In the meantime, it exists, and it perpetuates mistakes from 1689 that are wholly discredited. It makes us look horrible, and the professors who live on C18-L listserv are going to tell their students to never use us because of the laughable garbage on Wikipedia. "Aphra Behn is an important author!" Yes, she is. That's why we would be better off having a gap and forcing Linda Payne (the most likely author of that complaint) get off her cushion and write something (not likely, of course) than to have garbage that sits there and lies and stinks. Additionally, there is something psychologically satisfying about writing a whole article and knowing that you won't get people angry at you for deleting their "contributions." However, once someone runs in with a PD encyclopedia and simply ports the garbage in, we're not writing the article, not controlling its composition. Then, of course, we end up with junk promotions, sentence fragments, etc. on popular topics. We would be much, much, much better to have nothing than to accidentally advertise. Anyway, all I can do is parlay the prestige I might have by trying to set an example on AfD, but I know it's a losing proposition. Geogre 13:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZOMG NPA RPA

You have been insulted here! And what's worse, I have a meeting up north, on an ice floe, at 9:15 tomorrow, is it possible? How'm I going to make that? It's making me nervous, that's why I keep nattering on and on! I need to go to bed right now! Help me! Bishonen | talk 22:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

I should block you for 12 hours so you'll go to bed! I'll answer your libel on WP:NPA Discussion Board. I did my part already by taking the evening off and not providing any sparkling wit to read, and I wrote a really boring essay, too. I'm afraid that blocking is all that's left. Geogre 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[Pleased with myself.] I never went to that meeting! I loved your blog! Do you know that the more you talked about depression, the more buoyant you sounded? :-) [Shouts something between "It's yours" and "Detroit" and runs off.] Bishonen | talk 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

I wondered. I saw you posting on Wikipedia when the meeting should have been holding you, and I wondered. Next time you have a meeting, let me know, and I will block you and make you go to bed out of boredom and frustration. You'll be able to read all those lost puppy notices on your page, but you won't be able to do a thing about it. There was a snappiness to the blog. "After you pogo with Sex Pistols, you hang with Joy Division" was one of those unforgivable puns, though. If I haven't sent you "Bastards of Young," let me know, and I definitely will. (Punching a new moon roof in my Gran Dam.) I'm really glad you liked it. I've written another, but I don't like it. It's about the "reification of the gendered other" and stuff like that, and particularly what happens to adolescent boys who have Hustler magazine and beyond in front of them any time they want. Geogre 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've become manic

Thanks for approving; as soon as I skimmed your post there I thought there might be some need for my services. I almost had to draw the grid. I suppose you are correct there, for what it's worth, but a portion of me (I shant say which) somehow begs to differ. Anyway, tell me -- is spending a whole day mindlessly chasing vandals around a good thing for me to do for the encyclopedia, or a bad thing? I feel like I've been sucked into an EddieSegoura vortex and the higher-thought portions of my brain may never recover. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yesterday, for some reason, I couldn't write. My point isn't anything to do with whether our children are seeing her, although our children are probably staring at her, and it's not very unlikely that a kid, a real kid, might search for "pearl necklace" because of Lisa Simpson's ornament, follow the link, thinking, "How can that be a sexual term," and be presented with something inappropriate. No, my point is that we just don't gain much with these pictures; they're not very needed. For that minimal benefit, we expose ourselves to a greater risk. The copyright issue is somewhat null, since we're indemnified the moment the uploader swears. Also, this whole business of the person being a blushing virgin whose feelings need to be protected after uploading two pictures of herself during sex is simply hilarious. Myself, I think it's a long time vandal in a fake identity. Anyway, no, of course chasing vandals around all day isn't a good use of time, if you have anything else to do. This is especially true if it persuades you to see vandals everywhere. ("All AOL ever does is vandalism, so let's block it" comes from vandal hunters, because they've been jaundiced.) We're overwhelmed, always, and the only thing to do is to be a bit of an eventualist and not get tricked into thinking it all has to be reverted immediately. Geogre 12:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Who's the one seeing (returning long time) vandals everywhere now? Anyway, my vandal is certainly AOL-based, but it's always far too obvious to me that the same IPs have made plenty of good or at least indifferent edits as well. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, no, I don't have a current candidate. It was the pooh piss fuck vandal, I think, that triggered most of the "block all of AOL" talk. It's an occupational hazard, though, of the person who works in an abatoir to see everyone as meat, the person who works in septic tanks to see everyone as a poop maker, a stripper to see all men as perverts, and a policeman to see everyone as a criminal. I've been doing so little on Wikipedia lately that I hardly justify my account. Perhaps I'm just coiling for a good strike. Geogre 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure. You contribute any less and we're going to have to put one of those wikibreak templates that are so very popular right now up there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting my Princeton Encycl. of Poetry and Poetics out of the den. I'll flip through and find an out of the way rhetorical term to write an article about. I hate going this long with no new articles. All the good ones are going to be taken! Geogre 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silloi. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell me about it. That's all I could come up with? Silloi? It's useless! It's a term for a single book. Ok, so it was a marginally influential book, but it's Classicruft! I need to find a bloodier vein to open. I just saw that Jonathan Wild is now in Spanish. Oh, the glory days of organized crime lords of Augustan London! Geogre 18:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I received my copy of Thomas Betterton and the Managemnt of Lincoln's Inn Fields yesterday. Bish was right; it's powerful encyclopedia-fodder. I have a lot of work to do. No new articles spring to mind, so no glory for me unless I climb the FA Everest again someday. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Betterton can always get work, and there are two theater wars that need/could have treatment or actor strikes anyway, but then there are people like Mohan who need treatment, as well as Owen Swiny. There are all sorts of characters running about back there. If you haven't seen Stage Beauty, you might want to. It's more about gay love and Claire Danes than about theatre history, but the incidentals in it seem right. Geogre 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Swiny I don't recall running across. George Jolly keeps popping up in things I've been reading lately - ever heard of him? If I'm reading Milhous right, he was actually given the same permission to proceed with a troupe in 1660 as Killigrew and Davenant, but was quickly cheated out of it one way or another. I think I saw another source somewhere say he was in charge of the theatrical nursery then running out of... one of the tennis-courts, Gibbon's I think, sometime later. In any case, with a name like George Jolly, it must be a good subject. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Swiny is 1720's to 1730's. He was the Haymarket Theatre guy and strictly a money man. He got into it by owning a theater and simply letting anyone who wanted put on a show. He took a cut, and he didn't care what they did. Most of the time, therefore, his theater was freak shows, but displaced actors from the Drury Lane strike went over and started putting on serious plays. This netted him a lot of money. Then Fielding set up his anti-Legitimate plays, and that made him much more money. Then the Act came down, and I don't know what happened. However, I havent' heard of Mr. Jolly, but jolly and swiney make a good pair. Geogre 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip H. Farber

You voted Weak delete in this AfD, saying that the author might pass but the article didn't. Could you check the article now? A lot of work has been done on i and it seems to be moving in a positive direction. —Hanuman Das 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Publicgirluk and the accompanying AN/I discussion

Well, I've gone and put my foot in it now. Nandesuka 15:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Let me go see. All I can say is that it's strange to gallantly strive to protect the delicate, blushing virginity of a woman who posts pictures of herself getting ejaculated upon, and it's rather bizarre that such a person would be at Wikipedia. I've known strippers. I've even known prostitutes. I've never known any that would have put up pictures like that without some remunerative motive. As for exhibitionists...I don't suppose I've known any of them of the female sort. Geogre 17:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Knight in Shining Armor complex knows no limits. Nandesuka 17:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It looked so good that I had to put my foot in it, too. If the British Columbian NORML guy thought you were imperious, wait until he sees what I just wrote. :-) Geogre 17:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do like "It's hard to bite when it's bait" -- nice phrase. I do disagree with your assertion that the human sexuality articles are better off without photographs of the practices in question, but other than that, spot-on. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to evaluate how much illustration a given article needs. Due to medical interests, I have edited a number of the sexually-related articles. What is true is that for any given article that may have a potentially prurient image — let's use the penis or vulva articles as an example — my experience is that there are three sets of people: (1) People who believe that any illustration or photograph is smut, and should be eliminated. (2) People who believe that photographs are often appropriate, and should be used when they help to illustrate the subject. (3) People who believe that the most important thing is that the illustrations be photographs of their penis or vulva.

In other words, I've found that a not-insignificant number of people get a voyeuristic thrill out of having pictures of themselves (or their ex-girl/boyfriends, etc) in Wikipedia. This results in revert wars as people fight over whose cock gets top billing. I'm usually content to let this slide when the article in question really does need an image. But although it may not be explicitly listed on what Wikipedia is not, I'm pretty sure we're not here to activate and fulfill the sexual fantasies of our contributors. Nandesuka 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm no prude. I have a stack of porn this high. It's just that most of these things are pretty unambiguous. "Withdraws and ejaculates on a woman's face" is not really a head scratcher. If there is something like Venus butterfly, ok. That can be complicated. I don't know why line art is inferior to color photos, but that's a different debate. My feeling is that the prurient interests of our readers are well served without us. If it's not needed, don't have it. If it's needed, go for the least offensive. If it's needed and there is no way to avoid being offensive, then go for the most illustrative. I'm not saying, "No naughty bits," just "no unneeded naughty bits." Of course we can all disagree on when something is needed or not, and that's fine, but there is a sort of exuberance to "I found a picture of a used tampon, let me upload it" that seems really juvenile to my tired eyes. Geogre 18:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka: I know about our male exhibitionists -- every boy is one at some point or another -- but I haven't before met a female one on Wikipedia. Boyfriends, yes, and husbands, but never single (fit, attractive) women. They must exist, but purely exhibitionist women seem pretty rare, even here. Geogre 18:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your idea

Since you've solicited on my talk page... sorry for taking so long to get back to you; mostly been catching up with things off of the wiki.

It's difficult for me. I don't like temporary demotions, in principle. (It was holding my nose that I assented to them in the userbox fiasco.) Either you have the trust to be an admin, or you don't. If you don't, time alone won't change that. But RfA is a real circus now. I don't know. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. I need to let it stew a bit longer. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See, I don't think it's a question of trust. If the position is such that you must be trustworthy by the whole community all the time, then it's a big deal. On the other hand, a temporary demotion would be a preventative, like blocking. Hypothetically, we block because we need to prevent a bad thing that a person is doing, and, if that's how we feel about someone deleting/undeleting/protecting something -- a person in the middle of a fight, for example -- then removing those powers the way we do the block makes sense to me, rather than blocking the person for some time but allowing them to keep these powers. Anyway, the biggest thing to me is to break the crust of "sacred position," because, as you know, I regard that holiness to be one of the more significant threats we face and one of the things that most leads to problems with the users involved with admins in conflict. Geogre 09:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Rule

"Trolling is forbidden, unless while trolling you're pretending to be a really hot chick, in which case, I will defend you to the death. P.S.: Will you go out with me?"

The mind reels. Nandesuka 04:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thus it has always been, and thus it shall always be on the Internet. I've seen newsgroups of hardbitten pseudo-Philip Marlowes fall for it. I've seen engineering groups fall for it. Wikipedia, despite its unusual proportion of homosexuals, trans-gendereds, and women, is falling for it, too. It's not falling for it as thoroughly, though, and there are contrary voices, thank goodness. Geogre 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom FYI

1. The Eternal Equinox case is about to close. Fortunately, it looks like there won't be any need for the contingency plans you suggested earlier in the month. 2. There is a new case involving User:Ackoz whose evidence mentions you, if this happens to be of interest. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on both cases. I felt sure that the EE case would close properly, and normally I had tried to act as a voice of restraint, but that stuff with Charles left me, I thought, in a rhetorical corner, where I either had to swing or run away. I'll check out the Ackoz stuff. Odd that I'd be mentioned there, but, of course, I'll see in what context. (You know...one strives to be more sinned against than sinning, but one never knows whose flowers one trampled upon by accident.) Geogre 00:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks again. I see, now. Ackoz's diffs are prejudicial, but that's fine. I didn't want to argue with him in the first place and certainly don't want to now. If I'm impugned by not having what I was responding to displayed, that's fine. I can look like a meanie, even if I wasn't. I did try to contextualize slightly on the discussion page, but if he wants back in and is over his rage, then it's up to others to make the decision. Geogre 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya know, people say mean things to me all the time and it oddly doesn't have the effect of angering me to the extent of turning me into a disruptive troll, perhaps because I think what they are saying isn't true. What does that tell me about Ackoz? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I always think that, if I don't fight, people will realize that I'm pulling punches, but sometimes they draw the wrong conclusion entirely. Also, if someone is ranting about how smart he is and then takes a put-down of his intelligence as an occasion to go supercritical, wouldn't that suggest that ... Oh, I don't really care. If he promises to stock up on #415, it's fine with me if he's back. I just wish we could award Virtual Valium and have it be effective. Geogre 09:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whereas I've turned into one without even anybody being mean.[12] What does that tell you about me? ... Er.... never mind, don't answer, I've forgotten where I was going with that. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

You've always been a troll, though. That's the secret to the administratte rosse: trolls to trolls, abusive to abusers, ruthless to those without ruth. You've tried to shovel up some of the biggest piles we've had -- Sam, the mutual incrimination brigades -- so if you manage to get legendary among the people who like to make these patties, it's a good thing. Geogre 09:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It said "troll"! You changed it! Noooooooooo! I was just gonna put that sucker up as my Quote of the Week! :-( Bishonen | talk 15:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

You can always go to the history. I just didn't want more selective quotation. "Administrator Geogre says that Bishonen has always been a troll." I'll change it back, though.

[edit] I demand a recount!

It's all your fault. I noticed your participation here, and based on the iron-clad principle that if a rabid deletionist like you thinks Weak delete, then it must be a definite Keep, I got involved. Nevertheless while our opines were perhaps able to persuade a majority of the (non-"single purpose") participants to keep the article, curiously they were not able to persuade the closing admin. Well I don't really care so much, but it seems like a clear "no consensus" result to me, and someone has taken the case to DRV. Care to comment here? Paul August ☎ 04:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting case, really. I think people have/had been reading the mind and heart of the authors rather than the facts on the screen, as I would have loved to go "delete and salt" based on the one, and only the objective fact of the other made me be very weak on the delete. Folks did rewrites, and I thought the rewrites might well tip it into the "keep" camp (but was slow to go vote due to the chaos of a new academic term and general ennui). It's quite possibly a DRV occasion. Geogre 09:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

Eternal Equinox (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is placed on Probation and personal attack parole for one year.

Jim62sch (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Prize

Hi Geogre, I wanted to bring this discussion to your attention: Image talk:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg. Your user page is the only other page that links to the file in question. Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 10:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll inform Bishonen. Perhaps she can scan in her own Nobel award? Geogre 10:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its a mess. The image was on Alfred Nobel, Nobel Prize, Nobel Peace Prize, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1901, Nobel Prize in Literature, Nobel Prize in Physics, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, User:Geogre, Template:NobelPrizes, User:ArgentiumOutlaw, User:ArgentiumOutlaw/Userboxes/NobelWinner, and Awards and honors of Glenn T. Seaborg. The Nobel Foundation claims copyright on it, an editor is claiming the image can't even be used under fair use, and has apparently contacted the Nobel Foundation about it. Trying to avoid a nasty legal mess with this. Contacted Brad Patrick about it. I need sleep as it is, and brad is probably asleep as I think he lives in north america. With luck, this'll be resolved soon, but first I need to at least justify it under fair use(which is an uphill battle), then justify it, if possible, as a freely licensed image. Its got a trademark too, so argh. Hoping to get some stronger minds into copyright law (esspecially fair use) than me to fix this. Sorry for the trouble. Kevin_b_er 11:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the Booker Prize is in public domain? I suppose it depends if you're in the Commonwealth -- Samir धर्म 11:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a Pultizer? Revert if it's too American. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 11:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Pullitzer would be a worse situation, as that's a private foundation all the way around, unless we were to scan in an image from the first ones (which would be PD-old). I will live without the image, and Bishonen can, if she feels I'm still worthy, cook up a new image/award. It had been special because she's Swedish. The Nobel Foundation is private, but.... Oh, who knows? We ought to be able to Fair Use on the Alfred Nobel page, if nowhere else. Get some rest. The world and wiki will both survive without the image for a day or two, but we have a number of active .en Swedes who additionally know the .se wiki and can find out how they've dealt with it there. Geogre 11:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a Nobel Peace Prize waiting for you if you can resolve a certain situation...... Newyorkbrad 15:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh, that's a bit too hard for me. As it is, one of the parties has left, and he feels that his principles demanded his reactions, and I think most of those (most) who overreacted did so accidentally. Making the folks peaceful now is easy: folks are taking breaks. Making them not react far too strongly next time is beyond my humble powers. Geogre 15:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The, um, situation

I didn't want to get involved in the recent mess, but with the EE arbcom thing and this other thing resurfacing, I have no problem understanding Giano's irritation. Wikipedia is sometimes awfully frustrating. Giano clearly needed to take a break, but I hope he will come back. As for Bish, she is always admirably cool considering all the trolls and crackpots that she needs to deal with. Tupsharru 08:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The EE bit was irritating, and then Carnildo goes up for RFA again, and folks seem to not remember the last one, so that had to be salt on the wound. That's an explanation, but not an excuse, for losing one's cool. Bishonen gets involved so quickly with all the stray dogs and victims of power that it has to add stress (and show her, again, all of the other Wikipedians who reason poorly or fail to read either policies clearly or the words in front of them). I think, if there is a universal evil as a common thread in all this, the "civility" and "personal attack" blocks are it. Folks are getting horribly lazy. Despite the fact that NPA is only a "policy" that says, "Don't insult people, because it's bad," the whole administrative side has become convinced that anyone expressing anger or frustration or outrage should be blocked for "civility." I warned them, warned them all, that we would go to e-hell if we started down this road. Now we're half way down it and feeling the flames. Geogre 11:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OMG - or, more appropriately, ॐ मणि पद्मे हूँ.

I knew things were getting nasty, and have studiously been avoiding sticking my nose into things, but I have just stumbled over the toxic WP:AN/I discussion :( -- ALoan (Talk) 13:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, ALoan. I definitely want to copy it copiously. Yeah. Turn your back for 12 hours, and everyone has been blown to shards by some grenade or another. (BTW, on matters archaic, I've actually purchased a copy of Merryland, and I'm reading it now. It's a very, very, very, very weird book.) Geogre 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)