User:Geogre/Talk archive 16

June 8 - July 30, 2006: Archive #16

Lumione Therion

Is it possible to restore the Lum Therion article you deleted for a short while? The staff of Solaris RPG Online are moving all the current articles onto a wiki hosted on our own servers to escape the (apologies here, but I feel I must be honest) inane ideas of what does and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Yes, internet space is limited but the end is barely in sight. Anyway, Most of the others have been copied but the Lum Therion article was gone before I had a chance to back it up. Please let me know ASAP if the article is gone forever or if I can get a copy of it.

I took care of it. Please see your own page, Dustin. Bishonen | talk 02:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

Et cum spiritu tuo

Thank you - just... thank you, G. It's not everyday that one of those Wikipedians you deeply admire and look up to says something so kind and beautiful to little me. I can't find the right words to express myself right now, so before I get too emotional (again...), I'll just give you another kiss (hoping I could give it to you in person). I promise I won't let much time pass again before visiting you - after all, that's what I bookmarked your userpage 5 months ago for! Peace & kisses to you, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello George this is CAYA you vandalised my home page and I just wanted to tell you THANK YOU! your welcome back anytime.

Would you? Could you?

Could you, please? I'm busy, I have to go to the PO! :-) Bishonen | talk 11:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

I'm glad you're having to go to the PO. I just had my students read Why I Live at the PO, by Eudora Welty. I'm trying to figure out how one archives those discussions. I know how to delete an article, obviously, but preserving the debate? It changes week to week. Geogre 11:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ref Desk question re: ethics and reality

I enjoyed your answer to the question about ethics and reality on the reference desk. Thanks for volunteering your time here! --Fastfission 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Wow. It was a little bit of a little bit of a lecture I learned from a guy named S. K. Henninger. He invented or discovered a truly pleasing view of literary criticism in a single course. He nailed down three or four questions that we can see all literary critics grappling with. The questions, interestingly, don't change, and how we approach them says a great deal about us. Geogre 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Georgia Wikimeets...

Hey Geogre,

There's currently some renewed discussion about whether and how to set up [a] US wikimedia chapter[s]. Among other things this could help better organize meetups, gatherings at large events and cons, and local outreach. I'm notifying people who have been actively involved in local meetups; but of course there are also those who are far from a perfect meetup locale who care about the discussion... if you are interested, there is a quiet mailing-list and a meta-page on the topic, both of which could use input and ideas. +sj + 17:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Colley Cibber: verifiability

Hey. I have rendered my part of Colley Cibber completely verifiable, IMO. (And without any ten footnotes, I can assure you.) Would you like to add any inline cites or other means of verification for the Dunciad part? Bishonen | talk 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Mine are textual citations. The interpretive elements are just...true. I could prove them by citing lines, explaining what they mean, explaining why the meaning is part of another meaning.... Anyway, I'll provide citations in the form of references to the text. Geogre 16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for an eyeball

I'm concerned about a pair of rather odd "principles" that look likely to be handed down in an ongoing arbitration: Making arbitrary decisions and Accepting an arbitrary decision. Can you have a look and tell me if I'm just being paranoid? - brenneman ^{L} 06:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll need coffee, first, but yes. Geogre 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Saints and swiss roll

Hi, Geogre. Just wanted to let you know that I'll be starting (restarting) work on some of the individual English martyrs next week. I still remember your challenge to Catholics to produce something on the saints. Also, on a completely unrelated matter, if you're familiar with arguments about British versus American English, could you take a look at Talk:Jelly roll and give some advice. I'd like to move the article to swiss roll, or start a swiss roll article, but I don't know if that's just my closed European mind! In any case, I'm not happy with the article as it currently stands. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 11:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a swiss roll and a jelly roll, in the US, are distinct confections. The company Little Debbie markets both, and you can see pictures at one of their web presences, I'm sure. I think "jelly roll" has too powerful a presence in US culture to have it as a strict synonym. After all, Jelly Roll Morton and his song, as well as Scott Joplin's song, Jelly Roll Rag are extremely important in the evolution of blues/jazz. (And they're quite obscene, as they both explain why "rag time" was called that, as the jelly rolls of their titles are pudenda.) Because of this, I don't think that a separate article would be duplication. Anyway, we need sane hagiographers. If you look at the saints portal, you'll see quite a few overly ... exuberant?... people desperately wanting to insert prayers, associations, patronages, etc. Geogre 12:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here is a link to a picture of the infamous Swiss Cake Roll [1]. You can see a cross-section right on the box. Geogre 12:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think [2] is the closest thing to a jelly roll. Notice that the company is very careful not to use the term. I think they're scared of the old blues meaning. (And, incidentally, the sexual slang meaning kept right on going into the blues era, and there are some filthy songs by women using it.) I suspect that American manufacturers flee the word at all costs, while American bakers try to find some other phrasing, too, unless they're very pure of ears. Geogre 15:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The food manufacturers may flee the word, but the bakeware people don't: cookie sheets with a shallow lip all the way around are widely known as "jelly-roll pans". Example. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And then I found out that the jelly roll is most often the male private part! The things I learn here. I suppose that makes "Jelly Roll" Morton feel better about himself. Geogre 02:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann's swiss roll

Thanks for weighing in on Jelly roll, Geogre. Have a slice. Hope you like it. The new article swiss roll is well underway now. By the way, I found this article, so I'm wondering should I add:

For the X X X X X, see Swiss roll (metamaterial).

to the beginning of the swiss roll article, but I'm not sure what I should put for X X X X. My knowledge of optics isn't impressive.

I'm amazed at how difficult it is to find background information about the history of the swiss roll. I looked up several large, hardback, encyclopaedia-type cookery books this morning, and none of them said whether or not it really is Swiss, when it originated / became popular, etc. Lots of recipes, and information about what would happen if you overmixed the flour, etc., but nothing on where it comes from.

I do, however, have a lot of background information about the English martyrs, so I should be ashamed of myself for not having contributed more to that area. I know what you mean about people wanting desperately to insert prayers, etc. I knew that this edit was badly needed, but I never got round to doing it.

Thanks again for your help. AnnH ♫ 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, a lemon curd swiss roll! "Lemon curry?" I suppose the top disambig would be "For information about the term 'jelly roll,' please see the [[Jelly roll]]" or however I said it better earlier. And then, at the end of your article, you say, "The shape of the Swiss roll has inspired usage of the term in other fields, such as [[Swiss roll (metamaterial)|optics]]." Either that or you put it in the "See also" or "Related articles" section.

The weirdest for me, among my saints, has been Benedict Joseph Labre. It attracted a box to it, and then a prayer, and then someone complaining that the picture was actually a transvestite! It was absolutely nuts what that article got. Here I thought I was talking about a nice, neglected, and probably insane person, and yet it gets to be the focus of the overly zealous and tha overly antagonistic! Geogre 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Close AfD

Hey, when you speedied The Horrifics you forgot to close the AfD. Done it for you, but just letting you know. Viridae 09:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird. When I did it, it didn't carry an AfD template. It's possible that the template was added by someone who was in the process at the same time that I was deleting it. Either that or it was really there and I missed it...but I sure didn't think so, as I prefer not to speedy anything listed on AfD. Thanks for cleaning up. Geogre 12:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oroonoko

Hey hey! Did you even know it's on the Main Page today? :-) I didn't! Bishonen | talk 00:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

I didn't. What a surprise. Time to go on full alert. Geogre 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations. It looks great! :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's ironic that, after yelling at people about blocking AOL proxies, it's an AOL IP who keeps hitting both the article and my talk page. Oh, well. I'm being the model of patience by just blocking for :15 at a time every time he hits. It should at least inconvenience him. However, I've now attracted the "MOS says no apostrophes in dates, so I have fixed your article for you" edits. The MOS doesn't say that, and, if it does, then it's favoring British over US usage and forcing it on the whole project. I know it's a stupid thing to edit war about, but I will edit war in the service of logic. Anyway, thanks for the compliment. My most recent artistic inspiration isn't bad, either. I keep beavering away in silence, for the most part. Fewer people are interested in talking about stuff than are interested in talking about people. Geogre 04:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! I wish I had a copy of that book; it looks like a good read. Oh, and don't mind that AOL kid, he hits my pages too (see the recent history of my talk page, LOL... it's an occupational hazard of people who actually try to build encyclopedias on the internet). Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Long time, no see. Thanks for the compliment. It's a very short novel, and that's at least as important a reason why it's the "most studied of Behn's works" as its subject matter. When you've got to cover "Shakespeare to moment of speaking in 15 weeks" in a survey class, or even "Dryden to Johnson" in 15 weeks, you tend to look for short novels. The students won't read long works, and you can't do plays unless you're teaching a drama class. That said, it is an interesting read, especially if you keep an eye on the political, both her political argument and the hidden assumptions of colonialism that she was unaware of writing. Defoe is miles more sophisticated and "modern" looking to us, but Behn is the fresh strike, and you can really see the novel being made. Geogre 04:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lovely article, as always. Mary Beale is quite interesting too.

Please feel free to join us for afternoon tea in the boudoir. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I had never bothered to read up on Mary Beale. She is interesting. The name not said in that article is Kneller. I mention this because miniatures and cameos became a vogue around the turn of the century, and it reached a level of artisanship that's simply incomprehensible. The article kind of dismisses her miniatures, and that's a mistake. When she went that way, she was following the market, if not philosophy. Lely is very important, of course, although not recognized as a Great Artist by most history books, and I like his pictures, not being an art snob but just an edumacated dilletente. So where is the tea? I'm not sure I want to go to anyone's budoir but my own, unless she's very pretty and crazy enough to be inviting me there. Geogre 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[Amanda enters the boudoir loosly dress'd.]

Amanda: Where's my Love? O, let me fly into his Arms, and live for ever there.

Geogre: My Life, my Soul! [runs and embraces her.] By Heaven a tempting Creature! Melting, soft, and warm,-- as my desire--Oh, that I cou'd hide my face for ever thus, that undiscovered I might reap the Harvest of a Ripe desire, without the lingring pains of growing Love.

[Kisses her hand.

Amanda: Look up, my Lord, and bless me with a tender look, and let my talking Eyes inform thee how I have languish'd for thy absence.

Geogre: Let's retire, and chase away our fleeting Cares with the Raptures of untir'd Love.

Amanda: So are you gonna add those cites to Colley Cibber or not?

(Colley Cibber, Love's Last Shift (1696), Act IV.)

Bishonen | talk 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

That's not bad cribbing by Cibber. Yes. Bloodshot and foot weary and tapped empty from being nice for 24 hours, amid assembling every thought I have on 'what is poetry,' yes. Geogre 13:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

See? You did want to go to Amanda's boudoir, didn't you, now? Bishonen | talk 14:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

I was more thinking about hiding my face that way. However, I can't seem to find Amanda. I've printed out the Dunce section, but footnotes are beyond me. Hope springs eternal from the fools rushing in to pledge their fraternities, and a strip of cloth is worth a thousand lives. Geogre 14:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. What would you put in such footnotes? Page and/or line references to Butt's edition, is it? Or do you have some other source than Butt (my good, what a time he must have had at school) to refer to also? Wouldn't inline parenthetic references work just as well? How about... hmmmm.... say you put the section text with the citation information in whatever form on a user subpage, when you're more at leisure, and then I can hang the decorations on the tree? Due to some cruel and unusual worklife experiences, I can write footnotes or whatever in my sleep, in fact I need to be asleep to be able to do it. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

All I'd do is parenthetical reference anyway. You know how much energy I devote to formatting. The problem is that I can't find my Butt with both hands just now. I know my Butt's not in the house, so I'm going to have to check out in the car. I don't want to have to go to the office to find it, as I don't think I took it there this semester, but I'll continue to search for it. Geogre 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I found it. It was in the foot of the car, so now I can pull references out of my Butt (q.v.) for the Cibber article. Geogre 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Bishonen | talk 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

"Cool?" That was a masterpiece on par with the ship's captain, Bates. It takes skill. Fine. I'll just go bury my face in my Butt and see what I find. Geogre 03:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please give me a little credit. The edit was underplayed: the edit summary was the thing. Bishonen | talk 03:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

But if people search on Google, they won't see it! Geogre 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to all the people who helped monitor and preserve poor little Oroonoko while it was on the main page. That seemed like a very long 24 hours, but there have been some very good edits. Additionally, the Aphra Behn article, which I've never touched and kept on my "I'm meaning to fix it" list for 2 years, has been getting a lot of tinkering -- more in one day than it had in the last 2 years. I'm glad that article is messy and bad enough to invite helping hands and that it doesn't have a mother hen like me overing over it and WP:OWNing it. Geogre 03:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

your portrait

Love that painting on your talk page. Is that really you? It looks like a 19th century painting. --RND 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah. It's a 19th century painting, alright, or early 20th century painting of a German professor. I don't look like "me," I'm often told, so I figured I'd use a picture that does. Geogre 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

hehe, its a lovely evocative painting though --RND 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Moire

Geogre! You are the rogue who provided Image:Book-auctioneer.png - I was jsut thinking where does one get a scan, found yours - yet could't have you done it with supressing the moiré-effect Moiré pattern. One must suppress this thing when scanning materials which are based on regular patters such as photgraphic images in news papers and books etc. (original engravings are, of course exempted...). Hope everything else is fine (just writing a preface to Delarivier Manley's Rivella (1714) [3], enjoy the summer wherever that is, --Olaf Simons 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange! I didn't see any moire. No joke. In my original scan, I saw none. I see none with Photoshopping it, either. I wonder where the moire is coming from? Generally, the effect shows up when scanning images that have spaced out printer's dots (like postcards), but this was a high density image. Very, very strange. I'll check the image large. I have the book I got it from, so I can rescan and "descreen" it in the first pass, but I really didn't see any. Geogre 16:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll be smoked! It does have moire! I wonder how I missed that, as moire is an old enemy of mine? I'll rescan and re-upload tomorrow, likely. Geogre 16:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy. --Olaf Simons 19:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the sampling theorem again! It's so deep and suble that you encounter it in every context. Dr Zak 04:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Eeep! If I were just a little bit more mathematically incapacitated, I could qualify as an idiot-savant in languages and literature. I mastered Al-Gebra, that great bit of High School terrorist indoctrination, and then beat my head against the ceiling of trigonometry repeatedly. Meanwhile, all the literature and philosophy classes I took were too stupid for words, and all my class mates having trouble seemed to me to be just plain lazy. The terror of higher math wasn't removed from me until graduate school, which was the first time I could breathe easy and know that no one was going to ask why I knew all things 18th century England except Mr. Newton's mathematics. Geogre 11:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Rhadamanthus

Policy disagreements not withstanding, I like your section heading Rhadamanthus emerges from Hades for a brief moment. It brightened my day, in a gloomy subterranean kind of way. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I wondered if folks were going to get it, and I'm glad you did. :-) I'm happy, by the way, to talk about the creaking infrastructure of ArbCom and why we're circumventing it, but I think that circumventing it without agreement is a very bad idea, because the dangers of exigency are simply too great. Geogre 18:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic additions to Lazarus and Dives, by the way. I'm really unsettled by the article's stepping into interpretation, as I worry that once the door is open a crack, it'll be openned to the cranks. Geogre 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's whack the kooks with mighty volumes of theology! They will either flee and hide or end up with Arbcom. Dr Zak 04:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now there's an idea. If they survive getting beaned by the Summa Theologica, we'll worry about them. Every time they add an "interpretation," we'll ask them what Aquinas says about it, refer them to a chapter of it at random, and then see if that doesn't reform them or make their heads explode. Geogre 11:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I might try that approach on Bible conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

See, I know that people have the theories. After all, everyone needs a hobby. I just don't know why they feel the need to tell anyone. Most people are embarassed by their insanity and like to ride their hobby horses indoors. When they go galloping down the main street, demanding that everyone get out of the way, they pass from eccentric to annoying to hazardous to the common good. I've avoided those articles because I've always felt that asking the proponents of the theories for justification is rather like weighing very carefully the evidence the paranoiac offers you for random eye blinks of strangers being a secret code in use by the "real" government. I could do it, but it wouldn't do much except testify to the thoroughness of the private delusion. I suppose one could try, very hard, with unsleeping attentiveness, to ensure that the article is about the phenomenon and not about exposition of each theory, but the amount of energy it would take is exhausting even to contemplate. (Ugh. I've slipped into Augustan prose style again.) Geogre 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; and I actually wasn't trying to bring the conversation around to conspiracy theory. I've spent so much time with these people that I'm adopting their modes of thought. Two years ago it was interesting sociology; now it's like being stuck at a bar with a tedious drunk. I need to disengage from many of these pages; maybe people recognize that these articles are like our Pokémon characters: sandboxes, provided by wikipedia for the (mostly) harmless amusement of those who choose to write them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to think you're right, but I can't. They have a definite purpose behind wanting to change our articles to reflect their private manias. We're top 50 now, so we're responsible for huge Google page rank boosts. Also, the sort of person who thinks that the Gnomes of Zurich changed the Bible are the sorts of people who will argue that an encyclopedia article says so and then point to changes they themselves made to Wikipedia. My eye opening experience, and maybe my moment of despair, came when Bush campaign workers changed the Kerry article in 2004 and then had Bushcountry.com point to the diff to "prove" that John Kerry wasn't wounded in Vietnam. I say blessings on anyone with the energy and commitment to watch those articles. I only manage to sound nice and magisterial most of the time because the moment I stop sounding that way, I start screaming, and I don't want to start screaming. Geogre 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews

Hi, it’s me bloger:

Even though it’s not really a difference because the page about the TTJ was deleted already, but for arguments sake, and my personal filings I’ll like to ask you to please read my edit on the notability of the TTJ and tell me what you think, and mostly if it changes its stands as far as notability is concerned.

(And since it’s deleted already, I’ll post the edit here:)

Ok, I think I understand the concerns of the editors and I will try to address them.

On the concern of verifiability:

As per the definition by Deathphoenix quote:

“Verifiability means that it be proven (usually online) that the subject exists”

I think it’s understood that at least for a minimum the article in “Der Yid” I posted and translated has addressed it to the extend that we now know that this organization exists at all, and its outside of a few people with a website, but rather it’s an organization that does much more then host a site as is put out in the newspaper article.

About the concern of notability:

Again as per Deathphoenix who has put out three possibilities on being notable.

1) That a lot of people or articles mention TTJ.

2) That TTJ has historical significance.

3) That TTJ has a web site that is very popular (usually shown by having lots of Google hits or a high Alexa rank,

And was wider elaborated by Geogre quote:

“Some web sites are so significant that they have an impact on the world. How do we determine if a particular web site is one of those? Well, there are a lot of ways, but one of them is how many hits a day the site gets”

I’ll start with # 2):

Firstly, It’s my opinion, – because it’s opposite of conventional wisdom –, Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism – in a non political manner which may be the case in reform Jewish communities – but rather in a biblical founded manner is something of historical significance given that its common belief in the world that Orthodox Jews are “all” staunch supporters of the state of Israel (and many in fact are) so anything proving otherwise is of historical significance.

Secondly, the position of satmar on any mater (related to religious subjects) given that satmar is one of the – if not the – biggest Orthodox Jewish Hasidic group with an Estimated 100,000 to 120,000 members is of historical significance.

In other words, if satmar should have an opinion on - let’s say - a major issue in Jewish-Christian relations it’s of historical significance given that it’s the opinion of some 100,000 thousand people in the Jewish religion.

The point being, that as I somewhat established in the article discussion page – although without unanimous consent – that the group TTJ is the de-facto podium of satmar in the non-satmar world given that other then this, satmar doesn’t have another avenue of featuring there opinion on the matter in the non satmar environment.

The above said, its can be clamed that TTJ is not just another group but rather it’s satmar and satmar is notable as per historical significance as said above.

Now to # 3:

This is a bit complicated firstly, because when one checks the “Alexa rank” for a site like TTJ one cannot compare it to any other site, because for example, sure the Drudge Report or CNN are going to have a better rank then a site talking about Botswana in South Africa because there are many more people interested in politics and news then in Botswana, the strength of the above sites is that between there pairs they rank well for example CNN ranks better then FOX, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, the same with drudge.

Secondly, Now once we have established that we have another hurdle we have to determine if the subject talked about in these sites are notable for example if a certain family has a few sites and one of them is ten-fold more popular between the family members then the rest doesn’t mean it made an impact and is wikipedia notable because its only that immediate family that is being impacted by them.

Thirdly, how is an impact measured? For example, Amazon or eBay cannot be satisfied if the same amount of people that visit the most popular info site come by and look at there site for info only the goal is for people to buy stuff on these sits not come there for info.

Therefore, once it’s established that:

1) The issue of Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism is a wikipedia notable subject. 2) The goal of the TTJ is to inform people on the subject, which is achieved, by people visiting there site and reading the info.

Than we can measure this site according to the other sites of the same subject and with the same goal.

On that scale, the site of the TTJ outperformed its nearest competitors in a big way the sites of the Neturei Karta www.nkusa.org , www.jewsnotzionists.org .The TTJ has reached at its highest point (in ’04) to almost 100 on the daily reach while the others have reached only up to about a 38 on the first one and a 30 for the second one.

This is to say that on the goal of reaching the world it did have a big impact and is popular, which makes it notable.

reply

Ok, let me try to respond. First, I think that the verifiability is satisfied, so you have that. I personally think that the site/group is notable within the Orthodox community. Therefore, the question is whether the group is so known/commented upon that it will be sought by readers who are non-Orthodox or not. I can't quite answer that from the arguments above. However, if the answer is "no," then that still doesn't mean that there is no place for the information. If only people in the Orthodox and Zionism communities will want to know about this group (and the Zionist movement continues, as you know, among the Reform and Liberal communities), then the group should be mentioned, and their movement, in the articles on Orthodox Judaism and Zionism articles. If the site/group has created enough of a stir that people outside of those communities are encountering it, then it needs a stand alone article. I think that this is more of an issue that's still known and relevant within the communities of Orthodoxy, but I could be wrong. If you rewrite the article in your user space and want me to take a look, let me know. Geogre 11:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, firstly, thank you for responding.

I was busy working on other articles the last few days and that’s why I didn’t respond until now.

To be honest, I did at first put the info in the article Anti-Zionism under Jewish anti-Zionism (Were it is still mentioned without any info ) and after being blasted for putting to much info on the group on the above page I created the True Torah Jews as a sub page in order to expend on the TTJ and not jeopardize the Anti-Zionism page.

That’s were my problem really escalated.

Now since you came to the conclusion that the group is verifiable and also notable at least in Jewish and Zionist groups how do you think I should pressed? Isn’t that common practice to mention a topic in a page and then sub page it to expend?

In addition, one more point doesn’t historical significance make it notable enough regardless were and if it is at all known? That’s what I understood from user Deathphoenix but I might be mistaken.

Bloger 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bloger, I think it's at this point that the best thing I can do is see the article as you have it now. I hope you've been refashioning it in your user talk space. If so, please give me a link. I think that's the best way that I can be helpful, as it's hard to answer in the abstract to issues like historical significance. I think the group certainly sounds like an anomalous historical development, but I can't know until I see it. If you'd like, just link me, and I'll do what I can. Geogre 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted

No problem. I apologize as well. I jumped the gun a bit. Sometimes passions get a little heated on AN/I. I probably should've taken a breath before posting. Apologies. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

OK. Thankyou! Andycjp June 2006

Just visiting you...

Geogre rises on the horizon...

For no other reason than offering you my eternal gratitude for being the way you are, and for being there when I needed the most - thank you, my dearest G. Big big hugs your way, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 11:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Phaedriel. Being me is about the only thing I'm expert at, so it's nice to see my one area of accomplishment honored. I hope the project and life are alike treating you well and returning some of the friendliness that you give. Geogre 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bishzilla rises from the deeps.

Just keeping him company... hope you don't mind, Geogre or Phaedriel! Bishonen | talk 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

You're just wanting me to look at my Butt and get those citations! Geogre 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

I would be grateful if you could fine the time to have a quick look at the discussion here and let me know whether I am being dense, or just feeding a troll. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no clue what that guy is on. Seriously, most of the grousing on that page is part of some ongoing political struggle, I assume, although I wouldn't like to even hint at which one I think it is. It's very important for these persons to either reject the settlement (old line Tories, I guess, although I thought they were all dead) or denounce it (National Front folks would feel that way) or suggest that it didn't accomplish anything (anti-monarchists would say that). What is happening is that you're working on an article that is a locus for three way attacks, at least. Basically, they see all positive language about it as being an endorsement of the status quo, and we all know how many friends the status quo will have at any given moment.

Watering the words until they wash away isn't really an answer, as you know, and making the language so torturous that no reader can comprehend what the big deal is would totally defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia. I suppose the best line would be to tell these querrulous individuals that what you're doing is reporting on the thing as perceived and intended, rather than the thing as it may be in its inmost essence. I.e. resort back to what we're really here for: explaining a thing to those people who need an explanation of its role in history, rather than providing legal or political analysis of its actuality.

As for whether the language in use was POV, the charge is absurd. All words carry conotation, and finding words that cannot be read by some reader or another as endorsements or condemnations is a fool's errand or a mug's game. If you succeed in finding language like that, you will also find language that fails to communicate discursively. A bulleted list or chart with column 1 being "Clause," column 2 being "What proponents intended," column 3 being "what anti-monarchists say," and column 4 being "what pro-democrats say" and column 5 being "what fascists say" might be inclusive, but inclusive is merely the multiplication of points of view, not neutrality. Generally, I'd say we're reporting, not arguing, and we report in the terms of received wisdom to some degree.

Since my 18th c. peeps are the Tories, you'd think they'd have been saying something about the document, but they largely agreed with it. (Oh, the Jacobites didn't, but that's another matter.) The Whigs tried to rub it in their faces, but the Tories just said, "Yes, much of that is a very good thing." It was tremendously popular, although the other elements of the settlement were not. Geogre 16:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support for my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad I meet your criteria. Most of all, I'm glad you took the time to evaluate my candidacy, as I believe that's what keeps RfA running smoothly, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me, including continuing to get my hands dirty in the backlogs. Please let me know at my talk page if you have any comments on my performance as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 02:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, I appreciate your input on my talk page. I only just saw it, I guess it must have coincided with five other edits or something. "Nulla hora sine edit" — ahhh, eddication. I need to start checking the History every time I get a new message. Bishonen | talk 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

Nah, I just made it. I was studiously avoiding any provocation by saying anything under Timothy Usher's comment, as I know what happens when people poke at those who've been told to go away. It's bad manners, for one thing. After El C did, though, I figured that the dam had burst and it was ok for me to toss my own stink bomb. It was just one of those cases where logic should have answered the question even if common sense didn't. Geogre 03:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks redux

Geogre, thanks for your supporting comment on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Consensus_on_redirect_and_delete thread. It really bothered me how quick some of the admins were to attack me merely for questioning why these admins weren't following procedures and guidelines with regards to redirects. I mean, shesh, here I was thinking that we admins had to set a good example and follow the rules. Now I know better :-). Hope things are going well. Best,--Alabamaboy 14:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz

He needed to be in the time out corner, and 3 days is probably good. I endorse the block, although I do think this was a peevish person stamping his foot and might have been neutralized by ignoring. A short block is at least as valid an approach though. (I hate it when people try to be clever and just miss. The belly flop they make is much more noticeable than someone just jumping feet first into the pool.) Geogre 13:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey George, I was pleased to see you talking about me like this. Now that my block is up, I just want to tell you, that you are the most civil admin, an example for all editors, calling me "peevish person", and I wanted to say I am sorry I tried to be clever. Using the same way of argumenting like Mark used when he blocked me (check yourself) you are telling that I am stupid, right? I shouldn't have tried to be clever, my bad, I will never try again. And.. yup.. many thanks for the belly flop story, that also made me happy. How is that that you can be uncivil and call people "trying to be clever" and you don't get blocked? This is the mutual ego-masturbation among the admins I was talking about. I wish you good luck and enjoyment in any ego or non-ego masturbation sessions you are gonna have in your life.

PS: My user and talkpages were deleted on my request, and I am not willing to return to wikipedia, I have spent too much time in last month creating and editing articles, but once I stepped into discussion with people around wikipedia, I am not keen on contributing anymore. Wish you luck 85.70.5.66 14:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, darn! Now I've been told off and won't get to talk to him any more. I'll soldier on as best I can. Geogre 14:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC);

Nasty

I read you think "Catholic Church" is nasty. George, you are clearly new to this debate and your British and Anglican background suggest that you may be unfamiliar with the nomenclature of the Catholic Church as well as the thoroughly established use of "Catholic Church" in reference to those in communion with Rome. Please see this page for a more thorough treatment of the subject matter: CC vs. RCC Vaquero100 17:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, indeed. I said that I thought that mounting the argument was nasty. The Nicene Creed says that all Christians believe in one catholic church, with "catholic" meaning orthodox and united, and we do all believe in one church. However, multiple schisms have brought the various rites out of communion with one another. To distinguish between them, we indicate which rite they follow. Do they follow the Roman rite, the Byzantine rite, the Syrian rite, the Russian rite? Thus, Roman Catholic Church, Russian Catholic Church, Syrian Catholic Church, etc. To erase the distinction is to insist, in effect, that the Roman rite is the only one to have a claim on being "the" Catholic church. I consider my own church to be catholic, but I am quite sure that it is not Roman Catholic.

Even if all of that theological and historical evidence were not sufficient, though, we need to follow the conventions of the wider Anglophone world, and that is "Roman Catholic" for the church whose polity headed by the Bishop of Rome, and not "Catholic," except in the most ignorant of usages. Again: true and false are not the issue when it comes to locating our lemmae. Geogre 17:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, in response to Vaquero's invitation to visit the page describing the case for the proposed use of "Catholic Church", you have replied with a statement of what you call "theological and historical evidence." If it were indisputable that this evidence is as you state (and it is not), you would still be correct in saying that they would not be sufficient. Wikipedia naming conventions address the issues of self-identification and common use with a minimum of ambiguity. If you would review the case presented, you would see that you have an incorrect understanding of the "conventions of the wider Anglophone world," and that in common usage "Catholic Church" is always understood to mean the "church whose polity headed by the Bishop of Rome." I would ask that you put aside your POV and support the application of Wikipedia policy to this issue. SynKobiety 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not been interested in rehashing an old polemic, one that has spilled blood and given no profit to the church or world. I remain so. Wikipedia follows the world in this regard, and, I repeat, it is not the place to redress what any of us regard as historical wrongs. When Britanica, American Heritage, World Book, the Oxford, and the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church agree in dropping "Roman" and using only "catholic" to refer to one specific rite, then Wikipedia will be bound to follow suit. However, as they all, like us, distinguish the various "catholic" churches, the status quo has the benefit of being most useful. Self identification is irrelevant in this regard, but, even if it were at play, you would be wrong in professing to speak for all priests, bishops, cardinals, and archbishops in seeking to drop the "Roman" designation. Geogre 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if you thought that I had referred to an old polemic or to any historical wrongs. I merely expressed support for applying published Wikipedia guidelines regarding the use of the name "Catholic Church." According to American Heritage, World Book, Websters Unabridged, and Random House Collegiate, "Catholic Church" refers only to the Church headed by the Bishop of Rome. Also contrary to your statement, self-identification is not only relevant, but according to Wikipedia:Naming conflict is one of the objective criteria for choosing a name. In determining self-identification, I would not presume to speak for all priests, bishops, etc., but do note the following usage by these national conferences: The Catholic Church in England and Wales, Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Catholic Church in Australia, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, The Catholic Church in New Zealand, and the New Zealand Catholic Bishops' Conference. I encourage you to reconsider your opposition to the consistent application of Wikipedia naming conventions regarding this. SynKobiety 20:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not dictionaries, encyclopedias. Look for the entry describing the Roman Catholic Church in any print encyclopedia, and see whether it is lodged at "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church." Dictionaries describe usage. For Americans, who have few Syrian, Russian, or Greek churches to contend with, usage will dictate a clipping of "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic," but the same would not be true in an encyclopedia. Again, when those encyclopedias change their entries, we can change ours. Otherwise, you are asking to correct a wrong -- the wrong of not being considered the only catholic church -- by waging the battle here. We will follow the readers. Geogre 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Those poor stupid Americans have plenty of Syrian, Russian, and Greek Churches - more than the English, in fact. If you meant "encylcopedia" you should not have included dictionaries in your reference list. Dictionaries do describe usage. Wikipedia naming conventions refer to usage also. If you would read and understand the naming conventions then you might start to follow readers instead of trying to lead them. SynKobiety 00:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you losing your calm like that. Inasmuch as I am an American, I don't think I would describe my fellow citizens as stupid. All language users simplify to the degree that they are capable. Capability is constrained by ambiguity. If you were in Lebanon, for example, you might need to keep each church's name as long as possible, because no one would be numerically superior (except the Druse). In the US, the Roman Catholic Church is far greater in number and power than any other "-catholic" church, and therefore American speakers will simplify and clip, just as medieval speakers of English would simply say "the church," as if no other churches were in disagreement or existed. Since we seek to be precise and to answer all speakers of English, we have to take the long form. This is in addition to the political side of the discussion, which, as I've said, I'm not interested in debating, as I see it as shamefully bloody. What I cannot understand is why you or any other person would seek to be less specific in naming, if you are not arguing from the political motivation. It's not for me to understand, though, I suppose. Geogre 02:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were insulting Americans by saying that Americans are ignorant through having a limited exposure to those other Churches. I am not interested in debating the theology or the politics of this question. I have been saying it has been demonstrated that in normal usage, "Catholic Church" is understood by English speakers to mean the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Additionally, the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome is most commonly referred to as the "Catholic Church" by English speakers. This has been demonstrated through what was written at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name and what Vaquero has compiled at CC vs RCC. These facts, together with the Church's self-identification, satisfy the requirements described in the Wikipedia naming conventions. It is not less specific as it matches what most English speakers understand it to mean. You are apparently not representative of most English speakers and should not allow your atypical POV to override the naming conventions. SynKobiety 03:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder which hoary old argument has just been revived? Could it perhaps be the perenial demand by the Papists to move their article from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church? I must wander along and have a look - maybe there will be a new argument this time. Yes, yes, I know - the triumph of hope over experience... Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How dull. It turned out to be somethign altogether less imaginitive - a plain old-fashioned POV fork. Reverted. With just a tiny application of rouge to hold things in place. Just zis Guy you know? 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a POV fork, but the forking involves something a bit submerged. The name has big implications for Roman Catholics of a particularly conservative sort, and it's very important for protestants (esp. Anglicans and Lutherans) that the name change not take place. Now me, I don't think that changing a name will change the fact that it's one church and not THE church, but if Wikipedia were to take the lead in reverting the name, we'd have some extremely angry readers/editors. Geogre 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

George, you really ought to stop talking so much, you are only revealing your bias. When referencing the Catholic position about, you can't help yourself. You just have to say "of a particularly conservative sort." When refering to the opposing point of view, it is apparently just important to Anglicans and Lutherans (which is very incorrect as many Lutherans never use the term "Catholic" in the creed since Luther changed it to "Christian." It appears that you think you know more than you do. This isn't a matter of conservative and liberal among Catholics, it is a matter of facts. I am actually a fairly liberal Catholic on most issues. If you had actually read the page you were asked to comment on, you would not have made this mistakes.
Seriously, George, you really ought to stop opining sloppily about matters beyond your competence.
Vaquero100 06:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Geogre should not opine sloppily about matters beyond his competence. Nor should anyone else. This point is moot, however, since I have never known Geogre to do so. - brenneman ^{L} 10:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Aaron, who not only said it before I, he said it better than I would have phrased it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, one more occasion where I'm being definitively told off. It's just heart breaking. Now, as soon as the people wanting our names to change can go and convince all printed reference works to do so, they'll have not only told me off but actually changed my mind. Until then, I just remain riddled with error, obliviously thinking that changing our usage away from the most useful point to a point pleasing to two editors, or two accounts, requires some compelling argument other than, "We like it" and that people come along wanting to make the change so strongly that they're willing to be blocked over it must have a point of view embued with more than lexical descriptiveness. (And here I thought that Luther spoke German, not English!) Geogre 12:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if people want to know why it would be a disruptive change, it's because of the churches still in the apostolic succession. These are generally the Anglicans, Lutherans, the Swedish Church, and some other national protestant churches. Each of these churches puts importance on the fact that all of its ministers are in a single communion and ordained in an unbroken line going back to the apostle Peter. They regard themselves as being "catholic" (orthodox). Therefore, they don't like any church claiming to be "the" catholic church. Now me, I'm too Modernist for that. I don't think the word matters that much, as my church will still be the one I consider doctrinally correct whatever the terminology. However, Anglican and Lutheran (and probably Presbyterian and Methodist) readers will regard us as either foolish or antagonistically endorsing a specialized point of view if we allow the change.

My own argument isn't to do with whether the Roman church is really catholic or the only catholic church or anything of the sort. My own argument is that we need to be specific, and the fact that people who live in areas with only the tiniest minority of representatives of the other "- Catholic" churches might get lazy and clip "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" does not make it precise or accurate. I also don't think the "it's the self-identification" argument is true, and their "it's in the dictionary" argument is similarly fallacious (is it the primary location, or is the definition under "catholic church" "Roman Catholic?"), but I don't think we're going to do anything but feed the trolls by trying to engage in an argument on those licensed premises. Geogre 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Geogre. You have just espoused the exact argument proscribed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Example. You are now officially a Maputan. -SynKobiety 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Powers

[4]: I have powers. I can make someone's nose itch just by staring hard enough. Watch it or I'll threaten you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have ineffability, and my ineffability beats your powers. Besides, my kindergarten teacher said that I have a lot of potential. From that, I concluded that I am a capacitor. Geogre 06:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the last straw. Consider yourself threatened. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, infinite cosmic powers, me; at least, that is what I tell the children. The trick is knowing when to reveal them.

Anyway, is James Macpherson and Ossian a bit too late for you, Mr G? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It was 43.9 C at the beach today, and I survived that and high tide. I am asbestos (those around me cough, and I'm slightly graying, and I'm quite flakey). I am an asbestos capacitor. Well, Mr. AL, they are not too late for me, although I am quite ignorant of the niceties. You see, there is "18th 1" (Dryden to the Age of the Novel + Restoration stage), "18th 2" (novels, novels, novels), and "18th 3" (Age of Johnson, plus churchyard poets, and a tug of war with the Romantics for Blake and the political novel). I'm 18th 1. However, I couldn't be that without passing muster (and boy, did it burn) in #2 and #3. I basically bluffed on #3 as much as I could and read Boswell and the big SJ (and Godwin and Blake). I think the Ossian stuff is one bright spot of interesting legerdemaine in a somewhat stultifyingly predictable age. Geogre 02:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I rather like the translation by Goethe in the Sorrows of Young Werther -- it retranslates into English better than the original. It's just so ... stormy. Pardon me for butting in, but I was watching recent changes, and this wine is quite delicious. Antandrus (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and the Fingal stuff should get more attention than it does. There are some scholars who approach MacPherson, but they have this sort of fork in the road they're presented with. Do you treat Ossian as a great poetic accomplishment and JM as a great poet, or do you treat it as a forgery and a cultural tempest, then you go on to talk about good old Romanticism and sturmin' dang. Me, I like it as an illustration of a particularly clear fissure in cultural ideology, but I'm weird like that. "Close thy Milton, open thy Goethe," as some chap or other said. (You really shouldn't bogart the wine.) Geogre 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, his article is pretty poor, for someone who is said to have sparked the rise of romanticism (irrespective of the arguments over whether he collected, "translated", augmented or just plain wrote the books).

Anyway, I did wonder, Mr G, why you don't nominate more of your de novo articles on WP:DYK - first, it is a good way to get others to read / copyedit / add to them; second, it is always nice to see your own work on the Main Page. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He wrote 'em, and there's an end on't. I'm going toward a library in a few hours. I'll see what the Big Blue Spined Books say about him. There are perhaps half a dozen post-1990 books on him, but I doubt this library will have any, except maybe the TEAS (Twaynes English Authors Series). If I can find the TEAS, I'll check it out. Geogre 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

lists

I'm unsure what you mean by your statement at Deletion Review. Could you please clarify: What the thing does is use subpages, which are one of the really old "we must nots." Transclusion with summary style is possible, but having a list of list of lists is, in effect, a parallel hierarchy. I.e. this isn't how we work, as we have a flat hierarchical structure to our articles. The lists were not subpages. I don't understand why a list of lists would be a parallel hierarchy. It's a collection point further up the tree. Or are you just complaining about lits in general? -Freekee 03:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (feel free to reply here.)

A list of musicians of South Carolina that was populated would be a general list article. However, if there is a List of US Musicians that is just a page of links, then what's going on is that we've got one article acting as a parent to another. It's setting up a tree of articles, where each is a pointer down to a narrower spot in the discussion. We set forth more than 2 years ago now that we wouldn't do that. The reason is that all other articles are "flat," as it were.

Now, the counter to that is that some articles, like "my" own Augustan literature needed to suppress very long discussions, so we came up with the "transclude summary" technique. In Augustan literature, there is a section called Augustan drama and it is a summary of the Augustan drama article and includes a transclusion pointer in the heading.

In general, though, the sort of hierarchical organization that the list of other lists (US musicians containing state lists, which might contain city lists) did has been solved by the invention of the category system. In other words, the same function is done better by categories and subcategories.

As for why subpages are such a big taboo, I'm not entirely sure, but they were pretty universally condemned. Geogre 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying that the main US list should have been deleted, since it's only a list of lists. I can't argue with that, but I'm asking for the (temporary) restoration of only the Wisconsin lists. Looking at the Deletion Review posting, I'm not sure how clear that is. And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if there was any discussion at all about the state lists. Thanks for your time. -Freekee 04:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From a procedural point of view, yes, the national list had to go, and the state lists shouldn't parent city lists. I don't know if that's why the deletions took place, but it was why I said what I said. The things that kill lists are that they are "inherently subjective." If a list has no hard include/exclude, then membership will be inherently and unavoidably "POV." The other thing is when a list article duplicates a category. I think you're up against the latter, if not the former. I don't think anyone was objecting to the temporary undeletions. All I was saying about that is that they should be temporarily undeleted and moved to your user talk page space. If that happens, you can take your time on creating the categories and no harm done. Also, I don't think anyone would be able to disagree with it. If they know that you're making categories and that you're only undeleting temporarily and away from article space, folks shouldn't be bothered at all. Give the debate a day or so to see if you gather more comments. If things are mellow at that point, remind me, and I'll do the undelete/move for you, if you're not conversant with talk page space yet. Geogre 04:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But there currently is are no such categories. If there were, I wouldn't have complained. I don't think it's particularly inclusionist not to want that info deleted. That's why I'd prefer it was fully restored until someone can make the cats. Thanks for the offer. The other thing is that I can find no discussion about deleting the state articles. I'm not sure if I just haven't found it, or if it didn't exist. -Freekee 04:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please relax. The vote is going toward restoration anyway, as the procedure seems to have been cocked up. Again, I have no problem doing the restoration, if you'd like, but if I restore to article space, we're going to need to do an AfD. I really urge you, honestly, to make these categories. I'm trying to be helpful. Geogre 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, I'm relaxed. Just explaining myself. And I hold no ill will for anyone involved, especially you. As I said, I'm a little annoyed at the lack of procedure, and I want to make sure it doesn't happen again, that's all. Thanks again for your offer of help. -Freekee 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about, but List of mathematics lists is a featured list. There was a big bust-up about whether it was eligible in its FLC... There are also lists, like List of Test cricketers which essentially include copies of sublists, like List of English Test cricketers. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That dust up would have been justified. Again, I'm not one of the people in the original "no subpages" argument, but it came down from Consensus, which is the deus ex machina for Wikipedia, that there are no subpages, only transclusion with summary style. I understand the argument only in that it represents an alternative and rival organizational principle to the rest of Wikipedia. This is about a review at WP:DRV. Some people were talking about how the AfD or RfD or whatever it was went. I pointed out that, regardless of those issues (which I didn't investigate), there is the hierarchical argument. Feel free to take a look, as more people at DRV is a good thing. Geogre 12:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have more or less given up on WP:DRV (I must be getting old: I don't think I have gone back there for long since it was called WP:VfU) - it always seems to be full of people demanding that someone gives them their ball userboxen back, or questioning the deletion of their poorly formatted and unreferenced List of trivia from %manga... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that kind of thing is pro forma there. I gave up on VfU when the Tony Sidaway Divine Right of Admins business broke out. DRV is a bit better managed, as the "gimme back my vanity" tends to get hooted down without too much fuss. 90% of the time it's "confirm," but there are some good opportunities for policy wonking. This one was July 3, I think, and List of US musicians or something like that. Other people argued the deletion process, but I entered a procedural question. The creator of the articles wants to do the right thing (although he's getting a bit pissed), and I hope he realizes folks do want to help. That "ZOMG deletionists" nonsense is way, way, way past its expiration date, IMO. Geogre 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible future RfA stuff

Hi there! So I tripped up on this discussion this afternoon. I'll note that I had absolutely no problem with your opposition, but I was a little disappointed to read this discussion after the fact when I may have been able to ease your mind during the course of things. Regardless, it seems you've had issues with admins acting as if they own the place, and you're not alone on that - one of the reasons I accepted JzG's nomination was due to that personal belief. I'm a bit of a process wonk, sure, but I would think that might ease your mind a bit about my possibly undeleting things out of process, which is something you brought up - if I ever recieved the mop in the future, I wouldn't do that. That's as vile to me as deleting things out of process, and I'm sure you feel the same way.

We're not going to agree on a lot as a matter of what belongs here, and I fully accept that - discussion = good! But if the opportunity ever arises again where someone thinks I'm fit for adminship, I hope you'll at least consider how I feel about the same issues regarding admin abuse as you do. Hang in there, and I'll see you around. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, and I really am sorry that I had to go to oppose. What unsettled me and made me think of the very bad experiences I've had with...one or two people...was the "defender of articles" language. I don't mean to tell you how to express yourself, of course, but I worry when the armed camps re-emerge from their frozen sleep. People like me (formerly the archangel of deletionism) are not against articles. Heck, I write quite a few myself. We want certain standards rigorously upheld, and those standards are different from the standards held to by others, but there is no "deletionism." There is "inclusionism," in the sense that there is a philosophy that anything should be left for the future to improve, and there is "eventualism," but I don't think there is any such thing as "deletionism." Some have a high bar, some a medium bar, and some a low bar, but there are no enemies of articles, no friends to authors. I'd like to think that I'll be as helpful as the next guy when it comes to helping someone who wants to craft an article that will pass muster (see the somewhat long "True Torah Jews" thing, above; I want the guy to succeed in making a proper article). When I see language that invokes the idea that there are friends and enemies of articles, I feel like a false flag is being flown for some reason that could be bad. I may be cranky, and I know I'm grumpy, but I've got some hard experience that has led me to such a position. (As I said to Guy, I think the best thing we can do to help authors is to be clear and consistent in our inclusion criteria. Any hint of caprice, and we do a disservice to authors, and that means voting to delete things we like and voting to keep things we dislike, so long as the criteria are met.) Geogre 02:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bloger TTJ

Hi, you apparently didn’t realize that I replied above so would you be so kind, look it over, and tell me what you think

Bloger 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Geogre this is the article you requested User_talk:Bloger#True_Torah_Jews_2

Bloger 02:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bloger. I'll look at it tomorrow, time permitting, and let you know. You are certainly trying to do everything by the book, so I'm cheering for a good outcome. Geogre 03:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

That Harry guy in Steppenwolf waited for his fiftieth birthday, or was going to wait until it, and then make a huge mess. Thanks for the collateral damage help. Crowbait 22:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Artistic inspiration

It just came to me what the context was where I praised your brilliant Artistic inspiration, Geogre — not on one of our talkpages, but on the phone. When it was quite new? It brought us to talking about Afflatus as well, and I think I got to be the first to mention A Tale of a Tub. All, erm, airy subjects. You remember? And it is brilliant. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

Actually, I think you praised afflatus, and I wrote "artistic inspiration" as a result of our phone conversation. That's why I wanted you to look at it, because I had taken your hints of working in ATT. In fact, I used ATT as a frame device for the parallel conceptual frame of a.i., and that's what I was so proud of. It was a little thing, but setting up the inside/outside parallelism was my doing, not my source's, and pursuing it into the modern era was definitely my doing. Also, it's a full article, as opposed to the really slight afflatus. I'm glad you've seen it, as, unlike a lot of the things I write, I was pleased with it. In fact, the two I'm most pleased at my own sort of abilities have been film adaptation and a.i., because both, I thought, gave a new handle and a full-feeling discussion. I think they're both useful and mine. Geogre 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Good news at User talk:WBardwin

User:Geogre, you may care to take a look at ShaunES' news on my good friend WBardwin's page. It's relevant to AOL blocks. Respectfully, Frutti di Mare 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

Yes! <general rejoicing> —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to look, but I'm going to be really pissed off if we figure out how to filter the good from the bad guys 4 days before I switch ISP's to a DSL connection. I won't be surprised, of course, because that's my luck, but I will be pissed. Geogre 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Gee Geogre, I had no idea this was happening to you. What a pain in the podex. Anyway I'm sure you will enjoy DSL even if you are "pissed". Paul August ☎ 14:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, pissed off more than pissed, and pissed on more than pissed off, but still. Yeah, DSL is way cool. Not being at an AOL-owned ISP is cool. Finding anything worth looking at that needs this speed is a little less cool, but I'm sure, other than Naked News, I'll find something. Geogre 02:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's enabled. The battle is immediately going to turn to permablocking all of AOL, IP only -- in other words, disabling all anonymous editing from the AOL range. I'm not sure how I feel about that, and I was wondering how you do? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally against it, unless we outlaw all IP editing. On Edmund Curll just a few moments ago someone in the AOL range helped the article by linking to the proper Sacheverell controversy (and that's not easy). I've seen others from the AOL range that were helpful, too. The thing, for me, is not allowing our biases to kill a fruitful source of good work. I'm not against blocking all IP editing, but I am against blocking just the IP editing from a single ISP. I understand why we might do it (because it's an ISP that behaves differently from others), but it doesn't actually present a unique problem.

AOL rolls IP's very fast. Ok. All dial-up ISP's roll IP's, though. In the case of an AOL pest, he keeps farting on us as we block innocents, but a user at Earthlink dialup will be one IP one day and another the next day. Again, there is collateral damage, but there is less of it because he appears at a smaller range of IP's and changes much less frequently (has to hang up and dial back). Still, the problem, while most dramatic with AOL, is not just AOL. Geogre 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to start a new section as a continuation of this (probably soon to be deleted), but I see you're already discussing it here. To me, AOL/Netscape presents several mysteries, but right now I'd like to ask about one. You say: Two days ago, I had 4 blocks that caught me, and every single one of them was aimed at a named account. If I understand this right, you, attempting to edit as Geogre, were blocked from editing. But that doesn't square with my (mis)understanding of blocks. I'd thought that if your IP number was blocked, any attempt to use it to register the new name of Jiiiogre or whatever would get that name blocked, but that since the username Geogre already existed and wasn't itself blocked, it could be used even via a "blocked" IP. How wrong am I? -- Hoary 10:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Geogre was logged in. Now, some feeb created an account called "I HATE YOU YOU BASTARDS" or something, but he was at AOL. No one is impeded. However, user "I HATE YOU" goes on a rampage. Administratory Hoary, let's say, blocks him indefinitely. The problem is that he was at AOL. He had edited at 12 IP addresses before he was slapped. Those 12 are now detected by the autoblocker as IP's that "were recently used by blocked user I HATE YOU YOU BASTARDS." So, Geogre decides that he has to scold everyone on AN/I, and little does he know that his IP has now rolled onto the one formerly occupied by the vandal. I get the message that I'm blocked as that vandal. I have to unblock that single IP or unblock the vandal. I do the former. So, because browsers don't really, really reload even when you tell them to, or because AOL doesn't really give a new IP with every page load, I'm still at the blocked IP for some mysterious amount of time.

Anyway, the named AOL vandal, if he actually edits usefully for a while before getting blocked, might well have a huge list of IP's that "were recently used," so a souring AOL user can effectively knock out all of AOL.

Does that answer the question?

Lately AOLlers have been told that we require accounts, so the vandals are getting accounts first, so the blocking admin doesn't know he's blocking AOL. I don't blame anyone for that. Geogre 12:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I get the message that I'm blocked as that vandal. And there's the crux. I had't thought that Good User Geogre could be blocked; I'd thought that even if his IP number were associated with blocked vandals, he (if logged in as not-deliberately-blocked Geogre) would be fine.

Actually I can't figure out AOL. For all the talk of fluid IP numbers, this number seems to be systematically used by one family: well-meaning, cautious pops, a particularly repellent teenager (e.g. no other IP is so obsessed with innuendo about Elvis Presley), and his birdbrained little brother. -- Hoary 14:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See, that's the ugliness of the autoblocker. Its intent was to keep BASTARD from getting blocked, logging out (now he's an IP) and creating user:TURDS and then going ape some more. The autoblocker is looking for any IP used by any blocked user and blocking it, no matter what account name is used. The idea is to catch socks, too. Let's say that I use user:Crowbait as well as user:Geogre (I do). Now, let's say that I decide that I want to really start attacking people with Crowbait or changing all references to Twinkies to head louse. (This I would never do, because I am Mr. Responsible Archangel of Deletion and all that, and I would gladly label Crowbait as an explicit sock, if I knew how.) Ok, well, if I were a static IP, Crowbait's block (well deserved) should catch the "responsible" account, too. In other words, it's a push-me-pull-you, because when we stop autoblocking, we open ourselves to dual personality accounts.

I'll take a look at the static fellow. I know that there is AOL High Speed. I suppose it's possible that that's the story there. AOL is confusing for everyone. Generally, for their dialup pool, their servers are constantly on a full range of IP's. However, they don't let their accounts (their users) access the Internet directly. They have the users access AOL's big fuzzy service portal, and the portal accesses the Internet "for" the users. It used to be that AOL users never even saw the Internet. They thought everything they saw was "on AOL," because the big stupid service portal was interpreting everything and rebranding it. Old habits die hard, I guess, because now, even when you're not at AOL, when you're at Netscape, as I was, you're still not accessing the Internet directly: you're accessing Netscape/AOL, which no longer redesigns everything you see but still handles your requests "for you." It's obsolete. It's stupid. It hurts the users. It coddles the lame and perpetuates a fog of ignorance for them, and it plays hell with us. Geogre 14:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked, Geogre. First Giano with his collection of caricature stockings, and now you. Perhaps we should ask the real Slim Bishonen Shady to please stand up.

Anyway, {{User Alternate Acct}} seems the appropriate one - {{sock}} or {{sockpuppet}} less so. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I know. I disappoint myself. So far, I haven't really figured out what to actually do with Crowbait. I may do something like have it take over my religion edits or something. I'm not one for caricatures, generally. In fact, I'm generally sober and humorless in that particular area. Still, I did write one article as Crowbait. I'll go see what I can do about the Alternate Account thing. I assume I do a subst then a colon and then User Alternate Account and then a pipe and then Geogre? Geogre 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bait for crows? Consider adding some strychnine. One morning about three weeks ago, I was buzzed by three of them, and the third actually scraped its claws along the top of my head. It seems that they were unhappy about the recent and inexplicable death of one of their chums: everybody who was walking within a radius of ten metres or so was being buzzed. All this in leafy central Tokyo. (But then again perhaps it's not good to add more strychnine to the food chain.) ¶ Back to AOLscape. Again, it seems I was wrong. The autoblocker is looking for any IP used by any blocked user and blocking it, no matter what account name is used: that contradicts what I'd thought, which was that preexisting account names were untouched. You've also corrected my impression of AOL users: I'd thought that AOL worked (simply or perhaps even unavoidably) as a giant though no doubt porous filter of "family-unsuitable" sites, so that it appealed to parents concerned that their kids should not see people's wobbly bits. As a result, AOL was disproportionately used by kids -- and not just normal kids, but deprived pimply males, callously denied the simple masculine pleasures of one-handed websurfing. No wonder they express their frustrations at Wikipedia. -- Hoary 22:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the better answers I've ever gotten, Hoary -- both parts. AOL appeals to the clueless, and that means parents and very young younguns, because it has big, shiny bits of tinsel over its welcoming portal and because it offers "exclusive access" to Ashlee's scrapbook and Britney's baby bump and hot new gossip about rap stars buying expensive items at inflated prices. It also offers the original Net nanny, which took out nobby bits prejudicially. For example, it blocked Planned Parenthood but didn't block Operation Rescue. (Peacefire.org has a big expose on their political agenda.) So, you have people who "don't really understand computers" thinking that "it's on AOL," when it's on the Internet and simply mangled by AOL, and you have the very young still looking up "fart" in the dictionary, and they come stumbling through the unmanaged doorway that is AOL. Mind you, AOL keeps them ignorant, because ignorance is how they make their money and because not making people feel dumb is their entire raison d'etre. So they don't want their users to know what IP's are. They don't want their users to have to report to an IP portal. They want their users to "dial into AOL, and that's, like, the Web and stuff."

Sexual frustration is part of the vandalism, no doubt, but there aren't enough hours in the day or "elbow grease" in the world for a teenager to not be sexually frustrated. This is probably why tranquilizers should be introduced into school water fountains. Both sexes could benefit, and the world could rest more easily knowing that all that spermatozoic energy wasn't seeking a release in explosions and fires and wars.

I think crows have a tendency to eat carrion, as well as to be the smartest of all birds. They're very smart. Around where I am, though, we have to worry about mocking birds (Northern Mockingbird). They nest low, and they're aggressive. Innocent people will be walking along and find claw marks on their scalps and their Red Man trucker caps on the ground because they inadvertently walked near a mocking bird's nest. They're neat critters when they're singing and imitating car alarms and chain saws, but their other call is a hoarse croaking screech, and they are so un-shy that they ignore people who are 2 m away (unless they're in the mood to attack). It's Tippy Heddron time every spring around here. Geogre 02:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL also appeals to people with Time Warner City Cable because even though it sucks, it does save a load of money off of your cable/DSL bill, as opposed to keeping both seperate, which costs more, rather than less--152.163.100.71 02:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why I was at "AOL": money. My poison was Netscape ISP for $10/month. AOL broadband is trying for all sorts of tie-ins, so we may see more people with actual TCP/IP knowledge stuck in the "AOLamer" category. That's why I keep scolding people about making such assumptions. It's true that 95% of the AOL users we're going to see are a bit net naive, but 5% are going to be actually quite savvy. Geogre 02:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

your ISP

ya know, you don't have to use netscape. PeoplePC is a dialup that is earthlink's cheap arm, and it's $11/month. I've never got autoblocked on PeoplePC. Use FF with it, and it assigns you a different IP each session, rather than page load. ~Chris ^{(squirrels!!)} 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I did just change ISP's. I'm now on broadband and using a Bell system ISP. Not only do I see speed improvements (naturally), but I no longer deal with AOL blocks. However, most of my scolding remains good: people need to have a choice before we can blame them (and that will be true for people in rural areas who may only have actual AOL or nothing), and we really shouldn't be targeting that ISP. Geogre 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Neck Red Link!

Anyone want to write an article on Red Man Chewing Tobacco? I tried to link to it with Red Man, above, but that's a redirect to a rap 'artist.' It's the #1 type of chewing tobacco in the US, and it is synonymous with chewing tobacco itself in the US, so it surely should have an article. I'm just not really in the mood to research it. Geogre 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed an ancient void. The article Peachoid had no photo. I kept waiting for a Charlotte, NC based Wikipedian or helpful anon to add a good photo of the thing. I waited. I waited a year. Now, I knew I had a photo of it, but it was an ugly photo taken through a car windshield at 60 mph. No way did I want to put that up. There has to be better, right? Well, I've uploaded the photo now. It's hideous, but it's there. Maybe the eventualists are right, and the presence of a bad photo will inspire someone to take a GFDL good photo. Check back in a year. Geogre 11:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Chewing tobacco? Ugh. Anyway, how do you fancy a Tudor lawyer, medical author, and translator of the Aeneid? Thomas Phaire. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you "ugh" at me, young man! We have articles on foot fungi, poisonous frogs, and Pokemen, and all of those are more disgusting than mere chaw! As for Phere/Phaire, I have heard the name. For a Tudor, that's quite something, as blinkered as I am. Indeed, I shall add him to my PDA of prestige for the next lieberry trip. Geogre 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Young man", is it? You do me a kindness, sirrah. I got to him via my usual stream of consciousness - obituary → June Lloyd, Baroness Lloyd of Highbury → Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health → Thomas Phaire. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a good looking article there now, though! You were just fishing, weren't you? Now, I can put you down for writing the Red Man article? Think about it: it's a sure fire DYK, if not a featured article! Geogre 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

TP: fishing? No, I just wrote him up from the external links. I think he would benefit from some proper scholarship (hint hint) particularly as you say you have heard of him. I boldly (and baldly) admit that I had not until a couple of days ago.

RMCT: sorry, even the Pierian fountain has its limits. In any event, there seems to be a dearth of easily accessible knowledge on Red Man. It seems to be a Swedish Match brand, though, [5] so presumably the usual Scanandinavian suspects will be willing to help. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that is high-larious! Red Man is a Swedish brand (now). I have a strong feeling that it wasn't one in 1904. Then again.... If it began in midwestern states, that's where the Scanska folska went, and they may have taken their nasty habits with them. It's absolutely ubiquitous among the agricultural sorts in the US south. The name, which they modestly suggest might have been picked to honor the Native American, has made it a natural fit for the suggestion that the man using it is a red neck. Geogre 22:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of with ALoan on this one; the only thing I've turned up on Red Man that's worth repeating is that sometime around the turn of the century, they had ads on the sides of barns, featuring baseball great Nap Lajoie: "Lajoie chews Red Man, ask him if he don't." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, because that suggests that it wasn't a Swedish brand then. I'm absolutely sure that this is a native (pardon the pun) brand. That level of cultural insensitivity is c. 1900 American in spades. The choice of tag line suggests, again, an embracing of the hoi poloi and the marketing trend that we all know: picking on baseball players and farm types. Chewing tobacco is much more likely for farm work, anyway. Around 1900, women thought a man chewing tobacco was fine, but smoking was dis-gusting. Having grotesque smoke coming out of your face? Ick! A dignified enjoyment of tobacco in the mouth...well, men do that. Ladies (not women, but ladies) also took snuff and dipped it. There must be better sources than any we've found (and I found stuff like ALoan did), but I can understand the reluctance of the web to discuss it. Geogre 03:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't Swedish until 1985. [6] It's a Pinkerton Tobacco company brand. Pinkerton is apparently still operational in Owensboro, Kentucky (though like a great number of American comapanies it in incorporated in Delaware). In '85, Pinkerton was acquired by the Swedish Svenska Tobaks AB, whose parent company, Procordia AB, would acquire and rename itself to Swedish Match -- formerly just a lighter and match business -- in 1992. Procordia is or was owned by Volvo and the Swedish state. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So, um, Grapes, why haven't you written the Red Man article yet? :-) It's begging to be written, and I'm a former customer of the company, so I could be accused of writing a vanity article. Geogre 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK, done. It could use a picture. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This week, I'll take a picture of a pouch. I could possibly get a picture of a person using it, but that's probably a bit excessive. The old Walt Garrison commercials were for Skoal. Perhaps a picture of that baseball player, as I'm sure any are out of copyright by now. Geogre 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. In my persuit of that idea, I've come acros something unpleasantly putting the question to the veracity of my "Lajoie chews Red Man, ask him if he don't" source: [7]. Sure, he could have endorsed both... but with the same slogan? Erk. In any case a picture of a pouch would be ideal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, boy. No, that looks like Red Devil, alright. Red Devil, according to the Swedish Match link, was another Pinkerton Brand. Nunberg (whom I never trust very far on "Fresh Airrrrrrr") could have been in error, or you may have misread, or the link could have soured, or he could well have chewed Red Devil and then, when that company came under the Pinkerton umbrella, been switched over to their more popular Red Man brand. In other words, the slogan belonged to the company, not the dude, and both brands were theirs. Geogre 02:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't misread -- Online excerpt -- leaving error or the old switcheroo, which certainly is a lot more believable once you know they're both Pinkerton. At the moment, I'm content to leave Nunberg as the most reliable source yet to turn up on that topic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to believe you than Nunberg any day. (He's ok. He's... ok. He's just very, very hasty in getting to his generalizations and sometimes ... hasty. When I hear his commentaries, I can usually think of 20-30 steps of argument that he's missing to get to his juicy conclusion -- the conclusion that drove the inquiry, and any time the conclusion drives the inquiry and not derives from the inquiry, you're bound to trample the inconvenient along the way.) I think switcheroo is most logical anyway. Baseball players weren't afforded many rights of representation in 1904, and one doubts the player got more than a case of chew for his endorsement anyway. Geogre 02:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so now you have to figure out what the best DYK blurb from the article would be. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Now here's challenge. Work the quote from Hitler into the article: he said tobacco was "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK?

...that Red Man, one of the leading brands of chewing tobacco (now owned by Swedish Match), has been especially successful in marketing itself with rural sporting events?

How's that? I'll have to get that photo today so that we can beat the 72 hr deadline. It shouldn't be a problem, as I merely have to wait for my nicotine pushers to be open. I'll swing by there on my way to church. I don't think working the Hitler quote in is a good idea, because it's actually not his quote. The idea that tobacco was the Red Man's vengeance is older and newer than him. Heck, Robin Williams used to have a standard joke, where he quoted an Indian chief as saying that cocaine was "our gift to the white man for what you did to us." The whole of it is silly, as southeastern tribes were chewing tobacco themselves and making cigars. Geogre 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and the White Man was drinking hard liquor; presumably those who spout this quote think that, just as liquor was more detrimental to the unhabituated native, so it was with tobacco and the European. (Hey, look, that sentence is one of those things that change syntax in the middle. What are they called again? I read the article and now I can't remember.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anacoluthon? It's that or zeugma. Geogre 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anacoluthon was what I was thinking of - thanks!. Oh, and your DYK blurb seems fine. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so now I'm going to sign it as you, man. It's your article, dude. That's unethical, isn't it? Well, it has two photos, and I want the credit to go to you anyhow. It's done, so far as I can tell, and the deadlines for DYK are very short. Fine, I'll flag you. Geogre 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the article is beautiful! does this mean you have free time now? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

On the weekend, yes. Life is about to get hairy. Or were you talking to Grapes? I feel guilty as sin that I haven't written an article in ages. It's fine to vote here and there and opine someplace else, but I need to be writing articles. (I'm eaching-tay 5 days a week 2hr with a high demand youngsters and then one night a week for four hours.) Geogre 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd love to have both of you take a look at British Isles, which has become bogged down in an "The Irish don't like this term but we have no sources for that" war, and the article itself is a mess. I know you two are among the absolute best at sourcing and writing, and could turn that article into an FA in simply no time at all! Bish is busy burning London, or I'd pester her too. (is the flattery working? Its honest, at least.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorically, the answer to the "the Irish don't like it" argument is that liking isn't the issue. We have to find out where articles will be sought, not where they "really should" be. Essentially, the identity politics approach to naming will mean that the priest and his friend who want all references to "Roman Catholic" changed to "catholic" would have their way, with resulting confusion, that there would be no way to discuss Gdansk/Danzig, that all of former Yugoslavia would be duplicated or triplicated, that all Reformation and counter-Reformation figures will be in parallel, etc. The best thing we can do in controversial matters like that is to follow the lead of print references, because our users will have their expectations shaped by those print references. Geogre 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank goodness we don't have the kind of Roman Catholic -> Catholic warring, its just the content of the article - it is strongly desired that a mention (or several hundred) be made about how this term bothers the Irish, which has drowned any other aspect of what the article might be edited to contain. If that made sense... I have a low grade fever today, if I made no sense I offer apologies and promise to make sense of it later. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit from my RfA

Your comment: Oppose without any bias at all toward the user. My feeling is that time and activity are most important in laying out the sort of tracks that we need to see how the user will respond under stress and duress. Time without edits is meaningless, as are edits without time (sort of like faith and deeds, I guess). Becaue demotion from the ranks is a big deal, promotion to the ranks requires more caution than I would like. I look forward to future support. Geogre 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I so wanted to reply, #:How I react to stress? Well, I haven't withdrawn yet (either from RfA or into little sobbing ball) so I figure I'm handling it okay so far. :D ~~~~ to that. Just had to drop you a line and say thanks for the opinion, oppose or not. :D Have a great day! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are good points, alright, and I've seen people who have been on the project for a year do both during their RFA's. In fact, I saw one who went into a fetal ball and began cursing Tampa, Florida, Jimbo Wales, and every editor of Wikipedia...at the same time. Hang in there, and keep the chin up (gives everyone a better target). Geogre 11:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Geogre, when I saw the photo, I realized I had seen it before, I'd forgotten. Great portrait of the both of them. Got any more recent pics? Bishonen | talk 11:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC).

I do, but now I've got to figure out where. There is a curse of PC's running Microsoft, in that there are about 40 "My Pictures" directories, and every application assumes a different one for a default, and then I prefer not to put anything in a default directory, where viruses will be hard coded to search. I.e. I've got a mess. Geogre 11:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Redneck inspiration

You have seen the Redneck video, right? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't...unless looking out my windows at work counts. I suppose that's not video, though. One of the most popular restaurants around here is in the back of the Gun & Bow shop, which is across from the Sons of the Confederacy double-wide trailer. I still want to take a picture of that place (the double-wide with its "every Confederate flag through the ages" display outside). Geogre 02:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh... my... very Stranger in a Strange Land, please don't try the ending. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've forgotten the ending! He didn't reform them, did he? (I never could enjoy Heinlein much. There was such a fixation on transsexualism in all his works that it just seemed embarrassing.) Geogre 12:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

He's murdered by a mob; shades of self-sacrifice, the archangel Michael, and Christ; the people he is trying to enlighten stone, shoot, and rip him apart. In short, his attempt to share was not well received. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(You know, not that I'm not a red blooded nerd who's had the usual, "If I was a chick, I'd stay home all day" teen thoughts, but I always feel, with Heinlein, that I'm reading someone's Freudian slips and dream diary when he gets on the subject of sex. It's like he didn't know any actual women that he could talk to frankly, or that he, getting the answers, couldn't stop thinking of it. That's why it's embarrassing. At a certain point, a mature man ought to grow out of the idea that one sex has it better than another or that one is "so kewel." Being alive is messy, and being separated into sexes makes the mess multiply, mentally and physically. Beyond that, wishing it weren't so is just of limited utility.) Also, he had such...naive...ideas. He's more dated than other science fiction authors (well, except maybe Farmer or Carter). (Oh, and does this constitute talk page commentary that should be stricken for being polemical? These days, one can never tell.) Geogre 14:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it dated? I always thought it more immature. That always annoyed the crap out of me as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See, I'd have thought so, too, except that I read a second one, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I think, or ... oh, shoot. It was written after his stroke, though, and it was more obsessive and naive than Stranger. He was an old man, by that point. He's dated, I think, because he has the sort of patriotic love of guts and blood that only a certain person from the WW2 generation could have, and he has lots of antagonistic stuff that just lapses with the culture. In fact, things like Starship Troopers, which is immature, probably lose their resonance the moment a boy gets to 16. Geogre 14:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ah. That's right! I had forgotten. When I read it, I was still a fundamentalist, so I recall being somewhat pissed off by it and thinking less of my natural allies, the hippies. I think I read it at the same time I read Transcendental Meditation, which was when all that junk was new...around 1975. (No, I will not watch the TM page, Bishonen.) Geogre 14:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I give up. How are fundamentalists and hippies natural allies? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

They're not, on the surface, but we were both Utopian. We both believed in a perfectibility or amelioration in isolation and small communities, and I was already swinging over to becoming a very liberal fundamentalist. It wasn't until 1980 that "fundamentalist" and "liberal" were announced by Falwell to be complete antonyms. I know it seems impossible to believe now, but the highly religious used to be highly ranked among the most liberal. I was also losing the fundamentalism rapidly as I read more on theology and sought a church that I could live in, and not one that gave me a choice of spiritual suicide or cult of personality. (Ok, now that is polemical.) Geogre 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My deletion of Shem booth

hi there Geogre. Due to the fact that nobody notified of the commentary at WP:ANI on my deletion of this article, I managed to miss the post as the headline didn't mention me specifically - I was unable to respond to the claims of the user before it went dead. There is a long response I posted to the user in question on my own page - but in short, the claim to notability that was present in his autobio was that he was a PhD student. AFAIK, I have seen random PhD students speedily deleted before and so, I wrote that comment in the deletion summary to make clearer the a7 reasoning. As for his claims that I had many angry messages about my deletions, well that is true, but they were about expired prods and a repost of Kai Wong, so I had to reiterate that I have not being roguely deleting stuff, just in case me might have misled anyone. Thankyou, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think you guys would just fall for it, but it pays to be safe. Thanks again, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, don't sweat it. Just some guy going to AN/I instead of regular procedure. The fact that he went there first suggests familiarity with the site and, almost surely, a history of speedy deletes. After all, it's not like AN/I is a newbie's first thought when the article on himself is gone. Geogre 03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Flay & Kirsten Dunst

Sorry to bother you with trivial matters, but there is some dude's myspace page link on Dunst's article. There is also a discussion page but no article for dude @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Flay

Not real proficient at this stuff, but I thought you might want to spend a minute to clean it (if you think it is waranted). Thanks for your time. Chris --68.35.130.160 07:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, either someone saw your message on my talk page, or someone saw it in the Recent Pages page, because it appears that the link has been reverted. I'm glad it's taken care of, and you did it the right way. Geogre 11:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

WW

Roses are red; Doves are white... -- ALoan (Talk) 13:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic! Great work, of course, and solid articles, of course, and two enormous red links have turned their proper color, with two cultural landmarks taking their natural places in Wikipedia. Wonderful. Geogre 13:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'd never heard of "Rose Cottage," but it sounds like "fertilizing the roses." British MD's are no more immune to graveyard humor than American ones are. I have a friend who's a Scottish MD, and he told me some of the references there. If anything, they're more grisly than the American equivalents. Geogre 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm - "solid" or "stolid"? I am not entirely happy with mine - the websites are a bit thin; someone with a guidebook could do miles better - but the chewing tobacco is excellent... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're not gaseous or nebulous. There are always things to improve, and there is room, of course, to add material on the walks and such, the nearby locations, etc. However, I think it does a good job of providing the context and establishing why this house is on the tourist maps. Geogre 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words: I am relying on someone who actually knows something about the walks and the poetry to help :) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot about the poetry, but I haven't a clue which ones he wrote while there, and I don't feel like talking about the poetry. It's just not my bag. I larnt it all in skool, and it's still in my haid somewheres, but I just ain't studying it. Let's wait for the informed and motivated. Geogre 19:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

BGA

Do you think Dürer's Rhinoceros would like chewing tobacco? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Great article! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - additions on its importance in the history of art, science and naturalism are welcome. Just wait until I get to Chunee, the furious and noble elephant riddled by 152 musket shorts at Exeter Change in 1826 and then killed by harpoon. And all because of toothache.[8][9][10] -- ALoan (Talk) 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kickass, ALoan! You do a great job of pulling together multiple sources for a coherent account. There is a semi-interesting (depending on your level of patience) novel that uses Durer's print for its cover illustration and is about the voyage of that very rhinosceros and its fate, by Lawrence Norfolk, called The Pope's Rhinosceros. I can find Bestiary and Physiologus accounts, I think, of the rhinosceros and its allegorical meaning. (It's not nice, I think.) Geogre 16:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks: a section beginning "and in unpopular culture..." :) But I suppose it could be worse - The Rhinoceros - shudder...

For some reason we have a list of historical elephants but not a list of historical rhinoceroses, unlike French Wikipedia: fr:Rhinocéros célèbres en Europe. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For Norfolk, that would be "in elitist culture," as his books have attracted pleasure-reading high brows. I'm not sure if my brow is too high or too low, but I found his glibness annoying and the utter diffusion of the ending in Lempriere's Dictionary to be a cop-out. They're pleasant books, full of interesting historical background, but then the gamesmanship in them can get a bit stuffy. (A list of famous rhinosceroi? Hmm. Well, there's...uh...and, uh.... I mean Dumbo and Jumbo are easy, and Stampy the elephant, but rhinos? I can't think of one with a name.) Geogre 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean, in addition to Dürer's Rhinoceros? The French article tells of the rhinoceroses of Ptolemy Philadelphus, of Artemidorus, of Pompey, of Octavian and of Augustus (typical), of Domitian, Antoninus Pius, Commodus, Caracalla, Elagabalus, and Philip the Arab. The Romans having put all of their rhinos into the amphitheatre, and then Declined and Fallen, there is a gap of over 1000 years to Dürer, then one in Spain, two in London, the wonderful Clara the rhinoceros, who won international fame on a veritable Grand Tour in the 1740s and 1750s, and finally Louis XV. After than, rhinoceroses are two a penny. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've sullied the article with some Eco, speaking of "elitist culture". I think this topic is just right for an FA, actually. It seems like a very rich vein. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's strange, as I was just thinking the same thing, sort of. I couldn't figure out whether or not anyone could investigate more deeply without going to more difficult sources, like Eco, and so whether or not it was a good FA subject. It's well above the usual DYK -- even the ones that ALoan and you have done recently -- and "Good Article" just doesn't mean much, IMO. Geogre 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have linked a chapter from a French PhD thesis on rhinos and unicorns. And the British Museum refers to several proper books. There is a recent book on The Pope's Elephant which mentions the rhino too. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If we did want to FA it, there would be: 1) context of Durer's life, 2) political meaning of the donations, 3) bestiary significations, 4) classical references that would have colored Durer's representation, 5) what it meant for a German (part of the Holy Roman Empire at the time, I think). Geogre 02:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Chunee is blue now. Fascinating connection with Edmund Kean and the Theatres Royal (Harlequin and Padmanaba!). His brutal execution in March 1826 was a cause celebre. The London Zoological Society was formed in April 1826. Coincidence? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and there is another connection to spectacle, Colley Cibber, and Augustan drama -- both places where spectacle plays are discussed. The idea of putting outlandish things on stage goes way back, and it really drew the crowds. Afterward, they couldn't remember the play, but they'd seen an elephant on stage! Poor Chunee. It reminds one of George Orwell's Shooting an Elephant, where the barbarism is the point. Geogre 14:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Could there be an Orwell connection to Chunee? That would be really interesing. Anyway, Clara the rhinoceros also now exists. These animals are fascinating. A few rhinos came to London too, but they all died relatively quickly. But there is Hansken the elephant who performed tricks in the 1640s - see this print. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that there's a connection, although there really shouldn't be. I never know what to make of his Burmese essays. They're true, but they're not. He presents them as true, but there are things people have proven he didn't do, and then there are things they've proven he did do. With that half-in/half-out status, it's possible that the story was literary and therefore playing on the cultural memory, and it's possible that it really happened to him. His story about witnessing a hanging is one, I think, they've proven he exaggerated his role in, and the elephant I think they've established didn't happen on record. I wouldn't, therefore, venture a real guess. I would imagine that the climate of London wasn't very good for the rhino, and this is in addition to the hazards of shipping (injury, I mean) and rhinos not being very good at healing from injured joints. The British must have had an elephant in the 1690's, given the references to them in Cibber about the battle of spectacles with Rich. (He forebore bringing an elephant on stage because the boards would collapse, I think. Bish knows the story better than I.) Geogre 18:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For whatever reason, elephants were actually quite a bit less exotic than rhinos in the 1500-1700s. I think I read that Manuel I of Portugal had his choice among a number of elephants in his menagerie to fight Dürer's rhino. The known data on elephants was better too; in addition to Dürer's darned armor plating, there also seemed to be a rampant misconception regarding the rhino's size, often said to be on the same order as the elephant. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are not the same size, but they are of the same order (i.e. pretty damned big - bigger than a cow or a horse). The big grey animals in Europe in the mediaeval and later periods mostly came from India rather than Africa, and Asian elephants are smaller than African ones (ditto rhinos, actually, I believe). And they were hidebound by the classical authors, who were familiar with the now-extinct elephants from North Africa (the ones used, for example, by Hannibal) that were roughly the same size as the Asian ones. Elephants were around much earlier and were more common - see History of elephants in Europe (the redlinked History of rhinoceroses in Europe is on my redlink list, to be translated from the French). -- ALoan (Talk) 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"For whatever reason?" Grapes, imagine coaxing a rhino to get on the pretty ship with you. Elephants are domesticated. "On the ship, Jumbo," and Jumbo goes. "On the ship, Rhiny," and Rhiny can't see the ship and so charges like a freight train. I'm more surprised at ALoan's assertion that a tame rhino was out there. How tame do they get? Geogre 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, true. Not having elephants nor rhinos around the house much, I have a lazy tendency to forget how malleable and pleasant a guest an elephant can be. As far as Clara the rhino goes, she was "tame as a lamb, because it was only one month old when it was caught after its mother was killed with arrows by the black Indians. When the animal was very young, it walked around a dining room, even when ladies and gentlemen were eating, as a curiousity." At least if you believe the contemporary document quoted in Clara's Grand Tour 60. As for getting a Rhino aboard ship, why, Jack Aubrey's crew had no real trouble winching one aboard in The Ionian Mission. (Yes, yes: wrong era.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Was The Ionion Mission set on a ship called Ionion (I-onion? 1 onion?) or set in Greece (in which case, what was a rhino doing there)?

Greece, yes, and the details escape me, beyond that they were delivering it as a political present to a Pasha of some Ottoman area in the vicinity. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a copy of Ms Ridley's opus, perchance? Clara the rhinoceros would be very happy to recieve contributions :) Clara was housetrained in the Indies, it seems: her party trick was to come into the house, avoiding the furniture, and eat from a dinner plate on the host's table. Rather him than me! -- ALoan (Talk) 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Heck no, just my usual google books mischief. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, next to the 11th-century war elephant piccie in History of elephants in Europe Dührer's rhino is photographic realism! "Coaxes rhinos" | talk 23:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC).

TTJ

I’m patiently waiting! Not losing the hope.

Bloger 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Bloger. Have faith in the article, if not in me. I shall give it the old college try. (My old college didn't try very hard, I'm afraid.) Geogre 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I finally got to it. Sorry it took me so long. I hope it's a mitzvah and not an utzing. Geogre 12:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

RAH

Means, "random acronym header" because that seems to be a trend on this page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

TTJ = True Torah Jews, if I recall correctly. WW... no idea. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

William Wordsworth, of course! Remember: W is bad. WW is ok. WWW is necessary for advertising to continue. Geogre 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mine has two advantages over the others: I explained it, and it can also be used as a cheer. Double duty!!! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've decided to hold out three fingers (the way we Americans do) and point them down, as if making a "down with W" symbol. It could, of course, be an M symbol. So far, the people with the Ralph Reed for Lt. Governor posters haven't followed my lead. Geogre 02:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your view in my recent RfA

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I paid attention during my RfA and hope that nobody ever feels an urge to use it, but I've placed myself as "open to recall" and hope that you and the other users on Wikipedia will help me make up for any experience gap. Wish me luck, okay? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Good luck, and may your camel never be visited by the fleas of a troll...or something like that. Geogre 11:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Schools

So I was reading your essay on your userpage concerning schools--very interesting and inventive, especially the section in which you propose that a school (subject) must have a unique effect on the student (object). I must disagree, however.

For one, all high schools probably do have some sort of unique effect on the student, given the thousands of variables in terms of aesthetics, teachers, size, construction, etc. I realize that after reading 1000 articles on high schools they all sound the same, but undoubtedly they have some quite unique dynamics that make them worthy of their own articles.

I'll propose an anomoly to your theory--let me know what you think.

Two very large football stadiums, built using the same blueprint are constructed. Since they are essentially the same, and the only variable differing the effect on the spectator (object) is the ever-changing population inside, does this mean that each of these stadiums does not deserve an article? Or are they notable because of the effect, whatever it is, they have on the object. AdamBiswanger1 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to reject your analogy. The construction project necessary for the stadium will be significant, and the economic shadow will be enormous, and the identity lent to a region by it is going to be astonishing. Further, the stadium will have an identity that cannot be confused with any other stadium, since a stadium is not architecture, but rather events. It will be known outside of its home town, outside of its state, probably, outside of its region, most likely. We write only to serve our readers, not to satisfy the "scribbling itch" of our authors, and people from Ireland may well want to know what the heck Sanford Stadium is. I doubt very, very much that they will be as likely to wonder what P.S. 141 is.

When I say that a school needs a "unique" effect, I mean that it has to be a uniformly and essentially identifiable effect, an effect that isn't duplicated by a nearby school. The very heterogeneity of the effects that a school will have on students, the very idosyncracy involved, means that one can't really speak of "The Jefferson High Experience," because that experience is gloom and abuse for one student, joy and celebration for another, indifference and ignorance in another. When a school has a curriculum, set of behaviors, and set of traditions that it not only different from others, but also uniform, there is a good chance that the school will be identifiable and unmistakeable. This is one reason that prep schools have a better chance. The Hill School picks a type of student, has a particular set of opportunities, etc. It may pride itself on making a Hill School Student. Because public schools are forced to uniform curricula by their state authorities in the US, because their practices are circumscribed by regulation, they're simply not very different from one another pedagogically.

If a particular public school is marked by a singular event (e.g. Columbine High School), it is notable. If it does something unique and revolutionary, it becomes notable.

My contrary analogy would be a Burger King restaurant. For several places, it will be a local hangout for the kids, have a regular set of characters, be meaningful for those who go to it, but because it is forced to conform to a menu, and because its function will be so individual as to be diffuse, we can't really say "every franchise needs an article." I really don't mean that sarcastically: I'm trying to suggest that there really needs to be some identity, some particularity (other than street address) that makes it a single thing to discuss. Geogre 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a number of responses, and I'm not sure to begin, so this may sound like more of a disjointed set of rebuttals. To speak a moment on my "stadium" analogy, I suppose that the "heterogeneity of the effects that a school will have on students" would be analogous to the response to a homerun by spectators supporting the home team, the away team, and those utterly indifferent--and yet the sheer mass of the stadium, and the various experiences felt by all present give it inherent notability- even aside from the economics and regional identity created by such a structure.

One of the reasons I think so many people dislike articles on secondary schools is their sheer number. After a while, one begins to simplify and generalize as to the character of the school, and it becomes "just another high school", just as to a full-time alcohol education lecturer, each university is "just another campus", or to a traveller, each passing home is "just another house".

Of course P.S. 141 is not very likely to be searched, but I suppose the same to be true for one of my articles Antoine Froment-- yet both are attempts at including all appropriate knowledge in our encyclopedia, regardless of the expected webtraffic.

There are many articles concerning institutions or organizations that conform to specific rules and guidelines, and the only variable is the population itself or the building in which they are housed (or perhaps something more abstract). Take Merrill Lynch, a publicly traded company that is entirely subservient to the SEC and NASD, but which has internal quirks and operations that make it distinctive from, say, Raymond James. Also, knowing what little I do about the public school system, I know that there is a curriculum director for every school district in Pennsylvania (where I live), and schools have some degree of freedom in choosing curriculum. Some even have classes on guitar-playing, etc.

I, personally, disagree with your axiom, though I respect you and respect the rule itself, and I certainly encourage attempts at new policy (it's one of my personal hobbies, also). So, having moved on from that, it degenerates into the same old question of notability without all of the high-falutin' discourse. Burger King? not notable. Identicle stadiums? notable. A high school? maybe...

By the way, excuse me if I sounded rude in the course of trying to sound academic ; ). AdamBiswanger1 20:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I will not excuse you, because there is no offense to forgive. Indeed, I was worried that I was the one sounding brusque. I re-read my reply a few times and kept thinking that I sounded high handed, when I was merely trying to be precise. Yours is entirely considerate.

I still don't agree with you, of course. For me, I see another distinction in genre vs. species in an article on Merrill or Ernst and Young. Our articles shy away from discussing a particular office and concentrate instead on the industry brand as a whole and what makes that one different from the others. In fact, to some degree all encyclopedia articles are summaries of difference rather than identity. Each article is seeking to answer, "How is this person unlike all others" or "How is this company unlike all other companies?" To do that, the company or person has to do or be something that sets it far enough apart from the others that there are enough differences for discussion. If he is just like the next guy with a blog, then he doesn't need an article. If he has run for city council, like tens of thousands this year and the additional tens of thousands for each previous year in history, then he does not need an article. If he has climbed a skyscraper in his underwear (and been seen doing it), he might need an article. If he split a train with his nose (like Ron Obvious in the Monty Python skit), then he needs an article stat.

As far as a public school can separate itself from the others by doing something that is not only unique but identifiable and consistent enough that we can see it and remark upon it, it is a thing that requires explanation and expansion in an encyclopedia. To the degree that it blends into the landscape of the state, to that degree it is merely an item in a Yellow Pages list.

I, personally, have generally taken the position that some schools need articles, most don't, because some of any institution (genus: public school; species: school in this state; race: school in this city; individual: this school) is identifiably and discursively unique, while most is the background against which that uniqueness is noticed. What drove me nuts, though, was any absolutism. "All schools in" made no sense to me. "All schools out" could only make sense if we were going to try to stop the agony of the argument by making a self-acknowledged unfair statement. (It would be like an amusement park saying "No one under 5' of height may ride the rollercoaster": they know that there are exceptions, but they're making the rule so that they won't have an argument with the guy at the turnstile.)

I write a good many articles on deeply obscure figures, myself. I hope that I find something that gives them a difference, however. Someone like Giles Mompesson is unknown to most of us, but his life was quite unusual. On the other hand, I have this awful nobleman...Lord Bargany...and he's just dull. If his page were to go to AfD, I wouldn't be able to argue very well that he had intrinsic worth. I'd have to argue that the article is worthwhile as part of a context of a border war and the aftermath of the English Civil War and Restoration -- that the article is worthwhile because it sheds light on another subject that is of greater interest to the world at large.

At any rate, I enjoy the conversation and the attempt to reach understanding. I have never doubted that the "inclusionist" groups want the best for the project, although they and I disagree about what the best is. (Incidentally, I don't think there's any such thing as a "deletionist." No one is against articles. The question is where we set our bar. Some set it very high, some very low, but everyone, I hope, has an exclude as well as include.) Geogre 02:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The WP:FAR monster

I've FAR'd a literary article—one that's been chosen to represent the best of the best in Wikipedia:Version 0.5, yet. I've been putting it off — I wanted to complain at Version 0.5, but then I figgered it needed to go to FAR first. Which is a page I don't really want to frequent, I'm not happy about the requirement (yes, it's absolutely required) to say what criteria are being violated. Or about past experiences. Well, I've given it one more try, if I get flamed for poking my nose where it's not wanted, so be it. Anyway, I feel like a monster, tearing down somebody's work. :-( Bishonen | talk 16:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

You're tearing nothing down. You're simply reclassifying it. None of the work will be harmed in any way. Instead, a future (RSN, really, RSN) release of the pedia will be protected. Geogre 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Talking of perpetual stubs ...

I'm interested in your opinion of Butterface (AfD discussion). Uncle G 19:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, Lord, not that! Ok, I'll check, but it looked like a hurtin' for all involved. Geogre 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion

Hi, i was just wondering if u have to be an administrator to comment on articles entries for deletion? Most people who comment are administrators when i click on their user pages. Im getting quite confused, your user page said u might be able to help. Thanks (Neostinker 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

AfD is for any regular user. If your account is very new or you have been the creator of an article up for deletion, your vote might be ignored by the closing administrator. Otherwise, anyone is welcome to comment, but be aware the the question is not "Is it a good article," but "Are the deletion guidelines violated?" There is a link to the deletion guidelines on the page. Take a look at them. Geogre 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, for that. ill take a look at the deletion guidelines. Thanks very much for your help !! (Neostinker 09:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

Klippan sofa AFD

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klippan (sofa), you said you wanted to see more references and mentions of importance. I've added links to a couple of newspaper stories detailing the history of the Klippan. You might want to have a look. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• It was almost at the tipping point to keep, after Uncle G's edits. It wouldn't take much to push it over the edge. (I still think the Billy is the only furniture item we need an article on.) Geogre 03:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Inclusionist! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• You TAKE THAT BACK or I'll block you indefinitely for personal attacks!!!!1! Geogre 17:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Aphra Behn

re:that guy's obnoxious comment: actually, the IP resolves to Cherry Hill, which is near both Princeton University and Rutgers University. Mak (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and it resolves also to a number of unassociated folks. I went to C18-L, where I have been a member for years before moving and disconnecting with it as irrelevant to me, and I went to search through their archive. Most of the talk there is sneering in that professionally obligatory way, but most of the sneering came from people who hadn't actually *used* Wikipedia, and the original post came from someone who was using Wikipedia and finding it good. They were thinking that it's not "a sure thing." Well, since we say it's not a sure thing on every page, that's a nil article. As for the people at Princeton, I know who they are. There is one there I respect, but he's a legendary t*rd as a person. If he wants to sniff the air at us, that's fine, as he does the same thing to every assistant professor ever born or hired, except himself. The point is that I can't imagine what the hell that comment is supposed to actually accomplish. It's not too moronic for the people on C18-L, though. It is, in fact, the exactly correct amount of self sanctification for them. Geogre 22:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

don't hold back, Geogre[11] - if you try I am certain you can compose a truly scathing rejoinder. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a crappy day, and I'm in no mood for university p*ssing contests. Geogre 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You do realize I am admiring your expert disembowelment, surely? My sarcasm was meant to be gentle and in awe. (I want to say awe-ful, as in the old meaning, I cannot find a word which suits.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I don't normally uncork like that, but I'm really irritable when it comes to the subject of professor games right now, so that guy wanting to poke us with a stick was enough for me to loose the thunderbolts from the quiver. I'm not usually that mean. He had it coming, though. I'm in one of those moods where, if I don't close the browser, I'm going to go back and do a set of "and another thing, let me tell you what I think of your clothes" sections. Very unbecoming to soil one's shoes with troll intestines. Geogre 22:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and if it's from Rutgers, there is a person there whose book I read and laughed throughout. It was full of errors of reasoning and research. We'll have to see if it's him or not, though. I really think, most of all, that it's just a random troll. After all, a real member of the listserv would say which listserv it is. If it's the Behn listserver, then I have no concerns at all. The Aphra Behn Society is just about the most useless organization on earth. They are a source of error and hilarity at every conference they organize. Geogre 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I agree, the comment was completely useless, and quite close to trolling. At least he's not vandalising articles though. I once came across a classical-music troll who mocked my lack of accomplishments (I don't have a Ph.D because, oh yeah, I just finished my undergrad.) and felt like the way to point out that Wikipedia is not necessarily a trustworthy resource was to vandalise a number of pages. Pretty aggravating. Mak (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. The doctorate doesn't mean you have any maturity at all, and, in fact, professoring is one of the most tenuous professions in the world. It means living every day in fear -- fear that a new article or book will show that you made all your research up, fear that They will find out about That Thing You Did, fear that the copier will be hogged by someone, fear that you'll get bad evaluations, fear that the Wrong Person will become department chair, and fear that you won't have your grading done on time. That fear is combined with an insularity and the echo chamber of one's own head, so the young professor, in particular, has this belief that what she is doing is the most important thing ever, that her genius is neglected, and that enemies are all around. It's such a ridiculous life that I can never believe that I've once again subjected myself to it. I'm thinking about taking up subsistence agriculture. That way, if I starve, it'll be my own damn doing. Geogre 22:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I didn't notice any great difference in maturity before and after the conferring of my doctorate. Now, having children... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Having children will sane you up, but working in academe is a sure way to sour to vinegar. It has such rewards as to offset the pain of one's colleagues, but only just. I'm hardly a conservative, but I think every Ph.D. should work a 9-5 job for a while to get a view of what work is and should be required to do so again once every five years. Perhaps I'm advocating a cultural revolution, but I get so sick of these people that I can hardly believe it. If I were fit for anything else.... Geogre 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Have You seen this?

Have you seen this: [12] ? Paul August ☎ 04:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To be sure it is seen in full perspective, this is also important. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. No one is able to understand tone. Well, maybe Fred can't. It's surprising to see the whole proposed remedies section. "Unblockable" is not really appropriate, either, because the enforcement isn't ArbCom's business. Leave that to the administrators. Now I have to make sure I have the most recent version before I comment. Geogre 11:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I couldn't figure out whether we were allowed to say anything, so I made my comments on the talk page of the decision page. Geogre 11:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fiction guidelines

Hey, Geogre. You've written several excellent articles on specific works of literature, so I think you're a good person to ask this of. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and letting us know what you think? Some editors believe the guideline is too dismissive of what it describes as "in-universe writing", that is, writing as if a particular narrative were true without giving reference to the real world. I wrote the guideline based largely on what I'd seen and read in film criticisms, but it's possible the guideline might break when applied to literature and characters from it.

Keep in mind that this guideline is mainly intended as an argument against articles on, say, Darth Vader being nothing more than fictional biographies masquerading as encyclopedia articles. But with a scope as large as fiction in general, it's important that the guideline be applicable to a wide variety of situations. Any input is welcome. Thanks, -- BrianSmithson 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oroonoko is a perfect example about a novel written in an "out-of-universe" style. There is a short plot synopsis, which needs be "in-universe", but otherwise it is clear that the article is discussing a work of fiction. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian, I was a coward. I tried to read all the talk page stuff. I really did. I read maybe half of it, but it was as I had feared: ten thousand Kelvin of heat and two lumens of light. I did the chicken thing and posted at the bottom, hoping to open a new round and offer advice that wasn't enmeshed in a quarrel. What effect it will have, I cannot guess, but I suspect it won't have much. The general convention is to write "in-universe" some of the time. When you're relating the events of the thing, you go in, but the trick is that you can't stay there. If you don't have "outside universe" before it and after it, you're writing cruft and nudging your fellow ComiCon booth sitter. No one wants that in an encyclopedia. Geogre 19:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how anonymous editing is now a thing of the past

Would you mind terribly much if you finish the job, it almost looks like someone selectively blocked only AOL. To avoid the appearance of impropriety it would probably be a good idea to block 1.0.0.0 through to 205.188.116.200 and 205.188.116.202 up to 255.255.255.255, as it is right now, this range block is somewhat incomplete, and there are still many dangerous IP editors running around behaving constructivly, they should be blocked before it's too late--AOL account 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ummm, I'm an "AOL user" too, so I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. I have just blocked a vandal for 3 hr, and that vandal had a named account. Of all the admins on the site, you should assume most good fatih when it comes to AOL blocks from me. Sheesh. Geogre 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, I know, it's not your block, that's the reason I brought this here, as opposed to the blocking admin--AOL account 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ah. Well, it is unblocked now. It was odd timing, because I had just blocked someone (for 3 hr...I don't go in for the huge blocks) for blanking an AfD page. I thought it pertained to that and that it had caught AOL as collateral damage. Happy editing. Geogre 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• My fault, my sarcasm was approaching dangerous levels there--AOL account 15:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Starting off an article with a quote

Is there a standard format for putting a relevant quote at the top of a wikipedia article? Thanks in advance. --NEMT 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that I understand. The first place in the article must be the summary sentence. After that, of course, you can offset a quote, and there's nothing wrong with that. What I would do is use a colon or double colon to create the offset. I'll try to do this visibly:

::Let us go then, you and I, when the evening is spread out against the sky,<br> ::Like a patient, etherised upon a table, through certain streets ::The muttering retreats, of empty nights spent in cheap one-night hotels, ::And sawdust restaurants with oyster shells. ::Streets that follow like a tedious argument of insidious intent.

The effect of doing that will be a block offset, thus:

"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock (1917) is a landmark poem by T.S. Eliot, first published in Prufrock and Other Observations. Its opening lines are some of the most famous in Modernist poetry:

Let us go then, you and I, when the evening is spread out against the sky,

Like a patient, etherised upon a table, through certain streets

The muttering retreats, of empty nights spent in cheap one-night hotels,

And sawdust restaurants with oyster shells.

Streets that follow like a tedious argument of insidious intent...."

Eliot combined symbolism with the imagism created by his friend Ezra Pound to create some of the most densely packed poetry of the era."
Is that what you're asking about? Geogre 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Or there is <blockquote>...</blockquote> which does much the same, or {{quotation}} and its friends {{quote box}} and {{cquote}}. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Show off! (I never have larn't them templates. In my day, we had to use colons, and it was good enough for us, I tells you. (Adjusting the onion on my belt)) Geogre 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't use the templates, but I do use <blockquote>, which has the advantage over colons of indenting not just the left side but also the right. I suspect the entire direction of this thread isn't what NEMT had in mind though -- the simple answer was "it isn't Wikipedia style to start an article with a quote at all." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right Bunch, but I was doing the pedagogical trick of answering the question that can have an affirmative and trying to compliment the questioner. You're right: we don't begin with anything but a summary sentence, per the MoS. I'd love to put epigrams at the tops of my articles, but it's not cricket. Geogre 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for the advice, I could've sworn I'd seen some wiki article with a quote as the opener. Oh well. --NEMT 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Michaelch7

Hi. You mentioned in the deletion review for California State Normal School that Michaelch7 had been brought up over in WP:AN/I for his behavior. Do you mind linking to this discussion? I can't seem to find it. --NeoChaosX 19:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that it has probably rolled off by now. It was two weeks ago, I believe. I'm sorry that I'm not much help, but I'm absolutely terrible at digging through the archives for diffs. I'm not positive that it's the very same figure, but I think it was. This was, I gather, a recreation and edit war over the redirect, which then resulted in a losing AfD that then resulted in the DRV that we see now. I don't think it was anything more severe than some serious, serious desire for this article at this particular place. Geogre 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Solicitation

Hi, could I get your opinion on a biographical article I wrote on G. Ledyard Stebbins that I am trying to get through FAC. I'm having trouble with an objector who thinks that his importance to science isn't clear- I think it is spelled out clearly in the lead, and expanded on. I don't know what to do other than dumbing down the prose significantly.--Peta 01:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• The weird thing is that it seems like the complaints are coming from an overly specialized perspective, on the one hand, and from an overly generalized one, on the other. You can't please them both. If I were to isolate anything that made them complain, it is the chronological narrative. Now, this narrative is standard, and I'm not suggesting any change, but, because your biography begins in birth and moves gradually to death, the overly general reader can't follow the plot. The overly specialized reader is another bugbear altogether, and I don't think that person can be satisfied except by a scientific white paper. The solution, if you actually needed one, would be to put in signal phrases throughout and to organize around the huge impact of a single work. Again, that's if you needed a solution. I don't believe that you do need a fix, though, and have voted accordingly. Geogre 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

High schools

It's a part of the common law of WP:AfD - not sure if it's codified anywhere. To delete an article titled Russia rather than clean it up is pure madness. If an article about a country is just a stub, it's still worthwhile It's a stub is not a good criterion for deletion. Micronations claiming to be countries in general fails WP:HORSE and thus the position All countries are inherently worthy of articles is a true one. FWIW, I'm not saying that I believe that all high schools are worthy of articles, just that it is a part of the common law that they are. WilyD 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)

Personal Attack Perception

Irrespective of the fact that you are an administrator, you are not immune to the policies at WP:NPA. Referring to other editors as "feeble" is a clear personal attack and is without question uncivil. As an administrator, you are well aware that continued personal attacks of this nature can lead to being blocked. I respectfully request that you refrain from such references to other editors in the course of discussions. It is offensive in the main. I realize that WP:RPA is not generally considered acceptable at present, and I shouldn't have removed your blatant personal attacks.--Nicodemus75 21:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning? Excuse me? At any rate, I have said as much as I care to on Bunchofgrapes's user talk page. Please see that, if you really are interested. However, I generally have no desire to speak to you or of you. Have a wonderful day. Geogre 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but with all sincerity, I do think that saying "I'm not interested in playing games with the feeble" in the course of an AfD discussion is indeed a personal attack - at the very least it is extremely uncivil. Would you be fine with me using the same phrase in future AfD discussions? I rather doubt it. I think the point I am raising is legitimate - ergo, it is inappropriate to name-call people "feeble" in the course of a discussion. For the record I did not "log out" on the edit at the other page. For some reason, the edit appeared that way when I used the "+" tab to add the message. Also, sorry about mistakenly adding to your User page, I mistook it for the talk page (obviously).--Nicodemus75 00:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What I said is that I am not interested in arguing with the feeble. I named no one. It is a sound policy to never get into arguments at all, and especially not with people you think aren't going to advance the main cause in any way. I don't care, very much, if you make a similar announcement, but the larger point I was making stands: many of the SchoolWatch people attack the characters of nominators and voters. Consider the question at hand, not the people, and warnings of any sort will likely be unnecessary. Geogre 03:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're purposely trying to be obfuscatory or not. When you are engaged in a discussion with someone, and you announce in the midst of that discussion, "I'm not interested in playing games with the feeble", the obvious (and in this context only) implication to the person that you are having the discussion with is that you are referring to some of the persons engaged in the discussion with you. It isn't necessary to name an individual person for it to be a personal attack, it is implied that SOMEONE in the discussion is "feeble" - that is an attack upon the character or intellect. I really can't believe you think it would be acceptable for me to respond to your objections to the proliferation of school articles at each and every AfD with the remark: "I'm not interested in playing games with the feeble" as part of my disagreement with your position or arguments. I guess I can't really imagine why you think implying that other participants in a discussion are "feeble" is acceptable.--Nicodemus75 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Now would be a great time to drop this and walk away. Both of you. I can't see any good outcome from this, frankly I can't see any kind of conclusion since it's all been said before. The best course is to archive this out straight away. Just zis Guy you know? 09:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been time for an archive for a while, and it was on my to-do list, but then there was that "warning," which, of course, would have been another gotcha had I archived. <shrug> I'll let him have last word and "win" and all that. Whee. Geogre 13:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)