User:Geogre/Talk archive 10

This is #10. Who'dathunk it? It follows #9 and precedes the end of the world as we know it.

Battleship
If I'm not mistaken, you have access to OED. I'm working on battleship and to get the definition right, do you think you could dig up information on the earliest recorded usage of "battleship", if there are several definitions and such? You might want to have a peek at subtlety. It's still not much, but at least it has a reference now.

Do respond on this page.

cheers,

Peter Isotalo 11:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't have OED access the way Bishonen does. I have to actually go in to the library.  I just found out that the small school I'm teaching at has the DNB (Dict. National Biography), and I'm over the moon about that.  They have an OED too, I think, but Bishonen has online access.  (I'm going to bet, wtihout looking, that "Battleship" dates from WW1.)  When I'm in there looking up biographies, I'll try to take notes on the Battleship, too. Geogre 14:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm the one dripping with undeserved goodies. I'll just paste the whole entry below. Amazingly, the first date is 1794, I wasn't expecting that any more than Geogre was. Here goes:

battleship

''orig. U.S.''

[Shortening of line-of-battle ship: see BATTLE n. 12.]

A line-of-battle ship; a warship of the largest and most heavily armoured class.
 * 1794 D. HUMPHREYS Poem on Industry 20 The dock equips, With batt'ries black and strong, the battleships. 1834 GLASCOCK Naval Sk. Bk. I.185 A bluff weather-beaten captain of a battle ship. Ibid. 235 A battle-ship's bowsprit. 1845 R. FORD Handbk. Trav. Spain I. III. 363 Like the spars of a storm-wrecked battle-ship. 1884 Marine Engineer 1 Apr. 4/2 The very heavily-armed battle-ship. 1959 Chambers's Encycl. II. 162/1 The battleship has been the basic unit in all navies.

b. cruiser-battleship or battleship cruiser: a battleship of the type designed for speed, less heavily armoured than a ship of the line.
 * 1909 Whitaker's Alm. 681/2 Modern vessels of this class are no longer, save in official phraseology, ‘armoured cruisers’, but ‘cruiser-battleships’, or ‘cruiser-Dreadnoughts’. 1909 Westm. Gaz. 18 Mar. 7/2 Armoured cruisers, or ‘battleship cruisers’, as they have been popularly termed.

c. attrib. and Comb. battleship grey (or gray), a slightly bluish grey colour often used in painting battleships.
 * 1834 GLASCOCK Naval Sk. Bk. I. 154 To ascertain ‘the difference 'twixt the rigging and palaver of a methody parson, and the togs and talk of a reg'lar-built battle-ship preacher’. 1901 Westm. Gaz. 8 Aug. 6/1 To choose his own time and place for the battleship action. 1904 Ibid. 11 Feb. 8/2 The battleship strength of the Russians at Port Arthur. 1908 Ibid. 11 Feb. 3/3 When the Dreadnought appeared battleship building in foreign yards paused. 1908 Daily Chron. 21 Aug. 1/7 The American battleship fleet. 1916 Daily Colonist (Victoria, B.C.) 1 July 12/3 The colors include battleship grey. 1938 L. MACNEICE Earth Compels 54 Nights with stars or closely interleaved with battleship grey or plum.

Peter, there was some formatting that didn't survive my copying--italics and bold--so you'd better get back to me if you'll be using any actual OED quote in the article. Bishonen | talk 14:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, bishster! That's all I needed. I just wanted to establish that the term "battleship" doesn't really include heavy galleys and, like, early modern kick yo' ass-ships. At least not historically.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

OED
Hello guys. Was just swinging by one of Wp's finest User pages when I saw this, so I decided to do my random act of kindness for the day. However, Bishonen had swung to the rescue by the time I finished formatting the entry with italics and what not, so I won't paste that, but if you want the Humphreys ref, the works given in the biblio for David Humphreys are:


 * The Yankey in England 1815
 * Miscellaneous works 1790
 * Poems 1789 (ed. 2)

I'm not sure why the date (1794) doesn't match; in all the time I've used OED, this is the first I've seen what might be a mistake. Is Humphreys' Poem on Industry to be found in Poems or Miscellaneous works? Incidentally, I think WP might actually have an entry on this fellow. Anyhoo, all best wishes— encephalon έγκέφαλος   15:01:40, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
 * You mean my user page has been linked to by Bishonen? That's the only way I can decipher your first sentence. :-)  At any rate, this is an interesting anomaly.  There is so little context for the Humphreys and some of the others (the fault of OED, of course) that I wonder how many of those are poetic terms?  Any appearance in verse of "battle-ship" would seem to me to be suspiciously like a combining form -- a "torpedo ship" a "ramming ship."  That, of course, doesn't mean much.  After all, "fireship," "siege tower," "battering ram" are all descriptive combinations that turned into precise military terminology.  The Humphreys poem would be important to read, and that makes the OED's odd bibliographic record even more telling.  By the 1909 Whittaker, it seems to mean exactly what we mean today: a specific type of ship that is more heavily armed than the usual cruiser and designed for ship-to-ship engagement (and specifically the American version of "Dreadnought").  I had thought that the invention of the Dreadnought class would have been necessary, and that's why I guessed WW-1.  Fascinating.  (Best reading on my talk page in ages.)  Geogre 17:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, Encephalon! Apparently the poem was first published as a pamphlet, in fact in 1794 — check it out here. But also, it sounds like you've made a much better copy of the OED entry than me, with the formatting preserved, why not delete mine and paste yours here instead? Bishonen | talk 17:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey people. Bishonen, I'd done the formatting stuff in an edit box, not offline, so I didn't keep a copy; but you asked so nicely I did it again. :) It's not as accurately done though, I just emboldened the fancy bits instead of aiming for an exact copy. Geogre, come of it please :). Soon after I became an active editor on WP, I began feeling that the whole thing was an immense waste of time; discovering your contributions was what stopped me from simply drifting away. So when I say your User page is a very good page, it's a very good page, and you're just going to have to accept it. Regarding the poem, I can see what you mean— the OED chaps have it that Humphreys' use of the word coincides with the meaning "a warship of the largest and most heavily armoured class," which may not in fact be the case. I've absolutely no expertise here, of course, but just reading the examples they've provided, I'm definitely inclined to agree with you. The first unambiguous use that coincides with our understanding of the term, from the examples provided, is 1909 Whitaker's Alm. 681/2. I suspect that settling the question will require more than reading the poem though; what is required is an understanding of both the history of shipbuilding for the purposes of naval warfare, and how people used to describe such ships in the earliest years. All of which subjects are parsecs away from my expertise, such that I'm unlikely to be able to contribute anything further to Peter's authorial exertions. :) Best— encephalon έγκέφαλος   18:32:26, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Your input is requested
at Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again). — Phil Welch 23:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Keep everything"
Please do not characterize me as someone who wants to "keep everything", because this that is not the case. It is particularly misleading in the context of an apparent hoax like Drigluidjunblégruidjundlei which I agree should be deleted if no-one can verify it. Kappa 17:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed? Well, at any rate, I didn't characterize you that way.  I said that I had no interest in debates formed and framed by those who hold that point of view.  If that does not include you, then so be it.  It would be just as well, of course, if you do not accuse me of moving to speedy delete something that I have not.  I explained my vote well enough to not need to rehash it here.  Geogre 22:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Your attention, please
An AfD concerning the article pronunciation of Hong Kong is going down right now. Your input is appreciated. I'm personally very, very concerned about what this new type of trivia-addition can lead to.

Peter Isotalo 06:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * DINO and RINO are both up for AfD. Your input is welcomed. / Peter Isotalo 17:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for supporting my RfA application! Much appreciated! The Singing Badger 16:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your support in my recent RFA! All those extra buttons might not be a big deal, but getting all this positive feedback sure is, please let me know if you have any problems or comments regarding how I use all these shiny new levers and cranks! Rx StrangeLove 00:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Me again!
I've recorded some of my thoughts and ideas about problems within Wikipedia, and some possible solutions here. I'd like your thoughts, and whether or not you think I'm crazy. Well, you know, beyond my normal level of craziness. Thanks.--Scimitar parley 17:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wow; Thanks
Thank you for the compliment. I just tried to get the facts across to our friend Sophie. I wouldn't want to scare people away from Wikipedia; it's always my hope that some can become useful editors. Let's see if this works. Cheers, Bratsche talk 21:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I have fallen from saint to the Devil Incarnate. And let's not get started on what she thinks of Bishonen and YBM. Wow. Now, after a couple of emails, we seem to be getting no where. As Bish put it, the main rule she's violating is Bratsche talk 02:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka's RfA
I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I'll try my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. And hey, maybe the opposition to anything you like isn't as strong as you thought! Thanks, Nandesuka 00:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Rouge admin strikes again
User_talk:FeloniousMonk FeloniousMonk 15:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll reply here, to avoid hurting feelings on your user page, but that's hilarious. A person would go to war with "With" as their only ammunition and then make the classic "Rouge Admin" mistake.  Wow.  That's a double whammy.  Obviously, Mel deserves the award, with victims like that.  Geogre 17:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought you'd enjoy that. FeloniousMonk 18:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support and kind words at my RfA. It means alot, particularly coming from an editor such as yourself. I have to admit, I was looking for a support vote from the Geogre, and was starting to get a little worried that it wasn't coming. Thanks again. -R. fiend 15:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was a bit surprised at how few of them were charging. The "D"-word was not mentioned as much as the "he's a bit of an obnoxious ass who bites newbies" exaggerated allegation. I was expecting some opposition based on both. The extreme inclusionist faction was underrepresented. There's a particular admin I know you've had a few run-ins with who I thought might oppose, as well as an unnamed user who frequently votes to Keep All Particularly Pathetic Articles. Of course, as with you, they might not check RfA too often, or merely decided that not voting to support was enough (my general M.O.; I don't think I've opposed anyone yet, though I think I've only voted in favor of three). I've also noticed that some of the extreme inclusionists put aside idealogical differences and supported, which was pretty big of them really. And I was nearly shocked that no one mentioned F.E.C.E.S., as even though I don't use the term in voting anymore, it's still right there on my user page. I am quite curious as to how such votes might turn out of they lasted not a week but a month. -R. fiend 17:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Reagan/Doral High School
Please reconsider your vote. The school does exist. The campus has been topped off and construction ended on September 14th (now they gotta paint it and create gardens/fields, and fill it with crap). Classes have begun on the Doral Middle School Campus, with its own hours and section at that campus. It has an administration, teachers, and 9th grade students, it will be holding Sports try-outs for Spring and Winter sports for this school year next Tuesday at another nearby High School; it has a chosen mascot and colors, has an address, phone numbers, boundaries, feeder schools, and a PTA. I don't think it qualifies as a crystal ball article just because the main campus hasn't opened yet. The article is about the school, not about the building. PRueda29 23:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

RFAs
Hi Geogre, I dont believe that we have spoken before. The reason for my "visit", is that Im asking if you could be a little more pleasant on RFAs. Now, Im not saying that you are mean or hurtful, or anything, dont get me wrong. And I dont think its intentional, but the tone of many of your comments are a bit &mdash;for lack of a better word&mdash;harsh. For example, on Empty2005's RFA you said "Oppose: Not even remotely within a cannon shot of the standards, and the very self-nom here is nearly a sign of contempt for our processes". You raise very valid points in your comments, but sometimes its not what you say, but how you say what you say, you know. Many times, there are others who would opt for adminship, but they are afraid that they will be torn down (I know I was). So please, take it a bit easier. Thanks →Jo urna list   >>talk<<  03:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Advice for VfD Voters
Hi Geogre!

I would like to dispute the first point of advice that you give on your userpage: "VfD is for votes, not proof." The recent name change of VFD to AFD was to in fact to empasize that the deletion discussion page was not for pure voting, and to encourage discussion rather than voting.

In general when I close a debate where the result is not immediately obvious I will start off with counting the votes, but I won't stop there. In general, I look for a two-thirds majority to delete, but exceptions are common. Among other things apart from the vote count I consider these factors in a close debate:
 * 1) Are the reasons given to "keep" based and supported on Wikipedia policies or guidelines (WP:FICT, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc.)?
 * 2) *Here a vote like "Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC" is not such a convincing reason (it is a mere assertion), but "Keep. This person has been on the top sales list in Honduras for half a year" can easily sway a discussion to the "keep" side, even if there is slightly more than a two thirds majority to delete.
 * 3) Have any of the reasons given to "keep" been successfully rebutted? (E.g. the reason given that the person is notable has been proven to be a hoax.)
 * 4) Have any of the reasons given to "delete" been successfully rebutted? (E.g. reason given to delete is that the article was untranslated, but four days into the discussion someone translates it.)

A vote given with a very brief reason ("Delete nn" or "Keep, I like this article") or worse, no reason at all, will get tallied for the vote count, and that is a fairly important part of my decision making. But they carry very little weight when I am weighing the arguments in a close call. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to reply to you both on my own page and yours, because, although what I wrote I wrote well over a year ago, I do think it's important to clarify my intent. As I wrote, offering a reasoning for one's vote is vital, but trying to cudgel the other fellow into submission is ridiculously wasteful.  I.e. argue your case, but do not have an argument.  I was trying to dissuade people from the vote-by-vote rebuttal that we have all seen all too frequently.  The rabid and avid supporter goes to "comment" after every vote that is not consonant with her own, and then feels that she has "proven" that the article must or must not be deleted.  (N.b. I don't agree with the change to AfD, either, but I abide by the policies that I disagree with, so long as they are consented to by the majority.  And yes, I could get a lot more picky about it than I am, but there's no point.)  The endless "prove" vote degenerates into a spitting contest and discourages people from making VfD nominations or casting votes.  I.e. that "discussion" ends all discussion, and I was advising people to state their reasons and not try to "prove" the issue.  Geogre 13:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response; OK, I see it is the debates which degenerate into shouting matches or where a person sets about to answer every opposing vote which you were talking about. While I think it is OK to comment politely on another person's vote, I tend to agree that shouting matches are a bad thing in general. (Actually, I've seen that kind of thing more often on RFA than AFD, this one and this one for example, where such arguing is really making a disservice to yourself.) I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that well-reasoned comments (i.e. good arguments for either keeping or deleting) can easily override the simple vote count, especially in close cases. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Geogre-- Thank you for your comments on my RfA. I never realised that JETFA would cause so much derision. It was never really meant as a slam on people that simply tag articles. It was just to try and encourage people to edit articles, rather than leave them for someone else. Thank you for your kind words, and if I do not get promoted, I hope you would think about supporting me in a few months. Thanks for your time. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  14:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Images
Image:Rouge-Admin.png is beautiful and I have adopted it. I've also put Geogre-7 on the WP:AFD front page, we'll see how long it lasts ;-) - David Gerard 11:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 52 minutes. Sorry Geogre, you're a fine chap but you are not notable enough to grace one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Good Lord! I'm shocked it made it 52 minutes. The best thing about being me is that it means I don't have to see me. I couldn't imagine sharing the horror like that. As for the Rouge Admin award, I encourage all Rouge Admins to proudly identify themselves with the banner, so long as they are aware that Italians could take offense, as the real Red Brigades did some fairly nasty things, and no one should be perceived as making light of their violence. Geogre 13:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do I deserve that award? :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you been accused of being a "Rouge" admin by the sorts of people who can't spell? Do you have thugs, morons, and goons on your user page demanding that you stop being mean to them? Do you find yourself looking for ways to interpret the speedy deletion criteria to cover the general category "crap?" Have you been accused of "censorship" for removing or advising against personal attacks and/or the removal of photos of genitals? If you answered "yes" to any of these, or if you just plain feel like it, you deserve the award. :-) Geogre 13:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, dear... I recently sent a stuffy and humorless little missive to David Gerard, not realising that his addition of your image to WP:AFD had your... blessing... foreknowledge. I think an edit war may be in progress as SPUI reinserted it immediately after Sjakkale removed it. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Norse Mythology article
Since you seemed unsure about your editing of the of the Norse Mythology article- well, I like the expansion you wrote. :) P.MacUidhir 00:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was seeing it lose out on FAC largely for matters of wording, so I thought I'd try to light a candle rather than curse the darkness.  Wiglaf had done a great deal, but, although his English skills are excellent, he's not a native speaker, and there were some sentences with peculiar structures.  I.e. the structures were fine, grammatically, but they no doubt struck the native English readers, at least on a subconscious level, as odd, so I wanted to smooth that out.  At the same time, I couldn't help poking about at least a little.  Still, I mainly know Anglo-Saxon versions and what I read in the Prose Edda, so I don't want to overstate or undercut anything already there.  Geogre 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's official Geogre- you've been around a while
In recognition of your excellent work on the Peterborough Chronicle (thereby making you our first Wikipedist, circa the 14th century ;)), I am happy to present you with this Epic Barnstar, which, although cracked and moss-covered and whatnot, is still fully serviceable and would fetch a good price. Bring it by the Antiques' Roadshow sometime!--Scimitar parley 16:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's your first! Dear God, you've only been here since when?!? I assumed you had some subpage hidden somewhere with a dozen or so!--Scimitar parley 18:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for your note; unfortunately, my return has not been universally welcome. I had an e-mail today that is giving me cause for reconsidering. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, would you believe it; I'd only just finished convincing myself that Ed's actions were a lesson the community had learnt from, when along comes Snowspinner. Really, life is too short for this. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Day by day it is. I wonder how much longer I can stick it, really. Plus I'm annoyed with myself for hurting Bish, who now wants nothing more to do with me. Which, of course, means that I have failed to meet the standards of good interaction that I want to see from others. But Tony and Snowjob are really too much. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Question
Hi Geogre. While I my opinion and your opinion diverged completetely on Tony Sidaway's RFC, I agree with you on the one brought against Snowspinner. I too believe that the rules on AFD should be followed. Lawful Neutral is the best alignment you can be.

I'm just a bit curious why you started mentioning Kappa on the noticeboard however. While Kappa votes "keep" very often, I have actually never seen him call for a "speedy keep" or a premature closing of a debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What has bothered me about Kappa is that I have seen him vote "keep" without, apparently, reading the article, and his "keep" votes have (at least in the past) been "keep" without rationale. I think "delete, nn" is an invalid vote, just as "keep, is too!" is (e.g. an article that says "Lincoln Elementary is a school in Summit New jersey it's princeple is Ms Johnson" gets "Keep, notable!" when the nomination and previous votes were "Says nothing" and "merge with Summit, New Jersey").  However, I also mentioned Taco Deposit in the same comment, whom I consider to be a good editor.  It was not supposed to be a hall of villany (after all, I did mention myself in the list).  Geogre 12:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't consider "delete nn" as an invalid vote, at least no more invalid than any unreasoned vote. When I close debates, such votes go into my vote count although they don't carry much weight if the decision is a close one. 6d-3k for example is something I will call a "delete" in most circumstances (two thirds majority after all), but if a valid reason to keep ("this person has written a best-selling book, here is the reference") has just been answered with "delete nn", I will have no qualms about declaring: "keep (no consensus), the reason given to keep was never rebutted." Anyway, I always look to Rossami for inspiration to find good ways to close difficult debates, I think you summed up his assets really well when you supported his adminship. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am aware that a "keep" vote with no reason given may be given less weight. If I don't give a reason, it's because I don't feel the article is in any further danger, generally because the orginal objection has been satisfied. Kappa 15:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh? When was the last time anyone said "notability" was the reason for wanting an absurd exercise in futility like "East Street High School is a school on East Street. Its colors are black and white?" I almost never see that. When the article nomination specifically mentions that the "article" is a substub, you show up with "All schools are notable" and "Notable!" That smacks of never even having read the article. As I have said repeatedly, not all schools are notable. Not all of anything is notable. The debate should be on the article, not the subject, not the nominator, not some divinely revealed principle, not ethnicity. Vote the damned article, not some moronic imagination of a war between "deletionists" and "inclusionists." As I have also said repeatedly, a vote without a rationale is not a vote. It is the duty of voters to have a rationale, even if it's "per Bob" or "per nomination." This, incidentally, is not just my opinion: we have abolished quickpolls and we have had several motions on whether rationale is required. Begging Sjakkalle's pardon, but he really shouldn't be counting votes that have no rationale, nor nonce voters. In my opinion, he also ought not count votes that don't address the article, that, instead, go off on some tangent and are offered against the Great Red Herring. Geogre 16:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh you're refering to votes like "keep all schools/villages/metro stations" etc. Your example doesn't adequately identify the topic, so I wouldn't be voting to keep that unless someone fixed it, which of course they would if it was a school on Afd. Articles which adequately identify notable topics are useful both to readers and to the task of building an encylopedia and should be kept or merged, even if all they say is "Al-Farabi University is a university in Almaty, Kazakhstan" or "Cresserons is a commune of the département of Calvados, in the Basse-Normandie région, in France". Kappa 17:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Fix it, and I'll vote "keep." I've always changed votes if people repair the articles, and so would the other "deletionists." Don't fix it, and you should vote "delete." If it, in its present form, violates the deletion policy, then the only proper vote is "delete." If it is advertising now, you should vote delete until the advertising is gone. Having faith that someone, somewhere, some time will fix it is a wonderful vision, but you leave irrelevancies and advertising and trash on the site while you wait for that hypothetical person. The old "inclusionists" used to actually fix the articles while they were on VfD. I have nothing but respect for them. As for people who won't do any work but vote to "keep" anyway...not so much. The more repair work I see, the greater my respect. The more "I don't care! I vote keep because it's on my subject!" I see, the more I call it disruption. The more "Come on, everyone! Let's all show up and vote 'keep' because it's on a subject we like" I see, the more I consider it vandalism and GNAA-style trolling. That should explain my reaction well enough. (In the case of "Lincoln elementary school is in summitt New jersey," there needs to be something about that particular school to make it unique, other than its address and employees. Otherwise, the corner Texaco station should get an entry.)  Geogre 20:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You want to treat schools differently from villages, universities and metro stations, I don't. I think reasonable people can differ on this issue. Kappa 20:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I want to treat public high schools and others with no particular history or character the same way that I would a hotdog stand. Cities have historical significance, no matter what. Universities are in by fiat, and each, by its nature, not only seeks to be different from the others but must be different from the others, as it is a wholly independent unit with its own sovereignty over curriculum, location, schedule, admissions, and activities. Public schools have none of that and therefore resemble each other to such a degree that there's no distinguishing between them, except by address. Therefore, they are not set apart from the others and are not discussion topics. However, I treat school articles exactly like village, shopping mall, and hotdog stand articles: if the article says nothing that distinguishes it from the rest, then there is no need for an article on it. We don't have articles because it is pleasant to the authors -- that's Everything2 -- but because they serve a function in reference that is not duplicated by a map or a phone book. Again, no article is automatically included, towns, universities, etc. Some subjects are automatic byes, but no articles. You want to not read or evaluate the articles and just say that, because it's got "school" in the title, it has to be kept. That's irresponsible and thuggish. Geogre 21:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL George we've already established that I don't vote "keep" just because an article has "school" in its title, please try to follow the discussion. Any article which adequately identifies a village, university, train station etc will be kept more or less automatically. Your statement about public schools' lack of automony is an extreme over-generalization but even if it were true, they differ in their input and output, and these are things I cannot learn about from a map or phone book. Kappa 00:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

We've established that you don't read the articles and don't vote on their contents, but rather on the purported subject matter. Experience has shown that you also don't work to improve those articles before voting, "keep." You appear to be a person who learns more from "It is a place in Russia" and "It is a school in Patterson, New Jersey" than you do from map and phone books, although how you do this remains a mystery known only to you. Now, once you also allow others to differ from your view and not hector them when they reasonably nominate or vote to delete for lack of content, lack of significance, or lack of worth of a particular article, we'll have really done some good work. Geogre 02:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * George please try really hard to follow the discussion. I can't vote on the subject matter of an article unless I read it to find out what that matter is. No-one learns anything much from "X is a university in Almaty, Kazakhstan" that they couldn't find in a phone book, but the university stub is left in peace, because of its subject. Kappa 03:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The substub is not left in peace, in fact. It is speedy deleted, as is proper for a thing like that. No, Kappa, there is no category whatever where the mere promise of a subject in the article title allows it to be kept, and if you're voting "keep" on substubs you are voting against the speedy delete criteria as well as the deletion guidelines. Do please try to read the articles you vote on and see what they say. In several instances you have "rebutted" arguments never set forth by the nominators and shown desperate unfamiliarity with the articles you voted on, even voting to "keep" copyright violations. Stop that knee from jerking just long enough to read the articles and vote in line with the deletion guidelines, not in line with a desire that some day the article will be appropriate for inclusion... ...Unless you're actually going to start trying to improve the articles and put in some work on them, that is. Geogre 03:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Geogre, I in fact don't speedy delete things like "X is a village in Y". Such an article has awfully little content to be sure, but there is still enough context to run clear the "little or no context" rule of CSD. I would most definitely prefer that people plant small plants rather than seeds, ("X is a village in Y. It has a population of 5000 and lies 10 km north of the city of Z. It is connected by railway." is a small plant, while "X is a village in Y" is a seed.), and I try to make articles at least somwhat informative before submitting them. However, even a seed can grow so I let them stay. Now garbage has got to go, so if the article on the real village was "X is gay" that gets a speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC) On days when I'm in a good mood and on New Pages Patrol (sadly a combination which there has been less of lately) and discover "X is a town in Y" articles, I will google on the name to make an attempt to find something more about the town for a small but fast expansion, so it can grow from substub to stub. If the substub had been speedied, the town might go for a long time without an article. The -template as well as the various  templates are usually better than deleting. There are several people working on expanding stubs, so I say give it some time. Tell, you what I'm in a fairly good mood today, I'll try to expand 10 geographical substubs today! Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a crime to vote to keep a copyright violation if I don't realize that's what it is, that could happen to anyone. I will continue to read the articles and vote in line with the deletion guidelines. Kappa 03:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It said so in the nomination, which you apparently didn't read. That's my point.  You've been so eager to "stop the deletionist trolls" that you haven't even noticed what the grounds were that were being offered for deletion!  No one says "Not notable" on school nominations.  That's not a game, and this is not point scoring.  Read the nominations, and do try to respect the nominators at least as much as you do the authors of "Ria Fulton is a famous painter. She lives in Brooklyn" articles.  Don't insult them, try to buffalo them, or automatically oppose them.  Read and consider the article individually.  I consider each school article (article!) individually, because there are no universal keeps. Geogre 07:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe you are referring to Articles for deletion/Apeejay Public School. The nomination does not say "coyvio", in fact it implies the opposite. I responded to the nomination in my vote, so you should be able to deduce that I read it. Kappa 11:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that I do speedy delete them. This is a matter of judgment, but I consider anything that is only a predicate nominative as being no content at all.  My students used to try to get around the "Use the following words in a sentence" quiz by saying, "Perspicacious is a word that is hard to use in a sentence."  I flunked 'em.  "Microsoft is a very big software company" is not little; it's nothing.  The subject matter does not forgive the performance.  If anything, it indicts it more.  Inasmuch as we have agreed (and only because we have agreed) that places that register on maps are worth an article, it means that we have agreed that it is important as a subject.  Having an insulting little predicate nominative there prevents another author from creating the article and beginning with a proper format.  It inflates our numbers while diminishing our knowledge.  "X is in Y" is, indeed, less that what a map would say, because a map would at least give the visual information of what is near it (rivers, roads, other towns), while the predicate nominative attempts to give a quiz answer without giving any actual knowledge. Geogre 07:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I respect that. I rarely have a problem with people who put their energies into making the place better, and it kills me when someone tries to improve a VfD article and the thing still has to be a delete (e.g. the website is still minor, and WP:NOT a web guide).  I am convinced that most of the substub authors are either too lazy or too dumb to be much help to Wikipedia.  Even vandals are more likely to be good editors than substub writers.  I don't, however, share your faith in stub templates and, especially, the expand template.  A lot of folks seem to think that wikifying the 5 words that are there is all that's needed.  (I'd rather have no wiki-links but some actual information than have every other word linked.)  Therefore, if I see a substub, I'm usually going to delete it, unless it's a subject that I can fix up.  (I've done some huge repairs in the past.  My favorites are Wise Blood and Film adaptation.)  When people get done bemoaning "VfD is broken," they can realize that "Cleanup is broken," too, and that's one of the reasons VfD is broken.  Geogre 10:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Systemwars.com
Hi. You voted to delete Systemwars.com and it was deleted. However, Tony Sidaway has decided that your vote and the consensus that agreed with you was insufficient. He has recreated the article in violation of policy and relisted it for deletion at Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Please take a look. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No mystery there. Validly deleted articles that are recreated are speedy candidates.  I have deleted it and will not play Tony's absurd game of thinking that VfD is the way to circumvent VfU.  It is not.  No more debate is necessary.  If he recreates it, it should be speedy deleted until there is a consensus to undelete it.  That would revoke the deletion determination, and only that. Geogre 15:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Department of Silly Walks
John Arbuthnot is lovely! "The only fault an enemy could lay upon him was a slight waddle in his walk". The Augustan Age seems to have taken a great interest in the way a person walks. Did you know that the actor John Verbruggen, who played the reformed rake in The Relapse, was reportedly "a little in-kneed, which gave him a shambling gait"? But that wasn't a fault in his case, it "was a carelessness, and became him". :-) Bishonen | talk 01:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Really, you think The Relapse is shaping up? Thanks! I love that play. The article's plagued by all the Country Wife dubieties in spades. The actor situation is terribly complicated, with the sequel thing plus the actors' rebellion thing: how am I going to keep that lot proportionate yet comprehensible yet meaningful, and at the same time avoid boring everybody to death with it? (Plus I REALLY WANT TO WRITE A LOT ABOUT IT, and sneak in pinko anachronisms about labor/management conflicts, let 'em be bored, see if I care.) Secondly, there are no pictures to be had: not only were actors obscure people, but these scabs were obscure actors, since all the good actors had split. And thirdly, the latest Relapse edition is from 1971, I know nothing of the stage history of the last 35 years, I'm totally guessing. :-(. Ah, me. I don't really need you to tell me about comprehensibility and proportion now, since it's totally in process, but I will need it extremely much in a few days' time. (I just got the 1971 edition, ed. Bernard Harris, super-good guy, in the mail today.) Bishonen | talk 18:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, when it comes time, I'll be happy to help hide the commie barbs. I've hidden a few in my own in the past, and I hid a nice "18th c. publishing = today's web" and "18th c. drama = Hollywood," and I've seen those bear fruit already. I had someone "help" an article with the former point in it by explicitly stating it as a new revelation (tee-hee quathe he) and the latter by saying it in comments. I suppose you can try to cover the lack of portraits with "here are the people whose jobs they took" and with "this is a stage, and this is a different stage, and this is a picture of people on a stage; none of these people are discussed in the article," but, of course, that's annoying. What I like about it is that The Relapse ties in most of your other articles so that it appears that you are writing it because of general research, and Bishonen readers get it. It was that way with Augustan literature for me: I got a chance to essentially tie in every article I've written here (except the religious and mythological ones). It kind of felt like "all my articles are developments of this one thing," and I got to do the shaping of it. There's a lot of pleasure in that. (It just occurred to me: there is room for anti-commie barbs, too, as the workers controlled the means of production, only to have themselves prove a bad boss, too. (Or was that after '95?)  Geogre 21:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Pedantic copy editor sent arse over tip by attack of killer Easter egg
Erm, Geogre, pedantries: how come the Peterborough Chronicle isn't italicized when Gesta Regum Anglorum is, is there a system? More importantly, what's up with the "copy of Winchester's", I don't understand what that means? Is the link supposed to be an Easter egg with Winchester Cathedral inside? Why? Bishonen | talk 20:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles aren't, at least in my way of thinking, conscious artworks, aren't "books" in the usual sense, and so aren't like Gesta Regum Anglorum. In fact, they're annals created year by year by the various abbeys.  The real title would be "the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of Peterborough Abbey."  There was a Chronicle at Peterborough, one at Winchester Cathedral, one at Rochester Cathedral, one anywhere and everywhere.  When, say, Durham's was burned or destroyed, or when a new abbey opened up, they'd need to get the history of all the years now gone (or not done), so they'd copy from a neighbor.  Is there a confusion deeper than that or a misdirection I'm missing?  Geogre 20:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)