User:Geogre/Talk archive 11

This is archive 11. It's not archive 10.

Seeking input from guys with some sense.

Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Dear Geogre: I want to thank you very much for your support on my RfA - it is a great honour to be supported by one whom I respect so highly as yourself. I do hope I can live up to your kind words; I feel privileged to be thought of so highly by so many, including yourself. I promise to do my very best to ensure that I don't get burned out; I've learned to cope, I feel, much better than in times past, and I have found mediation as a niche for me to occupy to maintain working effectively on this project. It has been a pleasure conversing with you, and working with you on Wikipedia; I have always enjoyed your conversation on IRC, and consider it a great asset to count you amongst my many friends here on Wikipedia. Thank you again, and my very best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt

Sorry for informing you so late, but I've made the change you requested to the article. Could you have another look and decide if you want to change your vote before the FAC expires? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 13:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

?????

Huh? It's appropriate to threaten you, but not to write about Oliver's Army? That flatly contradicts what you said before. And what do you mean by the changes getting decency in music? I was under the impression that Cromwell was the one who created the New Model Army. Mary Whitehouse, a punk? Are you serious? Yeltensic42.618 20:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What the heck are you even talking about? Who are you? Sheesh. Geogre 01:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Yeltensic42.618

Yeltensic42.618 (talk · contribs)

Do you have some information about this user (he left some messages on your talk page), I can't really figure out what that was about, I can't find any "threats". This user committed some pagemove vandalism, for which I blocked him, but it seems to have been provoked by a user who has now been banned himself. I have now reset his block to expire in 12 18 hours, but if you feel there's a valid reason you could unblock and reblock for longer. -- Curps 00:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

My initial block on him was indefinite, but I reduced it as mentioned above. He is claiming a friend of his was responsible for using his account. If you wish to block him longer, feel free to do so (but perhaps leave a message at his talk page about it, because I told him his block would last 18 more hours unless you or some other admin saw fit to extend it). -- Curps 01:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have now changed my password to [password deleted]. I'll make sure not to leave it lying around where my "nonexistent evil friend" will see it. Yeltensic42.618 22:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow!

Well, what a lot to think about. In the unlikely event of my being elected to ArbCom, I would certainly want to address the whole question of what to do with admins who abuse their toolkit, and you've pushed me into trying to formulate more clearly to myself just how to do so. Why don't you run? You'd certainly get my vote. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I never go near IRC, so no votes for me there. Nor have I ever knowingly broken a policy, so I lose out on the Ed Poor Barnstar vote. I'm banking on the quiet few, but would happily vote for you ahead of me if you were to reconsider. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well both of you will/would have my vote. Re Geogre's not-a-candidate platform: wow². Paul August ☎ 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

the david daiches page ...

... needs attention. Doldrums 16:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What you say is absolutely true. I've read him, in the past, but I'm afraid that I'm not strong enough to help the article much at this point. I'll add him, however, to the DNB list I keep of people I mean to research (behind, I'm afraind Charles Gildon and Edmund Curll, who are natural fits for me and people I've referred to in other articles). Hopefully, one of the other litgeeks who visit my page from time to time will see that and have better command of Modernist criticism. Geogre 21:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

... ummm .. what, is the DNB? ... Doldrums 07:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

don't bother, found it. Doldrums 07:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

History of Limerick

Thanks for your support on History of limerick. Check out the new section I wrote on the post war period in Limerick, I'd like to know your opinion. Seabhcán 13:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Commonplace Book Ejecta

The poetry

Just to let you know, I read it every time I see you've changed it. I was trying to do something to mark your recent FAC activity, but all I've got is

There is a fine fellow called Geogre

Who some people consider an ogre

But he's really quite fun

(Once you get past his gun)

Though his surname appears to be Borgia.

Not great, can anyone do better? Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I could never resist a gauntlet.

There once was a Geogre from Georgia

Whose writings they would not have bored ya

Such a heck of a time

Comming up with the ryhme

That Fil I wish I had ignored ya.

Well I kinda strayed off topic there. Paul August ☎ 17:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't resist this stuff either.

The Geogre's a sharp-witted creature

Whose articles often make feature,

but write substub one

and you'll meet his big gun:

Just be grateful he isn't your teacher!

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Holy smokes, y'all! These are good, and very cheering. Geogre 19:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Glad you like them. Maybe the ability to write a Limerick could be part of the criteria for joining Wikipedia:Elitists (see below). Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Better, I suppose, than requiring a Petrarchan sonnet, but perhaps we could ask for a rondelle, ballad, or (so I can get in) a Hudibrastic? I have no doubt that the three fine poets represented above, and many others beside, could pass that bar with ease. (As for the bit below, one usually only sees yelling matches like Wikipedia's when either reason or serenity has been knifed in the neck. We can all say that reason is with our "side" and against the other fellow's, but what I think is going on most consistenty is that passions have been involved. Now, the passion for chocolate or the passion for entertainment wouldn't account for the shrillness of what we've seen. The only passion I know of that would explain it would be the passion of self-esteem/pride, and that is best explained by "You attack this predicate nominative article on Fonzie, you attack me!") Geogre 11:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Love me, love my trivia. We poets are elitists by definition you know, as we generally expect our readers to have a vocabulary in excess of 500 words, to have read some real books, and to share our interest in the subtle ways of words. Maybe that's why we no longer have any poetry readers, come to think of it. Maybe I should start developing some concepts for reality television instead. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The literary reality shows

Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!

1. "The Ride of Tam o' Shanter": We send our contestants on an old nag to spy a pretty bonnet; real witches menace them as they flee.
2. "Waste Land!": Contestants are sent on an amble through the wreckage of 20th century Europe and must shore fragments against their ruin; the producers give them a new set of cultural fragments to find and shore every week; il Duce takes away the losers.
3. "Station Island Castaways": Contestants are isolated on an island off the Irish coast and must come face to face with all their past sins of commission and omission, as well as solve the riddle of the place of the poet in a political world; the winner will get a Nobel Prize for literature and a position at Boston College.
4. "Weakest Dunce": Contestants must dive into the Thames to retrieve an iPod, produce long (or forcefully downward, as measured by a scale) urine stream on or over 2 yards of "old books," and must recite full season synopses of the other reality shows.
5. "The Century Elimination": Contestants must produce one hundred comedy skits on the subject of the other cast member they'd most like to "hook up with." The skits will involve the object of desire, and only cast members who manage 100 skits without copulation will be awarded the prize of a trip to a whore house.
6. "Eloisa or Abelard?": A castrated man goes on a series of dates with "hotties." He offers a single vellum sheet of poetry to the winners every week -- culminating in the presentation of a book with a ring in it. However, just as the winner is being chosen, it is revealed that the "castrated man" is actually a lesbian woman, but the offended "hottie" is offered $1 million if she decides to go to Massachussetts and marry her "Abelard" anyway.
7. "Thirteen Blackbirds": Cast members ramble about in the woods of New England (although they don't know where they are). Every week, black birds attack and peck to death the person who has the least original view.

Umm, there are more. Geogre 11:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's one of mine

1. Streetwalkers: Contestants wander the streets of Dublin for 24 hours, making careful note of everything they seem hear, smell, taste, touch and think. Special spot prizes (donated by selected car makers and holiday firms) are awarded for orgasms in public places and original solutions to the more intractable problems of philosophy, theology and aesthetics. In the final episode, contestants have to construct Lego models of the city, using only their notes for guidance. The winner is the one whose model most closely matches reality and their prize is one night in Tim Finnegan's Hotel, Chapelizod. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I also have a crude storyboard for a treasure hunt game called And then they went down to the ships. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha. Well, if we don't have to stick to poetry (as poetry sticks to us), we have even more fun opportunities.

1. "Rollin' with Roland": The contestants are placed on an island and must negotiate complex political alliances to prevent war against the rival "tribe." However, the rival tribe is actually a plant. In the final episode, the winner is the single represent of the tribe who gets to the Horn of Immunity and blows it to alert the others to the invasion. (Hopefully, the contestant actually dies, too, and does not get the $1 million.)
2. "Purgatorio": The contestants must climb a really, really, really, really, really, really long stair, and at every landing they are tempted with one or another mortal sin. Only the virtuous get to the top, to be awarded the proverbial single rose (and a date with a supermodel named Beatrice or Virgil, depending upon preference).
3. "Bonfire of the Inanities": Contestants are placed in a home where they must live peaceably and vote each other off, but the house has no means of instant entertainment. Every week, another diversion is removed, and "challenges" involve solving very basic philosophical problems (culminating in a defense of orthodoxy against Pelagianism, let's say).

More to come. Geogre 13:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

How about this one:

1. Wikipedia: Twenty contestants have one TV season (13 weeks) in which to construct the ultimate encyclopaedia. 10 of the contestants have qualifications and or expertise in certain areas of human knowledge and the rest of the group (carefully chosen for their hands-on knowledge of pop culture) must vote one of this group each week. For the last 3 weeks, the remaining 10 contestants can use any means at their disposal to ensure that their own favourite TV show gets the highest possible number of entries possible. The winner gets to keep the resulting book all to themselves.

On second thoughts, it'd never work. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Yu Gi Oh?" :-)

The dangerously self-referential roman a clef that then becomes literary again

Ok, how about these:

1. "Look Homeward, Angela": Wikimedia's benign and municifent Angela is asked to attend all the Wiki-meetups in a year. All those at the meetup construct a single article about her, complete with beating each other up over the photo to use, RfC's on content, 3RR blockings, etc.
2. "Mobius Nick, or the quest for the Jimbo Wales": Contestants try to come up with another punning/sneaky account name for Wikipedia that approximates "Jimbo Wales" without being banned. The winner is the one who manages to post some content that isn't deleted within 24 hours.

Geogre 14:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I have another title, "He went side-away", something to do with lawmen and bandits, but I can't think what to do with it. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

That's wicked. The only thing I could do with that title would be to have a tale, set in the American Wild West, of a special manchild who has the power to bring creatures back to life. It turns out, in the course of the fiction, that he's only able to bring back plague victims, who, upon their revival, are so weak that they die again. Geogre 09:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "Muddlemarch": A reality show where the cast have to set their own rules for house behavior. The trick is that all rules must have unanimous consent (otherwise called "consensus"), and the debate can be extended by any housemate.
2. "The Zen of Motorcycle MaintConstruction": Fifteen willing teens attempt to write their own ars amorica based on Wikipedia articles. Those who succeed in describing actions that actually bring pleasure and/or are heterosexual and/or are likely to generate progeny are kicked out of the house as "POV."

I know these aren't as good as yesterday's, but I was smarter yesterday than I am today. Geogre 09:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

How about

1. Hamlet, Prince of Trailerparks; a faithful recreation of the play using REAL PEOPLE! REAL POISON! REAL SWORDS! A panel of experts will provide commentary on the mental states of the participants at various crucial moments and I've signed a sponsorship deal with a well-known firm of undertakers.
2. Paradise Lost. Teams of contestants are dropped in the Pacific in small boats with a week's supply of food and water. They have to find their way to the Bikini Atoll, where a barbecue has been arranged for the winning team.

Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright! I like your "Hamlet" idea, so long as someone says "To be or not to be," because that's the important part of it. (Note: can we introduce some slings, arrows, and bare bodkins?) Geogre 09:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Let's see:

1. "Billy Pilgrim's Progress": We take one clueless contestant, put him in a "tropical paradise," and have a staged war happen all around him. We allow him to get captured and put in a "prison camp" full of other similarly captured contestants. Hilarity ensues. The twist is when the camp is bombed by friendly planes, and all the "captors" are "dead." We reveal that it was all a game at the very end, and the audience votes for the most heroic Billy Pilgrim. Advertising tag line: "And so they go."
2. "Park Avenue Babbit": We take three idle rich heiresses/goofballs and ship them into a small town. They have to run for mayor and/or city council. Watch in awe as the pampered rich learn to pander! There are no winners on this show.

Geogre 09:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought that was A Child's Explosions with Whales (either that or Pop Goes the Weasle). I think we'd also need to note in some way the presence of the fluke interest in lives that were lived outside of the box.

However, I'm still in GRE Literature Test dump mode (it's been a while), so:

1. "Of Humane Bondage": Housemates explore knots and chains with the help of the most popular online encyclopedia in the world. They attempt to insert pictures of themselves, in animal costumes, college football mascot suits, and naked into that encyclopedia and persuade everyone in the world that not looking at the pictures is censorship.
2. "Poor Ed's Almanack": [hic dissideratur in MSS] [See revision history.] jolly fellow [hic dissideratur in MS] another pitcher of martinis, if you please [hiatus in MS] since the crack of time!
3. "Lucky Not Jim": An editor finds that using a red pencil, instead of a blue one, is punishable by drawing and quartering.

Not my best. Perhaps my invention has deserted me, along with those fickle Muse chicks. Geogre 13:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think number two is too near to Mister Ed, in which a talking horse took it upon himself to bring all human knowledge to the world (deleting the bits he didn't like). It won a Tony award, as I recall.

Time to pick the project we want to pitch to the studios. My feeling is that our best bet would be an amalgam of "Eloisa or Abelard?" and "It went side-away" A castrated man goes on a series of dates with "hotties". He offers a single vellum sheet of poetry to the winners every week -- culminating in the presentation of a book with a ring in it. However, just as the winner is being chosen, it is revealed that the "castrated man" is actually a lesbian woman brought back from the dead by a special manchild and doomed to die again real soon. But the offended "hottie" is offered $1 million if she decides to go to Hades and marry her "Abelard" anyway. Theme music: "There's a fire down below". Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

A fine anthology, suggested title: The Bold and the Beautiful. Geogre, please check your e-mail. Btw, this Conquest of Granada vandal doesn't seem to edit anything like the Squirrel of Wrath used to, but it could still be connected, I suppose. Going for that article sure is a big coincidence. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, then, closer:

1. "Walden Meadow Cholic": A new miniseries of only 84 chapters about a young man who, one day, receives divine instruction that he must cease his mild mannered work as a traffic warden and begin painting lines on the road exactly as the Voices tell him to, ensuring that all traffic is merged and redirected into a single, one-way street.

As for the personae who may or may not be implicated, my own barbs are intended for the public faces, not the private persons, as I regard my presence here to be an entire fiction and the presence of others to be the same. I am not here. I am only being traced in contour by the words that appear here, and the contour is only of the profile I choose to present. A spoof of it would, therefore, reflect it, and not me. I expect the same of others. Geogre 01:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

My pitch:

Greeks with Trojans: Two fraternity houses on the campus of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY, compete in various competitions involving condoms. The prize is the beautiful homecoming queen Helen, the ultimate trophy wife. However unbeknownst to the contestants, the events are rigged, as behind the scenes help is being given by disguised celebrity guest stars Venus Williams as Mighty Aphrodite, and Carl Weathers as Apollo Creed. The show is hosted by Paris Hilton.

Paul August ☎ 04:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely fantastic! A completely realized metaphor! (Rarer than an honest man.)

"Oedipal Wrecks": Celebrity mother/son and father/daughter teams (plus Demi Moore and Ashton Kusher) are sent on a cross-country road race in a Cooper Mini. Each team must solve puzzles and then is given a route that culminates in a bottle-neck intersection that is being blocked by an obstreperous old man/woman with a stalled truck. The old person is the mother/father in deep disguise. The audience laughs with glee to see the cads duke it out.

"The Great Escape from Troy": Teams, male and female, have to go, on foot, from the central football stadium of the University of Southern California Trojan stadium to the television station, while carrying or otherwise transporting an agéd father. Sandwiches will be served.

These are poor, I know, but it is the weekend, and my brain wants to watch fooball all day. Geogre 13:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay one more, a spinoff of "Greeks with Trojans":

"Judge Paris": Each week, In a combination courtroom and mud pit, three sorority sisters, wrestle to be chosen the "fairest of them all", by "Judge" Paris Hilton. Between bouts they engage in dissing contests egged on by the Hilton heiress, and attempts to bribe Paris with offers of power, money and sex. Sex usually works best. The prize is a solid gold Apple computer.

Paul August ☎ 18:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm in awe. That's another fully realized conceit. Two in a day is more than most metaphysical poets could hope for. How about,

"Hail Heiress!": Nicole Ritchie and Paris Hilton, along with any others who have ever appeared beside them on a tabloid cover, engage in a bra-less foot race in Atlanta. A mischievious drug dealer leads them, dropping golden Apple iPods every few feet. Any who fail to pass the drug dealer will executed, but any who pass the drug dealer get his stash.

Pathetic! I'm not cut out for this game, dammit. I know my Greek mythology very well, but my conceit machine isn't working in such detail. :-(

"Sole on Ice":

No.

"The Compleat Dangler":

No. dang!. Geogre 21:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Restoration Literature question

I'm a relative wiki-virgin looking for a way to contact Geogre, who seems to have written most of the excellent Restoration Literature article. So I thought I'd give this page a shot.

I have a question about one very specific fact in the article: the Athenian Mercury article on "piss shiver." I like this enough that I want to look it up, but I can't find anywhere but Wikipedia that documents the "piss shiver" question. It's not mentioned in Gilbert McEwen's excellent book on the Mercury, for example. So where did this great tidbit come from, and do you have a citation for the original article?

Wow. Thanks for the kind words. As for the tidbit, back years ago, I was looking for a textual editing task for my dissertation, and I "tried out" everything our rare book room had. Fortunately, it was a very good rare book room. There was no edition of the journal at that time (other than Charles Gildon's!), and I just read the originals I could get my hands on. I know I looked through Gray's Inn Journal, some Mist's Journals, Athenian Mercury, and others. My memory, but only my memory, says that the "shiver" question was in Athenian Mercury, but that's not nearly strong enough (either my conviction or my memory). The question was, in fact, in verse, so that makes it even more specific. I can remember, in fact, where I saw it on the page (verso, toward the end). It was one of the question-answer journals that also had bits of news, so that narrows it only slightly. I recall a line or two of the doggerel, "Either master or misses.... shivers when he pisses."

I apologize for the vagueness, and, in all honesty, I ought to remove the tidbit or leave it unattributed or wiggle about some in the mention, in the article, as I never meant to lead anyone astray.

Around the same time, I also read Bond's edition of Spectator, but that, very obviously, is not the source. I also read several of the Guardians (and have the recent edition), but, again, that journal had entirely the wrong format, as The Guardian didn't print up jocular doggerel.

Apologies again, and thanks again for the kind words. (By the way, I settled on Robert Gould for my subject back then, which is why he makes an unexpectedly large appearance in Restoration literature.) Geogre 00:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Commonplace Book Ejecta

Yes I, for one, do read Commonplace Book Ejecta, and there's a spelling mistake 'admiraction'. Greenleaf 01:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Damn! I guess folks are reading it when the spelling mistakes get noticed. (Maybe Chapman couldn't spell? :-)) Thanks a lot. I will, of course, correct it, and now I'm spurred on to enter more from my commonplace book. (I recommend everyone keep one. I started when a junior in college. I'd taken an 18th c. literature class and found out what they are. It seemed like a neat idea, so I got a diary and started my jottings. Then the computer took over, and my Leading Edge 286 held them all, then.... In other words, I've been waiting 20 years for a thing to do with all this stuff.) Geogre 01:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Honestly speaking, the reason I was frequenting your pages was not CBE alone but your -perhaps deletionist- opinions on quality of work. I also liked to read your postings in VfD pages for the same reason. Coming back to the matter at hand, I was doing a little research - I remembered that there was a mention somewhere that user pages can be edited by others for good-faith spelling corrections etc.; it took me a little while to find Angela's opinion here - a consensus on which is something I would prefer to have in WP:UP itself. To quote Barzini, "we are all reasonable men here". :) Greenleaf 02:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• A sure sign that the good Don understood the shortest way with Wikipedia. I know I've seen Frankie Five Angels around the place.
• The thing about "deletionism" is that I think the label is not only incorrect (I'd like to think that my brag list alone would prove that I don't favor deletion, and I find that the other classic "deletionists" are often authors as well), but based on a profound misunderstanding. It's actually a case of standards. Hopefully, everyone has a set of minimum standards for what is an article, although I wonder, with some people, if they really do. If one wants a pejorative, I'd be happier with "elitist" than "deletionist." There are folks who believe that the bar must be set at one point, others at another; I understand why anyone who thinks "this is not good enough to be an article" would militate to see it deleted or rewritten, but I have trouble understanding why someone who feels that the bar should be lower would fight (to the point of project disruption) to keep the "article." I'm beginning to think that the more strident "inclusionists" are not, like the "deletionists," arguing on the basis of article quality at all, and that's one reason we don't have dialogs.
• Let's suppose that the motivation for some people (and I don't want to use a wide brush) is not "this is of sufficient quality," but either a sense of personal injury ("I wrote an article on ASCII art, and they voted to delete it! Those snobs!") or personal projection ("My articles are two lines long, and that's all I want to know about a thing, so when people call for deletion of one like this, they are saying that I'm not good enough"). If that were to be the case, the two sides would never be able to talk to each other. The one side would keep talking about whether an article is informative and representative and sufficient, and the other would be talking about emotions and personal worth.
• My experiences suggest that the arguments do often run along those lines, but that, of course, doesn't mean that personal injury and personality projection are the reason that the "radical inclusionists" are acting that way. If I am the deletionist mascot (and I used to be), then all I can say is that most of the "very often vote delete" people do so because they have a set of standards for inclusion and are voting that way dispassionately (...oh, alright, sometimes with exasperation at the junk that gets included).
• So, that's why I don't like "inclusionist" and "deletionist." Perhaps "offendeds" and "elitists" would be more accurate. :-) Geogre 10:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I take back deletionist thing - but for me, it has no negative connotation, as my definition of it is "preference for pruning things that do more harm than good right now", and I used to contrast deletionsim with eventualism as well as inclusionism. On the other hand, elitist for me, unless some sort of lexical tuning is allowed for, implies dominance than reason, I don't seem to like it because it, and offendeds, portrays the problem as a one of culture/attitude of editors than their philosopy. I do know that there is a attitude aspect of the game, but imho, people take more offence when they are labelled by their bad cluture/attitudes than by their bad philosophy.

But thanks for coining the word offendeds. I have great use of that elsewhere, outside wiki. :-))) Greenleaf 10:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I don't find "deletionist" apt is that, honestly, most folks don't want to delete. We don't want less content. We don't want fewer articles. We want what is present to be good. I prefer your metaphor and suggest, perhaps, that we be known as Gardeners. :-)

What I wanted to get at, though, is one of those truisms from Rhetoric: people can only argue, if they share the premise or warrant of the matter. Usually, the warrant is unstated (which is why it's the warrant), but you have to agree already before you can even talk. What this amounts to is that people who believe that life begins at conception and people who regard embryos as a collection of cells can't argue facts with each other, because their founding assumptions are un(dis)provable. You also can't argue emotion with reason or reason with emotion.

I know that arguments over just reason can get hot. (I saw three scholars ready to send postal bombs to each other over an argument about the etymology of "fuck," once.) I just feel like the "deletionist/inclusionist" argument isn't an argument, that it's a matching of emotion vs. reason. This is not to disparage the "emotion" people, either. However, the Gardeners seem to just say "delete" or vote "merge and redirect." They don't generally go around deleting the discussion area or starting pages on meta (at least any that get traffic) to gather up vote floods. The "inclusionists," on the other hand, seem to be wildly impassioned. I have a hard time explaining the personal invective, the WP disruption, and the mobilizing and busing of voters without some cause of powerful emotions. I think that such voters feel insulted, as it is implicit in a delete vote that not only is the article wrong, but that the "keep" voters are slobs or unperceptive or uneducated. That kind of insult will get folks mighty fired up.

That said, I also think that there is a real difference of standards, where some people really don't want much reading or informing when they themselves seek out information. I used to not believe it, but now I think that many of the voters really do consider "Lincoln High School is a high school in Summit, New Jersey. It's principal is Mr. Jones. Its' colors are black and mauve" to be a full article. It's all they want to know, so there's nothing wrong with it. Anything beyond that, they think, is boring. This might be due to Wikipedia's editors' age skew, and it might just be another sign of the apocalypse, but I'm slowly realizing that it's true.

At any rate, I think we should immediately and henceforth begin referring to we pruning folks as Gardeners. Geogre 14:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

So Kaczynski was not the last academic to think of mail bombs as good arguments? :-)))

I guess the easy voting for inclusionism, and apparent kindness towards unworthy articles is a product of the emphasis of the age we live in on political correctness and tolerance so it's always less risky to vote keep - on the sole grounds that keeping doesn't hurt, because asking to delete is perceived "rude" - may be in subconscious. And if the age skew/apocalypse has something to do with this really --I sincerely hope you were wrong on this-- I had similar arguments about Slashdot when stuff like "A company like Microsoft must definitely have a QA staff" started to get modded up as +5 informative. Now I see a similarity between the two, and that is not very pleasing -for, if these are indeed signs, then it means that all the kings moderators and all the kings voters cannot salvage anything online from what happened to usenet.

Anyway, please keep writing those policy rants on user page, I'm sure a lot of people enjoy reading them and immensely benefit from them. I know that I did. - Greenleaf 09:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Page move

There's been consensus for moving language families and languages to just language family for quite a while now (see talkpage), but no one has actually moved it yet. But I don't want to go through the unspeakably tedious hassle of requesting a move, because of all the pointless bureaucracy involved. Do you think you could do us the favor and move it?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it. But Peter, please note that the move didn't involve any admin powers, you can do moves like that yourself. By "moves like that" I mean moves that overwrite an unedited redirect. Look in the history of the redirect that has the name you want to use for the article. If nobody edited it since it was created, anybody can do the move. If it has been edited, you need to get an admin in to first delete it. A lot of people seem to not be aware of this, but it's quite useful, as most redirects are in fact unedited. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Recently, in fact, I had to do a move like that with Charles Blount, which was a redirect to the Elizabethan figure. I needed to create a tiny article on the deist. Geogre 01:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

D'oh... I keep forgetting, bish. Sorry 'bout that, Geogre.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Spam

G'como and Fil and Geogre, and any others reading this (nudge, nudge), I'm sorry to be spamming, but I thought you might care to comment on this RfC. I wouldn't be bothering you if it wasn't for the skimpiness of the interest shown here. It's not a labyrinthine case, it's pretty much about one particular quarrel that went down yesterday, some of it on my talk page. I'm very much only suggesting you chip in if you've got the time and the interest, of course. NUDGE. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

A get well soon card

Is what this is. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

A discreet promotional message on my talk

Don't argue, please, just go look. That'll make you get well if anything can. Bishonen | talk 00:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The message about the Culture of Italy? (Just kidding. The miserable mutilation is going to be for 24 hours. I'm wondering if it's going to be best to ignore all changes until the 24 hr is up and then decide which to keep and which to revert.) Geogre 01:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Houyhnhnm

There's a very questionable recent edit by an anon at this page. I thought you'd be a good person to ascertain whether it's BS or not. -R. fiend 16:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice work. I haven't read the book in some time (10 years?) and I realize I recall none of the details. I should pick it up again. Anyway, you added enough information that I think it no longer qualifies as a stub, and I have removed the tag and now dub it a "short article". (Is there a difference? Well, there is in my unofficial article count.) Oh, and I just noticed that in your Sir Topas article that you referred to the Tale of Melibeus as a "dull debate poem". Now if I recall, the thing is prose, and not a poem. Am I right? (This was the first untranslated Middle English text I ever read, I couldn't find a translation. Man did that take a while to get through.) A minor point, but I wanted to run it by you before making a change (I usually find it not worthwhile to second guess the Geogre on literature topics). -R. fiend 19:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In this case, guess away, as I no longer recall writing that, and, unlike you, I haven't translated it. (I tried to do all of Troilus and Creseyde...required to, actually, and I wanted to gouge out my own eyes.... Can't understand why Bishonen likes it. It wasn't the ME that bothered me. It was the poem itself.) I need to look again and look back at whatever sources I used for the article to be sure. Change it at will. As for the Houhynhnms, I'm going to crack my own copy of GT to get the names right before going on to sketch out the "hard/soft" debate (are they ideals or horrors?). Geogre 01:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I love Troilus and Criseyde! It's very funny and light, amazingly expressive and kind of comprehensively sarcastic language, like a medieval Dickens in verse. The verse pretty rather than strong, and very regular, IOW the complete contrast to the craggy, and I guess more sophisticated, verse of Canterbury Tales. But Troilus is one of my all-time favorites. Bishonen | talk 02:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Bish, but that's just plain weird. Preferring it to Canterbury Tales? Wow. I'm speechless. I liked Shakespeare's T&C, but it took a year for anything to happen in Chaucer's. Even the jokes came in slow motion. Give me the bouncy bouncy of CT any day. (Better yet, leave me the Pearl Poet, and I'll shut up altogether.) (Oh, and see Haeleth's revision of Ormulum, below. It kicks ass.) Geogre 03:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ormulum

Well, I finally got round to looking at this properly. My aim was twofold: firstly to simplify the introduction radically, so people get an instant impression of what the thing's about, and secondly to remove various duplications of facts that had crept into your version.

But I'm afraid I got a bit carried away and ended up changing things round rather more than I'd intended to, and probably much more than you were expecting. So rather than make sweeping changes to what is, after all, already a rather good article, I've put my modified version up on User:Haeleth/Scratchpad. Comments welcome (and if you dislike the whole thing and would much rather I restricted myself to minor edits, just say so - I shan't be offended!) Haeleth 01:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Duly committed. I'm working on getting a usable Bourne Abbey picture, and an edition of the full text to check some facts against and pull solid line numbers from: shouldn't take more than a day or two to find out whether either is possible, at least. Haeleth 13:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

First line

No, no, that was me! I was extrapolating from the B&S comment that it was "the first line of the Preface". And I've removed the claim not because I found it to be false, but because I can't confirm it (I won't be able to get my hands on a full edition for another two weeks, it turns out; I'm not sure it's worth waiting for such a minor detail). — Haeleth Talk 21:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ormed and ready

Re readiness of Orm: nearly but not quite. I'm just going through fixing wikilinks (going straight to the correct St Paul and all that), and then I want to add that longer example of the "poetry" as well, but that will be everything. — Haeleth Talk 19:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It's done: I'm now basically happy with the article. (I've even got yoghs working properly! \o/)

If you could just be sure to proofread it one last time before nominating for FA - I'm sure I've missed an embarrassing typo somewhere, or at the very least gone and used British spellings by accident. — Haeleth Talk 21:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Can I get your vote?

I have been nominated for an adminship and I was wondering if I could get your vote. If you feel inclined, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alabamaboy and cast your "yes" or "not in a million years." Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 02:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

A lot of Wikipedians don't like vote solicitations. --Maru (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

True. I don't much care, if the purpose is to inform rather than lobby. After all, whether I vote for or against is up to me, and nothing could really pressure me, either way. Alabamaboy and I have had interactions in the past, so that's a good basis for contact, and I'm probably well known as one of those folks who checks RFA only sporadically. I hate to see contacting friendlies used as a reason to oppose, and, invariably, someone will do it. Geogre 02:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I contacted people I'd interacted with over the last half year just to inform them about the vote (heck, I even tried to add a dash of humor). As someone who doesn't check out RfAs that often, I didn't know this was frowned upon (although I've seen a number of others do this and I wonder how many people do this by e-mail so others don't know). Anyway, my bad on this and apologies for irritating anyone. Geogre, I will add John Crowe Ransom to my list of articles to work on. I'm focusing on Shakespeare and Uncle Tom's Cabin for the near future (assuming I don't have to spend too much time with this RfA) but I'll get to Ransom soon. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Geogre, I don't understand the first sentence of your support vote, ...political sides... also...political sides... ? --hydnjo talk 13:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I was attempting a sort of wit there, I'm afraid. I was saying that he hasn't done much Wikipoliticking, which means he doesn't know not to contact folks about his RFA, but, on the other hand, it's good that he's not a politically-minded (read: squabbling, enemy and friend picking, policy-selectively-supporting) Wikipedian. Since I have been all over the political sides, I was sort of saying that it's a blessing as much as it's a drawback to have an RFA nominee who isn't coming to the process from some vicious debate or IRC chat session. Geogre 15:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought the repeat may have had meaning but didn't know for sure. Excellent additional comments as well (which I wouldn't have been bold enough to say out loud). Thanks, --hydnjo talk 18:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque

If you can get it through FAC, I shall hold a manic orgy on my page for the team. Giano | talk 13:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

alcohol I provide, you bring your own antonym, I never share my antonym with anyone. Manic orgies are the one thing no one has objected to - shows they have a certain sense of humour - somewhere! Giano | talk 14:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Of the two the antonym looks like the most fun! Giano | talk 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Able and Baker

Hi Geogre!

I see you registered your opinion that my restoration of Able and Baker was out of process. Before I made this choice, I read the instructions regarding WP:DRV, and in a box under the "Purpose"-section I read:

Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless:

• They are able to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question;
• In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
• An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above.

The decision I made was based on the exception in the last point, it was not a spur of the moment decision or a use/abuse of WP:IAR. I can assure you that nobody, Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner or David Gerard, tried contacting or pressuring me in any way here either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Romances

Good lord, Romance (genre) spends most of its time talking about sagas, and then lists Roman de la Rose as a romance. I think I'm going to cry.

Articuli multi, uita breuis... is there a medieval literature Wikiproject somewhere?

There certainly are people to defend Havelok, believe it or not. Well, Sands compares it favourably with King Horn, anyway. I don't know if you'd count that as praising it! — Haeleth Talk 12:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Atomic Cosmos

Thanks for stepping in and doing the decent thing on my vote for speedy deletion on Atomic Cosmos. Just a note, the talk page is still active, with a charming racial slur on it. Could you pull the Wiki trigger on that as well please, or does it happen automatically in the course of time? Also, while I'm here, what do you make of Rise of the Reds? I'm sorely tempted to Vfd it, but I'm giving the users there a chance to justify themselves first. Am I being too kind? Cheers Coyote-37 08:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it were me, I would list it on VfD. The reason is that we've had a whole spate of "mod" articles and, in the past, virtually all have failed VfD, so precedent would suggest that this one should go there for evaluation. Generally, folks have concluded that only the really earth-shatteringly popular mods stay. The way I reason it, any computer phenomenon referred to only by the people who are involved in it is not encyclopedic. A thing needs to have references in some other media, has to have had an effect on something else. If Newsweek does an article on C&C mods and mentions this one, then it stays. If teenagers with palpitations simply IM each other about it, it doesn't. After all, "Wikipedia is not GameFAQs."

I knocked out the talk page for Atomic Cosmos. Sometimes I leave them only so that any recreation will carry with it evidence of what had gotten it deleted before. I.e. the talk pages sometimes make it clear that the article is recreated content. In this case, I just forgot.

As for Rise of the Reds, I don't think it should go or stay. I think it should be decided by VfD: is this just another mod, or is this one of the monumentally important ones? Geogre 11:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good advice :) Coyote-37 13:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

DYK update

Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jane Wenham, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

- Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ayenbite of Inwyt

I've written a basic little article, just to get rid of the last red link from Ormulum; I was wondering if you'd be prepared to give it a glance over for sanity (and maybe see if you can think of anything else to say)? — Haeleth Talk 00:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning the fact that the phrase (rendered agenbite of inwit) appears at least 8 times in Ulysses? Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably so, although it's also one of those titles that Joyce uses with such historical awareness that it's hard to know what to say about it. E.g. I've always been told that Joyce "imitates" Geoffrey of Monmouth at one point in Ulysses. I'm not sure that he does. However, these things all mean something very definite there (and a manual of conscience means a lot to Stephen). Geogre 10:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This was also mentioned on the article's talk page, so I did add a mention; a little trivia never hurt anyone. As for Widsith... uh... maybe tackling three works of such unique literary merit in a row would be pushing the limits of sanity. — Haeleth Talk 21:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Mail

Mail! --Bishonen | talk 18:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Bounty Board

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Howdy

This is forged. What is being read here is not what is written. The moving finger moves on, and the fickled finger of fate points.

The Oxford Hysteria of English Poetry

Yeah, I understand people put poetry on your page, or write it, or whatever. Anyway. Here's a little extract to cheer you up.

Cromwell’s time I spent on cultural committees.

Then Charles the Second swung down from the trees

And it was sexual medley time

And the only verses they wanted

Were epigrams on Chloë’s breasts

But I only got published on the back of her left knee-cap.

Next came Pope and Dryden

So I went underground.

Don’t mess with the Mafia.

(Adrian Mitchell)

--Bishonen | talk 03:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Empathy

Salve, Geogre!
Just wanted you to know that you're not the only one with an article severly cut by User:Iago Dali. See my Dana Gioia and the discussion here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Iago seems to think that shorter is better. I've just been reading the lengthy debates between him, Alabamaboy, Singing Badger, and Mandel on the Talk:William Shakespeare page, and I must say there are many others who feel as we do. I will say that the Dana Gioia article was not as detailed and as thoroughly researched as I would have liked, cf James Aubrey, but it was a start. The cuts didn't make a lot of sense to me on Gioia and I expect to go back and rescind most of them. I've just sent Iago a message cautioning him about deleting material from his talk page. It looks like inexperience to me, but others will surely see his deletions as having something to hide. PedanticallySpeaking 17:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Miss you

How's tricks, are you teaching? You don't have time to come to IRC for a natter, I suppose? Bishonen | talk 20:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Llama (band)

I have done a rewrite to avoid copyvio issues. Please have a look. Thanks. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hylozoism

Yup, yup. OED definition: "The theory that matter is endowed with life, or that life is merely a property of matter." First use: Ralph Cudworth, The true intellectual system of the universe (1678). I. iii. §1. 105: "Hylozoism...makes all Body, as such, and therefore every smallest Atom of it, to have Life Essentially belonging to it."

Thanks for supporting my RfA

I know I've been slow in saying this, but thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was an honor to be both nominated and approved as an admin. If there is ever any adminish (is that a word :-) things you need help with, please let me know. --Alabamaboy 16:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Southern Ivies

A particularly subjective and unresolvable question is whether William and Mary belongs.

It is the most venerable of the bunch, literally has ivy on its walls, and is academically very, very distinguished... but it is a public school, whereas the real Ivy League schools are private.

It seems to me that [insert region here] Ivy ought to imply, not merely academic excellence, but the possession of other Ivy League characteristics. An Ivy ought to be a couple of centuries old; private; have social prestige (which could be determined objectively by counting schools attended by people listed in The Social Register); have historical involvement in the U.S. power structure (did any U. S. Presidents attend Rutgers?); have historical origins as mens' schools; and, of course, be selective in admissions with regard to lineage as well as pure scholastic ability.

One would never refer to MIT as any kind of "ivy," although they tell me it's a pretty fair school and has ivy growing on the walls of its East Campus dormitories.

I personally don't think we should have any "XYZ Ivies" articles unless they can be referenced to an objective list, such as an athletic conference or a book like "Public Ivies," or to a famous speech like Jesuit Ivy. By the way, take a gander at the bletcherous long paragraph in Public Ivies, the one enumerating the ways in which they surpass the Ivy League. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Schools

Hi Geogre! Regarding the way people like to refer to a particular page when voting on schools, it comes from following point 4 here. My contribution to that page was making the argument for merging section. It seems that is the view which has least support for some reason, but every time I have merged a school article, nobody has reverted it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Middle English Scholar

... if you get a chance could you please have a look at the last enormous sentence of this: Middle_English#Literary_and_Linguistic_Cultures -- I made an attempt to fix it, but I'm not sure what the original writer was trying to say, especially considering that the original prose has been turned into sausage by dozens of anonymous edits. It's a bit outside of my area of expertise. Cheers! Hope all is going well for you. Antandrus (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Holy smokes! What a mess that is! It started out with a rigid (pole up the posterior) prose style and then just...discombobulated. I think I know the general point being made, but there are historical inaccuracies amid the syntactic rubble. For example, Gower was not a Chaucerian, since he was Chaucer's teacher and patron. The general point is that we study polite and categorized ME literature, and that is restricted to a literary culture around London and the East Anglians. All of which is to say Chaucer and Pearl Poet. It's an overblown point, and the prose is so inflated as to have burst already. I'll see what I can do to tame it. Geogre 17:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hey, Geogre, I happened to notice your conversation with Filiocht about Arbcom, reminding me that elections are approaching. This got me thinking, do you know of anyone be particularly well-qualified who is running, or should be encouraged to run? Last time I just picked the 5 or 6 people I was pretty sure I didn't want to be on the committee, and voted for everyone else (textbook voting against rather than for). Of course, now there are some people on it who I really don't think should be, even though I technically voted for them. I'd really like to have at least one or two people who I feel I see eye to eye on. You seem to be uninterested, though I'm sure you'd have quite a bit of support. Anyone we could draft? I actually don't interact with people as much as perhaps I should (especially for someone who's been here nearly 20 months) so I'm lacking some of the interaction necessary to know many people well enough. Anyone you reccommend would certainly carry weight with me. Well, send any thoughts/ideas my way. -R. fiend 23:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Article....................

The article Contact Consequences is being cleaned up, and it is'nt a hoax,etc. at all, or the clean-up task force would'nt mess w/ it. Will you reconsider your vote ?Martial Law 08:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the American Civil War

Could you please revisit the discussion, read my comments there and consider changing your vote?

I think two reasons used to delete this are faulty:

1. This list includes information which would be lost if categorized. Categories cannot list the date and manner of death in a organized manner as lists do. Categorizing would lose the info.
2. Wikipedia is not a memorial doesn't apply as that rule is for people who do not deserve an article. These people played major roles in the American Civil War and therefore do not fall under the memorial clause of WP:NOT. They already have articles, and lists listing closely related people should not be deleted because they happen to be dead.

Thanks for your attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

There's also featured lists on cricketers, which essentially rehash info from the article on the individual people, but it remains useful because it presents the information in an ordered fashion.

This list helps people who are looking for people who died during the American Civil War and how it happened. Going through an entire category and looking up each individual entry is far too laborious. A bad title can be renamed and for easy reference it should be linked in the American Civil War article if it's not already.

The whole point is that lists can perform tasks that cannot be done by categories. The list shows the manner and date of death and rank for the people listed as well as sorting them into a subheading based on which side they were on. All that information would end up buried in individual articles if it were categorized. Categories can only sort alphabetically. Cateogries can indeed replace mere lists of links, but I believe this is more than just a list of people which can be put in a category. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletionist!

Geogre, face it buddy, you're a deletionist and there is nothing more to it.

Happy deleting!

(Even the guy above agrees.)

Gosh! Here I thought I was a song and dance man. (You are welcome to pursue undeletion at WP:VFU, you know. It's lots better than leaving comments.) Geogre 14:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've come to see you as at least 40% bicycle. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Flann O'Brian in a wet teeshirt; now there's a thought! By the way, you might take a quick look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Objectivist poets/archive1 for me. I need help. Filiocht | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish publishers

I was planning on putting an afd delete on this list, considering its just a replica of the List of Jewish publishers but with an even more obscure profession. I need some support before putting up the notice though. 72.144.136.150 03:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Any article like that, that attempts the impossible (all Jewish publishers) and simultaneously targets a religion/ethnicity for its list and that might well be motivated by a hit-list mentality, is likely to get deleted. There are quite a few people who do not like these articles. I would feel the same way about a List of Christian publishers or a List of Arab publishers or List of Muslim publishers: nothing is gained by such a distinction, and much is lost. Geogre 11:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

We see eye to eye. I put it up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers 72.144.161.73 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you missed, there, but it hasn't showed up in VfD yet. The VfD procedures change every so often, and I was off writing articles the last three times. Silly me. Geogre 10:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Harry Baughman AfD

Hi. I noticed that you did not close out the speedy delete you performed on Harry Baughman's AfD. I did it for you this time, but please remember to in the future. Just a reminder! :-) WikiFanatic 03:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel "The Captain" Johnstone

To add insult to injury - this is closed out now, too. (By the way, my favorite days are the "fixing to be bold" ones.)
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Point

WP:POINT requires disruptive behavior. Functionally raising the bar on Comcat AFD nomiations is not disruptive. I welcome a user conduct RFC on the matter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not disruptive to AfD to vote keep on articles that Comcat nominates - disruption requires that many people are inconvienced, which they are not. Please review WP:POINT. If the articles are that bad, they'll be deleted anyway. There is no rage here, there's the fact that he/she nominates valid articles for AFD. I did not ASK you to file an RFC against me, I welcomed it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming is not asking, it's my stating that I feel my behavior is fine but would be willing to listen to other's views. Raising the bar for nominations by Comcat is in no way stopping truly bad articles from being deleted. One can either wait untill the AFD fails, and bring for DR (where I will vote for "relist"), or one can renominate. I feel that nominations by Comcat are likley to be erronious. In raising the consensus value of Comcat nominated deletions (and increasing the number of eyes that view them - people browse AFD for disagreements, and look more carefully at those), I provide a service to this encyclopedia (much the same service that banning Comcat from AFD would serve). Keeping a useless article does not damage the encyclopedia, nor is the current article on Blop useless, (though it requires verification and sourcing). Wikipedia is punished when good articles are deleted. It is not punished when short articles are kept. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside my objections to the thought that unencyclopedic articles do not harm wikipedia, I'd like to turn this to a broader topic. While the nominator in question's brevity is extreme, poorly done nominations are quite common. If we could all start to give positive feedback to anyone who puts together a nom with links demonstrating that they have done the relevent research, we would certainly all be happier.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue is much simpler than that. Any vote without reasoning pertaining to the article should be stricken. This would include "delete" and "keep" votes without rationale as well as votes that refer to some broad urge or personal issue. I don't mean just "the closer shouldn't consider them": I mean they should be struck through, just as nonce accounts should be. Geogre 00:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting... I've seen Tony make comments to the effect of "The opinions of Blah, Blech, and Foo were disregarded due to ignorance", so this isn't that wild-eyed. What about "Keep per User"? With the presumption that User has given a reasonable accounting for themselves, of course.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm not going to be agreeing with Tony. All I'm saying is that a vote without rationale should have a strike-through. It would still be legible, therefore. As for "delete per nominator" and "delete per Geogre" or "keep per Kappa," that would be fine, if the nominator, I, or Kappa had actually delivered a rationale. If the nominator is doing what ComCat does, then probably not. If the nominator is saying, "Original research," then yes. My point is that each and every vote should have a rationale, but every rationale should pertain to the deletion guidelines eventually (e.g. I will do something like, "A rambling, incoherent, and pointless essay. Original research" -- despite the insults and general feelings, I do give a deletion guideline rationale). Geogre 10:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if he gets it right? I'm now going to explicitly praise/scorn participants who demonstrate thoughtfull/thoughtless AfD behavior... thanks for the food for thought. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

On this thread I am wondering which of these short votes you would say are valid and which are invalid:

1. Keep. Good article.
2. Keep. I like this article.
3. Delete. nn.
4. Delete. Useless article
5. Keep. I see no reason to delete this.
6. Keep. No harm in keeping.
7. Delete. Silly article.
8. Keep. Notable.
9. Keep all real people.
10. Delete. Vanity.
11. Keep. Fancruft.
12. Delete per WP:NOT.
13. Keep. I want this article to stay in Wikipedia.

Votes 2 and 4 do in a sense refer to the article, but they could easily be added to just about any vote. One problem with disregarding a vote outright is that it just means that people need to make up some argument which they don't really hold, and "good article" or "notable" or "useless" is very easy to add.

Number 11 refers to the article alright, so does that count? (I myself am quite liberal with fancruft, though when I vote to keep it I usually say something like "keep per WP:FICT" to avoid grumblings...) If we have 10 unreasoned keep votes vs. 3 delete votes with some reasoning, should that be closed as a delete even though a clear majority voted to keep it?

In general, I prefer to let poorly reasoned or unreasoned votes go into the vote count tally which is perhaps the single most important factor when determining most outcomes, but if we get a debate where the result is a close call (i.e. anything between about 60% and 75% delete), such votes won't do much to tip the balance. If you're interested, I have written up some of my thoughts on this at User:Sjakkalle/AFD closing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me be clear that "poorly reasoned" is nothing I want to touch. Once we get to that, we have just more contention. As for which I would count, above, "vanity" and "fancruft" are both referential votes, which I urge folks not to do. "WP:NOT" could be a valid vote if, prior to that, there had been an explicit reference to the article violating NOT in one specific way or another, but it, too, is a referential vote. I have said on AfD and would say in neon letters, if possible, "don't vote in reference to some other web page on meta. Even if it means typing until our fingers fall off, state your reasoning." I would count those three and urge the voters to state their reasoning rather than refer to principles found elsewhere. ("Cruft" is a meaningless term. In votes, it means "too granular and not individually significant." My version of it is, "Topic is known only to those already involved in [Project], and therefore it will not be sought by others; information is stranded from the well-known search term by being split off like this.") However, "notable" is not a reason to keep -- especially if, as we are told quite often, "notability is not a reason to delete." Liking or disliking an article (incl. "crap") is not a reason to keep or delete, either. Finally, there is no presumption that all articles are admissable unless specifically proven to be inadmissable, so "I see no reason to get rid of this" may be the worst reasoning of them all (or its relative, "It does no harm"): the subject of Wikipedia is supposed to be "online encyclopedia," not "online democracy" or "online self-expression." In a sense, each article must meet a burden of proof in order to have the right to exist, to use up our server resources.

Anyway, I think it would be a bad idea to count those votes. The reason is that it validates non-voting. It validates vote floods from nonce accounts and "kiddie" voters (people who vote like kiddies, no matter their ages). More to the point, it passes onto our servers an article that hasn't established its case, hasn't established its bona fides. It might be wise to relist the vote, with strike-through code on the insufficient votes, and say, "Consensus impossible, as there were no fully formed votes." Let folks see that they need to do more to have their votes count, I guess. Best to do it at the end of the process than while the vote is underway. I guess. Geogre 10:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Too little for too much

Geogre, this is in gratitude for all your work on Wikipedia. I was quite shocked when you said, some time ago, that Scimi's barnstar was the first one you'd ever received. That's a sin, really, considering your contribs. So I went and had a look at the charmingly-named BS page, trying to decide on a good one, and settled on this. I waited until I had a good pretext, and there is one now—Peterborough just made the front page :). So here you go, Geogre, a little something for so much. encephalon 10:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The Barnstar of High Culture is awarded to editors who make extraordinary contributions to art, literature and culture-related subjects on Wikipedia. I award you this star in recognition of the profound contributions you have made in this field to the encyclopedia. There has seldom been an editor who deserved so much, and to whom what we may award will always be too little. In gratitude, encephalon 10:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably the most merited award I've seen around here. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

A-greed. Blackcap (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, man! I'm sincerely flattered. It's this kind of thing that makes me want to do some more good (instead of just clearing out CSD). Geogre 14:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean by the headful of lumber looking for a home. That's why I'm here, too. I like a certain amount of Heaney's work, but I have a problem with his status in the pecking order of Irish poetry. He casts a shadw over everything since, a bit like a pint-sized Yeats. If you ever have 10 minutes with absolutely nothing to do, you might scan this nonsense for a potted view of where I'm at. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No joke about his status. This is somewhat his fault and moreso the fault of a world that has Hollywood on its mind and insists upon stars and great men. I actually don't like that much Heaney, but his Station Island impressed me for trying to say something (where he so neatly ducks the burden so often that I just wonder why we bother). I don't want to be too Marxist, but I don't like the neat shrugs that poets have made whereby they walk away from the need to speak in terms other than pretty flowers wagging in a vase. True, Pound and Eliot were full of "cosmic portentiousness," as Larkin said, but some folks, like Geoffrey Hill, have managed to speak without sounding the gong. Heaney is safe as milk. Milosc wasn't, but he was foreign. All the rest are either so convulsed with academica (even guys I like, like A. R. Ammons and W. S. Merwin, but more guys I get impatient with, like Ashberry) or being fey or rediscovering the Voice of [Nation X] or Voice of [Genital organ] (ever read Diane Wachowski? don't) that I again wonder why we're being bothered. (BTW, I got the Heaney quote wrong. It's a lobster dinner, and the lobster is "Articulated twigs. A rainy stone the colour of sunk munitions.") I will take a look at the site as soon as I'm not being observed here at my 2nd job. Geogre 14:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

File:New Pages Patrol.png

The Merge And Redirect Award, or, The Geogre On New Pages Patrol, created for Geogre by Bishonen.

For all your hard work on behalf of quality

For your selfless efforts on behalf of the encyclopedia, I award you this Merge And Redirect, or, Geogre On New Pages Patrol Award, in the form of a representation of Charlton Heston fixing to be bold. --Bishonen|talk 23:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Of maps and men

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to dismiss the value of our maps, just to remind the gentle reader is that what is mapped pre-exists and has value. And to remind the less gentle author that they should beware of claiming too much for their own particular brand of cartography. Maybe the ideal poem would consist of multiple maps, multiple viewpoints. And it should say something about the state of the world rather than retreat into G. Hill verbiage for its own sake. That poetry is about something, and that there is something for it to be about summarises my position, with the caveat that the something may be more subtle than "pen is to me as gun is to terrorist" or "daddy bad, nazi bad, daddy = nazi".

The idea of you as a plainclothes Jesuit is interesting. You know the Thatcherite rewriting of the old SJ slogan, "Give me the boy at seven, and I'll give you a clean chimney at half past"? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

For all the great FAs from Filiocht, 23rd Nov. 2005

I've come to like David Jones (who Auden also liked) more and more. Myth in the service of resistance to empire. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And yes, community is vital, including the community of writers. Cid Corman was big into this, and kept many of us going for years and years; introducing young writers who lived thousands of miles from each other, pushing publishers/magazines, answering every letter within 24 hours. And always insisting that literature was much more than a game. I have a community of poets here in Ireland, in the UK and in the States that I have regular contact with. Sadly a number have died in the last few years (including Cid), but new ones get added, too. E-mail helps, as do readings and the exchange of new books as they come out. We all belong, like it or not, to a web of communities, including, I suppose, Wikipedia, and we all have some responsibility to the health of those communities. A civic duty. Poets included. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that you should refer to Edward Albee, who admired Maeve Brennan (now there's a red link I must kill; not Larkin's moll, BTW). I've just read a collection of her stories, Springs of Affection. Many of them concern couples who stay married for 40 years or more without ever knowing each other, because the selves they reveal in the relationship are profoundly split from the interior selves they really value. I've come to the conclusion that the real unproblematic self is, as a minimum, the particular expression of the human genome that is unique to the individual (apart from identical twins, who would appear to share a self). This belief allows me to argue from an assumption that a meaningful self does, in fact, exist, which makes things much simpler. The world then becomes s system of interacting real things, some of which are selves. The problem for art, philosophy, science, etc becomes the struggle to understand this system given the limitations of consciousness and perception. And, of course, there is no solution, only the struggle. And on some level, this is the core achievement of the high modernists, to understand that the struggle is all that we have. ("I cannot make it cohere", Four Quartets passim, Finnegans Wake, and the like). SO where did postmodernism go so wrong? I'm inclined to blame Ludwig Wittgenstein and his whole language game thing, but maybe that's just my hobby horse. And this is far too deep for so early in the morning. Onwards and upwards. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Two Ben Jonson plays

Would you be able to take a look at Every Man in His Humour and Every Man out of His Humour? I created them a few months ago in hopes that someone who had actually read the play would come along and expand it into a proper article, but no one has. Can you help? Thanks, NatusRoma 21:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you notice?

Did you notice that the anon at Talk:Aphra Behn has created an account, and posted another message, mostly for you? If you have the time, please go make nice! (She's new, and edits hesitantly (and deleted part of my message).) Bishonen | talk 20:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Och, now there's a pain in the conscience, an agenbyte of inwit! I haven't fulfilled my promise to rewrite the Behn article! I'm a slug. I owe it to the project, if to no other abstraction, to get off my ever-expanding duff and get reading and writing. I have written on the talk page, and I welcome anyone who will balance out my own rather cynical reading of pretty much everything in the period. Someone needs to talk about the heart and sex of the author, as I'll be so attendant to the chip on my shoulder after my encounter with the Aphra Behn Society that I'll probably have a blindspot to anything not hard bitten about her. (I think I'm right, but, then again, I would think I'm right.) Geogre 04:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)