User:Geogre/Talk archive 31

31

Fielding

A while back, I noticed on a page that you said Henry Fielding's plays would take too much work to produce pages on. I felt that the effort would be worth while, as information on them is hard to access for the average person. I created new pages (not close to complete, but containing the basis of info) and they are on the DYK section of the mainpage:

... that Henry Fielding's (pictured) early plays before the 1733 Actor Rebellion include Love in Several Masques, Temple Beau, Author's Farce, Tom Thumb, Rape upon Rape, Tragedy of Tragedies, Letter Writers, Welsh Opera, Grub Street Opera, Lottery, Modern Husband, Old Debauchees, Covent Garden Tragedy, and Mock Doctor?

I could only put together the first half of his plays. I will wait until the summer to finish the second half. I know our choice of formatting styles differ, but I hope you wont mind that at all. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. I think Author's Farce deserves major treatment. I've recently been reading Pasquin and Covent Garden Tragedy, but for other reasons. I'm researching Jonathan Wild for a project, so I've been crawling through the current literature -- of which there is not much. I'm under deadline with it, too, so I haven't had much time to volunteer information that I'm to be paid for. After that's over, of course, I'll build something on the novel itself. If I do, though, I know full well what'll happen. Geogre (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rajiv Lather

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rajiv Lather , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajiv Lather (2nd nomination) . Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jay (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you talk page took a long time to load. It then said, This page is 230 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. Jay (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It did. I've been lazy. Actually, I've been not much here. I shall archive as soon as I get a Roundtoit. I've had one on order for a while, but it's overdue in the mail. I have a feeling that my involvement with Rajiv Lather had been in a negative capacity or something maintenance related. I'll look and opine. Geogre (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Spectres, again

I've pointed to the writings of Geogres past yet again, this time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonbat (3rd nomination). You might have something to contribute to this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

company page

Hi. Could I request the company page "idmodeling" be sent back to my work area? I worked really hard on this article and would like to continue to work on to be credible. The company has made significant advances in wastewater and sewerage treatment technology and I was going to add links from notable news and industry sources. My apologies I did not finish before making live. Thank you. - Jeb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeb69 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Peterborough Chronicle

Geogre, Peterborough Chronicle has just been nominated at FAR on criterion 1c; the only relevant part of which apppears to be the lack of inline citations. I know you have strong opinions about how referencing should be done; I don't recall whether you feel that the reference list at the end is adequate by itself, but currently 1c does ask for inline citations and there are none in the article. Some WikiProjects have been notified by evidently the notifier did not realize you were a primary contributor.

It's the sort of article I'd love to help with, but I have none of the sources listed -- my books all cover the historical aspects of the chronicles, not the linguistic implications. However, I would be glad to help with anything I can. I'll watch the FAR, and please let me know what I can do, particularly since I gather you don't have your books with you at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

But it has "inline" citations. It doesn't have footnotes, but (Bennett 33) is an inline citation. It's MLA citation. I believe several other academic organizations use that format as well. In fact, I gather more and more are using it every day, with fewer and fewer and fewer having footnotes. Thus, it doesn't "violate" 1c. It conforms to 1c. It specifies work and page number for statements that even could be contested by the ignorant. It also, more importantly, provides sources for information that's not common knowledge and for information that it interpretive. That's what a good work does. Now, again, these are not footnotes, but footnotes are just a method, and a shaky one, for citation. Academic consensus is, these days, that they're a worse method, given the number of professional organizations adopting parenthetical citation over footnoting and end noting, but both of them are obviously citation. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions on this myself; so long as the information in the article is verifiable without unreasonable effort on the part of the reader I don't care how it's done. If it turns out that a consensus agrees that work on the article would be helpful, I'll be happy to help where I can. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The books are cited, to their page numbers. I'm not sure what more anyone could want, except that the citations, which are fine, be changed in format. As I understand it, having a fit for one format over another is nothing to do with what makes a featured article, but I guess that I'm wrong. I suppose that bad information (websites) in footnotes is better than good information (the last great scholars of Middle English in book form) in an academic citation. If that is what it's about, I hope no one changes it over. It's easier for me, as just a reader, to know what a reference is by seeing the end of the line than by losing my place and going to the bottom of the article and going back up to find that it's the same as the previous sentence. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was the primary contributor to Peterborough Chronicle. user:Haeleth helped a great deal. However, the article contains complete citation. Therefore, there should not be any changing of the article. If you have additional material and would like to work with me to add new stuff and expand the article, that would be cool, but not in the context of pleasing someone who apparently can't tell that parenthetical citation is citation, and I feel that turning those parenthetical citations into footnotes would make the article 1) less readable 2) less verifiable 3) less respectable, academically 4) more fragile, 5) harder for future editors to work on, 6) less "reliable." I would much rather have no FA status than have good citations turned into citations that can be broken by someone accidentally making a stray mark in the edit field, or where readers have to take it on faith that the citations are to reputable sources if they don't want to stop reading, travel to the bottom of the page, and then come back up. Footnotes are a bad system. Citation has always been possible without them, and this article shows how very accurate citation can take place without them. If there is more material to discuss with the manuscript or its history, with the monastic parties, the hypothetical common source, it would be cool, but the citations are groovy as they are. If they're not, then let the star go. It's much better than seeing all that work turned into something that looks the same as Emma Watson and is as fragile as an early version of Windows ME. Geogre (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  There was one fact I saw that seemed to be uncited -- the date on which Laud gave the Chronicle to the Bodleian. Per the original FAC it appears that that comes from a Bodleian library web page, and I would suggest a footnote for that -- unless you found the date in one of the other sources used? Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that came simply from a combination of 1) which donation (derived from elementary bibliographic information contained in every history of the Chronicle) + 2) someone looking at the article on Laud for the date of his donations. In a sense, it's "original research," in that it represents responding to a question by doing the brain work that anyone could do by clicking on links. Perhaps it had come from the Bod itself, though, as I'm sure they did have a catalog date. I'm not entirely sure. For me, the more interesting thing is the book as it was alive. For example, this mythical common source seems to me to be nothing but exhilarated localism at work. People wish their town had a separate identity then to support their dislike of their neighbors now. Those good old "Mercians" just keep running away from historians -- and good on them, I say. As a man with Marxist gums and New Historicist or hermeneuticist dentures, depending on the occasion, I regard all such folk movements as misdirection. Geogre (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Help Dear Sir

Dear Geogre, are you still with us? I need help with my memory and imagination. I've half remembered an anecdote and am sure you'll be able to fill me in with the full where, when's and who's. Scenario: August literary man (Betjamin?) goes to (girl's) public (UK - private US) school to lecture about brevity, suspense and drama in novel writing. Girl's one sentence written response is............ grrrr can't remember. Can you or any of your excellent talk page lurkers help - or was it a dream......? Many thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC) PS the town and country mice are ageing.

You have me, I'm afraid.

You're right about the mice. I have all sorts of grand themes. I've 'written' at least two dozen in my head, but I've not managed to get them to the keyboard. For example, I have a very nice one about the hand sanitizers that everyone is hooked on. I have developed a Cunning Plan for them. It will amuse and inform. It will, if I write it. Geogre (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Somerset Maugham. (struggling to remember the exact story, so forgive me if I get it slightly wrong) His instruction to the girls was that a successful short story should have these elements: religion, high-ranking protagonists, sex, mystery, brevity and non-literary language (drama might be in there too). The next day the teacher set the girls the task of putting the advice into practise. After a couple of minutes (one if you prefer) one of the girls announced she had finished. The teacher, somewhat doubtful, asked her to read it aloud. The girl stood up and read: "'My God', said the duchess, "I'm pregnant! I wonder who done it?'" Yomangani^talk 12:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant Yomangani, just the one! - thank you so much. --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BN

Hi Geogre

Hope you're well. There's been a lot of chat at BN and I've just read it at speed, so I might have missed something, especially because a lot of issues are being thrown up simultaneously, making it hard to unpick. I think you're saying that the RfA close was a bad call by the Crat at the time it was closed, is that right? If so, I think you're the first person to say as much - is that also correct? Just trying to get my head round this. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That was my argument, indeed. I know that it was hard to discern, with all of the people trying to get the verdict they wanted by citing process over reason, but the fact is that anyone going with "discretion" in an environment like that was asking for trouble. When something is hair thin, stepping forward to promote is a provocative act and an act that asserts some aggressive belief. That belief is either that the opposition has no standing or that it's time for a show down.

Let's just imagine any other situation in any other context: a vote at the line. What's the natural action? If "consensus" is our rule, and if "trust" is our standard, then "close" means no. To move against "close" means that there is something that makes it not close.

Now, there are people, and very bad people, who claim that they can tell what the oppose voters are really thinking. In fact, they're so good at telling what the opposers are really thinking that they can ignore what the opposers actually say. Their amazing certainty goes so far, in fact, that they can dismiss the opinions of all of those who oppose. These are people who are, obviously, belligerent, people who are, obviously, party to the dispute, people who, obviously, could not decide matters. I cannot see how a person could use "discretion" without something paramount to discounting the words, the validity, and the motivations of the oppose voters, and that's not allowable.

So, yes, it was a bad promotion. If in doubt, let the candidate run again. The rapidity of the run, re-run, and re-re-run of the candidate further made matters worse, as Peter Damian's investigation into the articles turned up copyright violation or at least a misguided sense of what is appropriate, but the damned haste of people wanting to hurry up and get that badge, and the people willing to promote, despite opposition, for some allegiance to some imaginary faction or other is just absurd. Geogre (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. I find your views interesting and thought provoking, yet I can't agree that that particular RfA close was a bad call by the Crat.

We all know that RfA closes can be tricky - that's why RfB is so damn hard to pass, and the questions fired can make candidates feel foolish (as I did at mine) but I wouldn't categorise this one with, say, the Giggy 3 one, where clearly a problem uncovered late in the process made all kinds of problems. At the time of close, the percentages were in line, the raw numbers of opposes weren't massive and then, looking at the detail, which is where the trickery really lies (and, I suspect, you feel most aggrieved by Crat interpretation) I would guess that the Crat would have taken on board that several opposes were extremely weak, some even by their own admission. (Mind you, I personally wouldn't have known what to make of support #83!)

I suppose all of this is technically moot, given the turn that events have taken, but I'm more interested in getting under the skin of the issues you raised. You're a longstanding editor, whose work I've always respected. I think I'm reading you that you actually dislike the way that consensus (or common practice perhaps) has evolved that Crats should do their RfA closures. That's fine - it's clear that there's divergence of opinion over RfA. But I also suspect (sorry for mindreading - correct me if I'm wrong, that's why I'm "here") that you'd disapprove of Crats holding fast to raw percentages only, and that you like us using discretion. Just I'm not sure where you'd like it tinkered with, because I don't see an egregious misuse of discretion in this case. --Dweller (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to be purely rational about this, we need to strip away the particulars and think about what it is that the actions are. I've said many times that we all agree that RFA is broken, but we all mean that in different ways and therefore have different breaks in mind.

In this case, I really objected to the rationale offered of "why not" and "unless there is a reason not to promote, promote." That got to the heart of what RFA is. When it comes to AfD, for example, we have the principle in place: in the event of a tie, the article stays. The reason for that is the assumption that a dirty article might be improved "eventually" (or the people who wanted to delete it might be motivated to fix it, "actually"), whereas a deleted article is gone. In the case of deletion review, we have a principle that, unless there is a strong agreement, the article remains deleted. This is because overturning the decision of a big majority, even by a wise and focused minority, is unwise. Being an administrator is supposed to be an expression of "trust" by "the community." Well, "the community" has to be Wikipedia -- hence the suffrage requirements. Trust, though.... Trust.... Trust is not "why the heck not?" Trust is an action, not a passive thing. Trust is not the passive condition one has toward the other people on the bus, but rather the active quality one has toward the pilot of the airplane.

So, I objected.

First, I felt that a good many of the supports expressed rationales that had to be stricken. Second, I thought some of the arguments were contrary to Wikipedia principles. Third, I felt that trust couldn't be established by running and running again. I thought we did have a "tie." We had enough to suggest that there was not trust by the active community, and therefore that it was really a poor idea to promote, to either slavishly follow numbers or to advocate discretion against the numbers for promotion.

I also thought that, for a process that's supposed to find out if a person "is trusted" (damned passives are everywhere at Wikipedia) by the community, the whole pack of jackal-like "we are allowed to argue and argue and argue on the vote page with anyone we want" attitude was quite nasty. I tried to give a dispassionate, non-hurtful position. I wanted to make it impersonal and not embarrass and impugn a person. I wanted to talk about positions and what it means to promote. However, a swarm of flies began stinging immediately, demanding that my position be ignored because it wasn't specific enough.

Anyway, I agree that the question system is nuts. I also think, though, that the IRC problem sank RFA a long time ago. I wrote about this two years ago, now. This has nothing to do with this candidate or that, and, in fact, I remember a person that I liked quite a bit, who I trusted, who had virtually no edits, who passed RFA because of popularity on IRC. Trust by the community must mean this community, must mean Wikipedia, and must mean because of actions at Wikipedia. We're all different people when we chat -- or at least I am -- and chatting is a poor way to tell how a person will write in an article or act in a crisis.

I apologize for going on so long, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the issues instead of the persons. Geogre (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh indeed, this is purely about process, as the person issue is now dealt with. And I find no need here to defend the closing Crat, as the BN discussion made clear that AD's close was fine. I'm just trying to get under the skin of the systemic problems that you perceive.

Allow me to try to enumerate - feel free to amend/strike/add, these are your feelings, after all!:

1. Support votes seem to be taken on face value, while opposes are weighed by Crats
2. IRC "I'm-with-the-gang" type supports can undermine a single RfA
3. You disagree with the standard position being to promote unless there's a reason not to.
4. Candidates running a second (or more) time for RfA need a higher barrier to establish community trust

I've numbered for ease of referring to them, rather than as a hierarchy, or even in the order in which you've mentioned them. I have some opinions about the above, but I'll hang in there till I'm sure they're accurately listed.

Oh, and please, no apologies for "going on so long". Brevity can be the enemy of clarity. I think if Giano had posted more fulsomely at the RfA in the first place, it may not have passed. That's not to criticise Giano - merely a POV observation. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me do it propositionally.

1. Administrators are trusted by the community
2. Trust is an active quality and not a passive one
3. A tie or a close call should result in no promotion, because promotion is a change from status quo and because there is nothing wrong with being an editor.
4. Trust must be by the Wikipedia community, and IRC communities that overlap with Wikipedia votership pollute and compromise the vote.

That, anyway, would be it as an argument rather than as a set of discrete complaints. As a set of complaints, you're accurate, but I prefer to see them as I think they are: arising from a single understanding of what it means to change someone from "editor" to "administrator."

And, while we're on the subject, I also found it hideous to see people acting like "editor" is something awful to be, while "administrator" is somehow "real people." I've seen that behind 95% of all the conversations about Giano (I would say with Giano, but people rarely seem to speak with him and rather speak to him, from great height or depth). Giano, the lowly editor, dares speak to X, the grand administrator... And then it might well be galling for someone then to claim vast article contributions that turn out to be...less than stellar...as a justification for becoming a grand administrator. To someone who does nothing but articles, that has to be quite aggravating, and I know it was to me, and all I am is an articles admin. Giano should have been dispassionate, perhaps, but that's to say that he should have written like someone else. <shrug> We each have our way, and my Athenian-Grove approach is as wrong betimes as his Carthaginian directness.

By the way, I have to say it again to be perfectly clear: IRC invalidated (past tense) RFA. This is not a case here or there but a long running problem. Until there is a way to have each participant police her or his own conscience and possess utmost integrity, or until there is a way to police the voters ourselves, supports and opposes are going to be virtually meaningless, especially in mass numbers. (I passed 35:2:1, and that was a huge turnout. These days, 150:0:2 is normal. Odd, isn't it?) Geogre (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In terms of taking forward possible actions or proposals from this, I'd see that you might suggest:

Bureaucrats do not promote "close-call candidates"

The community should try to find ways to monitor breaches of WP:CANVASS at RfA by IRC

Is that about it? --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

With the understanding that a person being a "regular editor" is, indeed, the regular state of affairs, and, therefore, that any promotion requires that active trust be exhibited, I would even advocate that lack of participation at an RFA mean lack of promotion. While I have advocated quorum before, I also recognize that no one wants to specify. Let's just say that 20-0-0 indicates, these days, someone who doesn't have much trust -- doesn't have much of anything -- compared to someone who had 250-20-40.

I do not believe that canvassing is really what it amounts to, because, while of course canvassing either way via IRC should make an RFA disqualified, in my view, and necessitate a re-run without prejudice (i.e. withdrawal on technical grounds), I'm concerned that those who endorse a candidate be able to point to belief in on-wiki skills. On-wiki acts would be nice, but I don't want anything like a means test (the "one FA" kind of thing) that people find hideous. I would, therefore, suggest that 'crats look carefully at arguments for and against for pertinence to Wikipedia only matters, since we can't be certain that every "voter" has done so.

I also think people need to change the way they look at being an admin. Giano is a good example: the tools aren't necessary. I "needed" to be promoted because, back in the distant past, I was involved in deletion guideline materials and needed to speedy delete. I also needed to protect (before we needed to fill out a form, wait at the district office for 3 weeks for signatures, and then file them with the headquarters) when there were article naming disputes, and I needed to write to name space (used to be necessary).

These days, there is very little one needs to be an admin for, and this is why candidates should recognize that it's hardly a badge, and admins who act like it makes them a big wheel should realize that it makes them one in two thousand or so. Geogre (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless theft

I have pinched part of your essay "When nothing is better than something" for my user page. It is attributed, but if you'd rather it were not there, please revert. pablo_hablo. 15:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to it. It's a wiki, after all, and I wish more people thought like this. We are better off having our readers (and how many editors think about readers instead of themselves, I wonder?) go elsewhere and get information than having them be misinformed or write nasty reviews based on some one-liner tossed up by a fiend trying to claim "150 articles" written (I've only written 250 in 5 years, but I dare say they don't get rewritten very often), when what they mean is 150 facts gathered from dictionaries and put up as if they were discussions. Geogre (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Mr. Geogre sir you can teach me alot about this! How can I lnk pictures to this website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.M.D1994 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

my apologies for incorrect templates

My apologies for making your job harder by using the wrong templates. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

this is an article thats needs deletion immediately. Baby lobster the rationale for using the hangon template that it is finals and we should let kids have their fun. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Modest suggestion

You're getting as ornery as I am about these odious tags. How about we find a bot and make it do something useful, like getting rid of them all? I want to take a flamethrower to all of those damned in-your-face whiny things. Aren't maintenance templates for editors, not readers? What do you say we start a Wikiproject Detaggify? (Feeling like I'm in a tiny minority here.) Antandrus (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Weren't they supposed to be on the talk page if they're to alert other editors, rather than readers? I mean, if a person wants a mechanical alert system so that a specialist in boxing or unboxing or listas or listab or listac or whatever the heck, then why should Line #1 be, "This article says dubious things?" Additionally, if we wish there were references, that's a mile from "this article needs references." I hope no one is too deaf to hear the difference between those two verbs.

Where the less controversial stuff shows up is, as above, with saints. Hagiographies are "common knowledge," in that most of them come from only a few sources and then get spun off through local legend. There is an official acta that is accepted when the given church canonizes the saint, and that story gets told and told and told and told, so asking for "references" is a bit silly. It's not silly because there aren't references, but because they're everywhere. Then there are the legendary saints who show up in The Golden Legend and one of a few Martyrologies. These then get told and reimagined by various local authors. Again, asking for "references" isn't going to be to the point, because there usually isn't going to be "verification" to be found of the person, just verification of the story, and the article should indicate which legend or which tradition is being referred to. Beyond that, giving text and page is a bit useless.

So, the templates go wrong most of the time because "the article doesn't have footnotes" (I've seen the template used on articles that most assuredly had "references" and even some that had citations). This shows really a single, big mistake: the templateer's instinct to make the matter fit the mold.

Yes, I'm getting irritable about it. I wish every one of the people pushing a template would remember the fate of Procrustes. Geogre (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess what's coming, Geogre. Every article on Wikipedia will get its top "this article needs references/citations/sources" banner, after all, and there's nothing we can do about it. I have a feeling the bot-group will perceive my objection as impeding progress, and I suppressed an impulse to put that image of the lone protestor in front of the tank at Tiananmen alongside my objection (I can't -- this is Lilluputian stuff in the big view after all). Antandrus (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've objected there, and I think I did a fair job of giving in miniature my argument, but while I was objecting I noticed the way they were answering you, and it was astonishing.

It really was Kafkaesque. You had not filled out the proper form or taken it to the proper desk. This is the -bot approval desk, and the -bot looks shiny, so whether the -bot fires bullets into crowded schools or battlefields is no concern of theirs, as the -bot performs according to spec. The tag was there and justified as the proper extension of a programming need for those classifying and categorizing, and not for those reading and actually editing. Although one person spoke of "editors" who "may forget," that was an odd argument, because it seemed to me that the person didn't mean editors. What seemed implicit in all of it was more hierarchical shuffling so that mechanical or punch-card like alignment could take place.

Instead of being a mild mannered litgeek, I take arms against that. They will destroy internal and linguistic organization in a heady rush toward codification, and then, because it's inherent in the generations, they'll change their codes. Suddenly, a person's article, which had loads of citations and perfect organization, looks like it was written by a child, and this is because it has been "regulated."

I understand that one is not allowed to be irascible anymore these days, but, since one is not allowed to create anymore these days, either, it's fine. Geogre (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Greer

I wasn't sure what you meant by: "practically a rip off from the archive entry". It seems to me a stubby article on a notable regional jounralist and author that needs to expanded. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It was practically a rip off from the archive. The "article" had listings of publications in archival format, with no more information than the archive entry had. I.e. the "article" was nearly a cut and paste from the U. s. Alabama archive. Hence there was a reason to speedy delete the article as empty. I could have, and possibly would have, deleted the thing as worthless. It was not a stub, as a stub is a basic overview that needs more detail. Instead, it was bordering on theft and so insufficient as to be empty. Anyone with minimal knowledge of the author (even me) could have done a better job in less than five minutes, and I make a point of ignoring local colorists. A person spending :30 doing research on the author could have done a far better job. I do not think we do anyone an honor by preserving half-assed input from IP's whose idea of contributing is cutting and pasting from other websites.

Imagine, of all things, a reader. I know it's hard, but imagine that there is someone who actually wants to know about Virginia Greer. What is that person going to learn from "stubby" like that? I would venture to guess that the person has to know more than that to even search. Therefore, what is the purpose of preserving it -- other than advertising the U. s. Al. archive? Personally, I will not fix it, because I'm not contributing new material. I also did not hit the speedy delete button. However, it was a close call. Geogre (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Rock by TS Eliot

Hi,

I noticed that you commented on the Eliot talk page that he was experimenting in The Rock with a kind of Brechtian verse drama. You said that he never finished it. He did finish it, it was performed in 1934 and published by Faber & Faber the same year, and I have a copy of it. Eliot wrote it as a commission (I think) and since he felt that he wasn't the sole author of it (although he did write all the words), he never republished it in its entirety. The only parts of it he felt were entirely his own were the choruses, which is why they're in the Collected Poems. I agree, the choruses are wonderful. The whole play is less satisfying, but still fascinating. Lexo (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's great to know. Choruses are absolutely wonderful. I may love them best among Eliot's verse, in fact, even if they're not the greatest, deepest, etc. For me, they're the most concise, most telling, most controlled, and most powerfully engaged verse he wrote, because, even though he kept his pose as agent of the timeless, he speaks to the world directly.

I knew that it was a commission, more or less. It was a celebration of a church's anniversary, and so it was "commissioned" in that respect, but it was not hireling poetry by any means. The verdict on Eliot's drama keeps changing, it seems to me. I remember when everyone thought Cocktail Party was great and Murder in the Cathedral was artificial, and now it seems that people are regarding the former as minimal and dated and the latter as powerful. For myself, I've never been happy with his drama, but those Chorus pieces are fantastic. The Unemployed complaining that their deaths go unmentioned in the Times.... The worship of money theme is a bit heavy, but, there are so many other observations there....

I'm glad you've fixed it up, and I hope you've done a full article on the play or will do. I thought I'd be a Modernist as an undergraduate, but I retreated to the safety of men and women in stockings, wigs, and lice infestations and now get to merely enjoy the Moderns as my cranky desires lead me. Geogre (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to complain before I've looked, but I do hope that one of the questions was, "What is the difference between civility and politeness?" I'd argue that most of the folken running amok seeking out "civility" mean "politeness." One should remember Goethe's Faust: Mephistopheles is described as extremely polite and polished. Geogre (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to plant more questions at the end and see what is harvested in terms of responses later on. I wonder what an emoticon for a sardonic grin would be...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley#Geogre, please consider reversing your action procedurally. It would be better to seek consensus than to pursue bold action in this instance. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 20:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot, and let me explain why my ground is solid, here:

1. It's my feeling that the AN/I discussion showed no consensus. A failure to have consensus in the case of long standing users defaults to unblock.
2. The block was procedurally improper. The admin would need to warn, seek to defuse, and then block if necessary.
3. The block was additionally improper in that there was no blocked template placed on the user.
4. The block was additionally improper in that it was on the basis of off-Wikipedia words. One cannot be blocked for something said on 4Chan. That Peter Damian linked to it was some justification, but all that it gives us is "this user is voting to oppose RFA's without a valid reason." The last time I checked, that's not reason to block someone.

The RfAR you refer to is categorically irrelevant. It referred to blocking and unblocking Giano. To my knowledge, Peter Damian is not Giano. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with me. Otherwise, I will strike that for you or refactor it. I am under no prohibitions or restrictions in blocking or unblocking anyone. My unblock restriction pertained to Giano only, and it was for a year. This was, as you will see, a block of Peter Damian. I think he did something wrong. The administrator who blocked him was in conflict with him and went wildly overboard and made a complete hash of things. It won't stand. Geogre (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two principles in tension here: the recognition that offsite actions remain offsite and irrelevant, versus the line of thinking that publishing objectionable material offsite and then deliberately linking to one's own offsite material constitutes an attempt at gaming the system. Previously, the latter has principally regarded privacy issues. Although that is not the specific problem here, this charts new territory. In light of your previous action almost exactly one year ago, it stands to reason that if bold action were to be taken it would be less controversial from an administrator whose slate on related matters is completely clean. This is, potentially, the convergence of several high tension issues. Repeating the request that you reverse your action (in the interest of drama reduction, if nothing else: if you are correct then surely your action will be vindicated by other parties). Alternatively, would you consider procedurally opening a conduct request for comment on this editor? His ability to generate useful content is unquestioned; if he modifies his approach in other namespaces he will be univerally respected and valued. Perhaps the input of the community can help chart the best course. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 20:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why an RFC? I don't see drama at all. Seriously, this looks like a bicycle pump is being held by one group. They're inflating it.

So Peter Damian says that he wants to vote "no" on all RFA's. Ok. That's one. Haven't we had that before? Haven't we, in fact, had that over and over and over and over and over and over and over again before? Didn't Everyking do it for a while? Don't we currently have about twelve people who automatically vote "yes" on all RFA's? We deal with that with words, not blocks.

Otherwise, he thinks Wikipedia should be destroyed, and yet he's working to make Wikipedia better. That sounds like an estranged lover, not a terrorist. On the other hand, IRC junkies who have never written a byte of an article (unless their -bots did it for them) kind of are destroying things, only they believe otherwise. So, that's how it goes.

My action wasn't so bold. Again, #1: the AN/I was no consensus. No consensus on a long time user is unblock. We block for disruption only with overwhelming consensus. We don't impose indefinite blocks, in particular when there is a big split among the admin corps. Secondly, the admin screwed it up all over the place. Third, he was in a dispute. Fourth.... I repeat myself. I don't consider my action here bold or controversial at all. I very, very rarely use the block button. When I do, I'm satisfied that the matter is extremely clear cut.

It is my judgment, based on six years of work here, that this is a very clear cut matter.

Should Peter comport himself in a way that will inflame his enemies less? Oh, we all should. Should we have to go through yet another RFC to hear how he was mean to this one or that one this time or that? Not to lift an indefinite block. Lift the block, and then let people do their RFC's if they want. I saw a horrendous and stupid block, so I lifted it. We can't be doing this. We can't be fishing for evidence, and we can't be blocking longtime users indefinitely for being grumpy. Geogre (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. seicer | talk | contribs 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Second that thank you, glad to see some sense prevail here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not really understand the rational behind your unblock of Peter. At the very least keep an eye on him and reblock if he becomes disruptive again. Chillum 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec's) A crude but generally effective measure of drama is the number of kilobytes expended. Both at RFA talk and at ANI, this demonstrated every sign of a high tension situation. A moderate, reasoned, and conciliatory approach usually yields the best results in these situations. We seem to be in agreement on one point: whenever feasible, it is better to leave a controveraial editor unblocked while their status is in discussion. Two years ago the majority went against that in policy discussion; perhaps when this is over it would be time to revisit the issue. Would gladly join hands with you on that point. Meanwhile, it would seem to be a good idea, in light of quantity of people who supported an indefinite block, to offer the opportunity in a structured setting for them to raise their concerns in a reasoned dialog. That is what conduct RfC is meant to be, at its best; under the present circumstances no one would be better suited to initiate it than yourself. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 21:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not Geogre's ax to grind; he was merely correcting a bad error by Law, as clearly evidenced by all that drama which you decry which resulted from his block. Now, you can lecture Law about the drama his block caused; and you can open an Rfc on Damien, or suggest that to those who are concerned about him, but why precisely are you here talking to Geogre about drama and Rfcs? I think you're talking to the wrong party here, Durova. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter fought the Law, and the Law blocked him without due procedure and went to bed. Silly stuff, unblock sensible. No moar dramaz plz. . dave souza, talk 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed 'Durova' suggesting she take a sense of humour check. I quite like her, actually. And you George. Thanks for the unblock. With best wishes to everyone here. Peter Damian (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:September 11 attacks

Dear Sir, I come seeking some help. There is an editor User:Tarage (an editor who wouldn't recognise WP:CIVIL if it bit him). He has a serious case of WP:OWN in relation to the talkpage (yes, TALK page) of the 9/11 article. His rudeness is indulged by a number of Admins while he himself and his defenders remove any perceived "rudeness" in response. His deletions are defended by several Admins. Etcetera. See the record for yourself is all I can say - it takes the breath away! Yet this is happening on the talk page of one of the most high-profile articles on Wiki. If you have some time, examine the edit history of this page for the past 10 days and tell me I'm imagining it. I am here because I have asked several Admins to deal with the deletions of Tarage but they appear to have no interest, other than defending and supporting him. Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that Sarah777 is fishing for an Administrator to do this user's bidding. User PhilKnight has already supplied me with the boiler plate notification of the Arb Com decision that I have myself shown to other people, as well as support. While I do not wish to waste your time with this user's trivial complaints, if you wish, do look into Sarah777's edit history. I, along with two other administrators in good standing have continually warned this user to cease POV pushing and trolling, but sadly, it appears a block may be in order. Thank you for your time. --Tarage (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What POV do you think I am pushing now Tarage? Could you support that charge with some diffs? Didn't think so. You are the problem here. A problem I accidentally stumbled on during the "terrorist" debate but one that I now realise is toxic, and needs cleaning up. Sarah777 (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I do love your personal attacks. Just adds to my ammunition against you when you or I am forced to go before the ANB. Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And to Geogre; User:AdjustShift (an Admin) has responded reasonably (as he did on my page during the "terrorism" debate) - so there is no need for you to intervene, the 9/11 talkpage seems to be in balanced hands again, as Tarage obviously isn't fit to be let wander around that page unsupervised. Sarah777 (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Once again, the personal attacks. Amusing. And anyway, I'm all but positive User:AdjustShift agrees with me, as we have worked on this article together and prevented the removal of the term you have such a problem with. Then again, you WOULD know this if you had read the archives. But I guess when attacking me, there is little room for anything else. Let it be known that I have survived far worse being thrown at me. --Tarage (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeez Tarage, you are one tiresome little runt. Add that to your list of citations. Sarah777 (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, you are the one fishing for admins to 'deal with me', not the other way around. I've been around for quite some time, and I will be for quite some more. If this is 'doing your worst' as I asked, then I have no fear. Keep up the pot shots. --Tarage (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad this is working out. There are two disadvantages to my involvement. The first is that I'm slow. The second is that I'm long winded. The first is intentional to some degree. People get crazy with wiki-time. In wiki-time, a person proposes a policy change at 4:00 AM, finds no response by 10:00 AM, and then declares that it's law by 10:15 AM -- never mind that .75 of the planet doesn't share the same time zone as the proposer. This is yet another area in which the IRC lensing effect makes things worse. The consequence is that people are more and more treating silence as assent, and that's a bad idea. Folks need to realize that the earth is round, the sun is far away, and that this is a volunteer hobby for most of us, and so time on Wikipedia ought to be Pony Express time, not Instant Messager time. (No criticism of anyone above. I'm just explaining why I'm "slow.")

Obviously, "emergency" cases are different, but most emergencies aren't emergencies. Most emergencies are merely exciting or excitable.

Oh, and I, the person behind the screen, was there in Manhattan, working on 9/11/01. I was miles away (89th St.). Geogre (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems close enough to me! But then I wouldn't know 89th street from the 59th Street Bridge. As Bono sang, you guys come from a place where the streets have no name. Sarah777 (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Couple of e-mails

Hi Geogre. Just leaving this brief talk page note to let you know that I've sent you a couple of e-mails. One yesterday and one today (as confirmation) through the Wikipedia e-mailer system. I don't know how often you check your e-mail, so I thought this note would be a good idea. If you could let me know when you've got the e-mails, that would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See above? Wiki-time is a tragedy all by itself. With something as serious as the grave and horrendous fault of... whatever it was, I want to take my time and not reply with something flip, like, "Please spit out the embalming fluid and write like a living person who uses active verbs and indicative mood and the direct style." If I cannot reply seriously, it's better that I give up my time and my energies in other places and ways. From 1683 in literature to 1753 in literature and several classical subjects, all a gift to the world. I have to think about the extreme gravity of the charge, the dire offenses, and what I would be willing to give up. I know what I'm willing to give up. I just have to decide if I'm willing to give, too. Geogre (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not my position

You seem to have misunderstood my position. I do not advocate people for saying swear words. I have not changed policy in any way. You might want to go and read the policy, it is quite clear on the relevant points.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I had read policy, and it is clear-ish, and yet, miraculously, I see no support whatsoever for blocking people instantaneously for a bad word. To tell the truth, since you're here, I don't even see support for blocking someone for "attacking" another user. That seems to come from your imagination of what the civility guideline says.

I know that in the early days of the project, when we were writing it, you were doing other things, but I recall that the attitude was that a person who was disagreeable should be reasoned with. A person who grew angry should be understood. Using exclusion (the block) first was draconian and something we never, ever did. The civility "policy" had a clause in it to cover abuse accounts, which were those accounts that we still get that were set up purely to attack a demonized group. For example, Stormfront has quite a few Wikipedia accounts. If the skinheads and Klan come here to attack, they should be blocked and banned: they're abuse accounts. If a school kid comes here to shout "booger," the account should be blocked. This is the sort of unambiguous case that 'in extreme cases may be blocked' covers. Nowhere is there a "must be blocked for three hours for a dirty word."

You say that it's all quite clear, but it's only quite clear to you, and you don't seem to have the slightest respect for anyone who reads the same document (or who participated in the discussions around it) that understands it differently. The people you are hectoring are your administrators, and they've been here, inside the covers of the project, for years. Now you announce that they're wrong, that they've always been wrong, and that you're right, and that you've always been right. Those who seem to agree with you, meanwhile, seem to be the newest and, frankly, the most lightweight. <shrug> Draw the conclusion you like from that, because a number of other people are drawing their conclusions from watching.

If it isn't your position, then this must be misprision. Perhaps if, instead of telling Bishonen and the project that "it's clear" and "it's simple" and such, you actually quoted the thing that is so clear and explained how, from words that the rest of us understand quite well, actually, you came to conclusions that the rest of us cannot see at all, it would help prevent such misrepresentations as my little satire. Geogre (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

At Bishonen's page

Howdy Geogre. Would you fix your 'fonts' at your post, on Bish's talkpage? It's causing other's posts to 'also' be enlarged. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dunciad

Hi. I've been working on Grub Street in my sandbox, and have come across repeated references to this poem. Now the version in my sandbox is very much a work in progress, in fact its more a collection of loose facts and interesting bits that I've collated (I tend to build things in this way, connect them together, and then fill in the gaps with more research). I wondered if you could help me out by giving me an idea of how The Dunciad relates to Grub Street? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I've been working on Mary Tofts, which I believe may be referred to in The Dunciad (a mother bringing forth monsters). Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Short answer - Pope made fun of Grub Street in The Dunciad. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ottava, I had kind of figured that, but wanted a more detailed explanation that contained "OMGZ THE WORDZ" :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geogre, a very informative reply. I'll let you know when I copy my sandbox to the main article. I don't have any specific aims beyond B-class or maybe GA, but it would be useful to have the help of someone who clearly knows a great deal about the subject. Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again. The information you've provided has guided me in a few directions, and I've added a little about the feud between Pope and Curll. I'd like to expand it at some point to demonstrate the transition to professionalism you described, but there's plenty of time for that. I think this article is going to take me a little longer than I'd presumed, its a complex subject with many sources to read. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The most crucial fact to capture is that Grub Street begins as a street but ceases to refer to any actual street so early on in the life of the term that most people are surprised to find that there is a physical location. "Grub Street" functions linguistically like "Tin Pan Alley." There really was a "Tin Pan Alley" at the Brill Building in New York City, but it had no meaning. Similarly, "Bowery" for a long time ceased to refer to the actual location in Manhattan and referred instead to poverty, as "Skid Row" did and does. Thus, references to Grub Street are rarely to the street, although the street remained in the poor area. "Grub Street" is still an active literary-physical pun/play in Henry Fielding's Paper War of The Covent-Garden Journal, numbers 2 and 3, which I put up at WikiSource.
• If you're interested in the geography and neighborhoods of London, you almost need to make two separate articles rather than one article with two sections, because the Grub Street of literary lore is simply that far divorced from the physical one. Geogre (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane

Thank-you for your observations. We've attempted, in the article, to show that the word cunt may have been a relatively inoffensive word, and tried (through a series of sources) to demonstrate that it gradually became the obscenity it is considered to be today. Others may raise this issue, so what (if any) changes would you consider? I'll alert User:Malleus Fatuorum to your concerns. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's enough, with good sourcing, to indicate that there is significant debate about the level of obscenity of the term in the era before 1500. Middle English appears to use the term with light opprobrium, and it's always going to be impossible to tell whether the reluctance we detect among authors is because the term is obscene or simply referring to the pudendum is indelicate and socially inappropriate. I.e. referring to the vagina at all is already "offensive," no matter the term being used, and even if the society is misogynistic enough to regard prostitutes synechdoctally. (We can see that in Shakespeare and John Marston, especially, and John Webster aplenty, where the prostitute is her genitalia, a "piece" or "cut loaf" (Titus Andronicus) or worse. I have no special concerns, except that American readers are going to find any reference to that word to be the most shocking thing imaginable, and it could well trip filtering software. It is hard to convey the strength of the taboo on the term in the U.S., and it is completely impossible to understand its source. Even "twat" would carry less repugnance.

My concern would be merely that the scholarly evidence isn't solid on the term. I'm not sure it can be. You may find a philologist bold enough to say that "qoint" was not an offensive word, but that's a reckless scholar. In a sense, it's better to say that the matter is unknown but seems to be than to be definitive at any point, even if you find a hasty author. Any definitive statement is "likely to be challenged." Fixing the value of profanity is tricky (unless you're today's Civility Patrol; they know exactly what it is, when it is, and how many hours each word is worth in blocks), always. Sweeping centuries and regions and dialects together is rough. Geogre (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oky doky. I'll have a look at see if things can be made a little more vague on the supposed profanity of the word in times past. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)