User:Geogre/Talk archive 13

January 6 - Feb. 7, 2006

Offence taken!
As a nation I don't think it wise for yours (in the form of you!) to discuss the "velour track suit", here I will just say to you Roma and Milano, should you wish me to be to be more precise  Versace, Gucci and Prada. I'm sure there are some very clever people indeed in North America designing some very "colourful" garments, (does anyone wear them?) and I wonder why they haven't exported them here - Oh : "Levi you say?" - well think Armani. I look forward to you correction very soon and govelling, yes very grovelling - puddle drinkingly apology on the talk page. Oh yes I forgot - Happy Christmas - I assume you do celebrate the holy season in those unfashionably nothern parts? Furious of Palermo
 * Hey, the velour track suit is a masterpiece of functionality. Wearing one, you can go from hanging out at the local social club to hitting a few mooks to a night out on the town without changing clothes!  Besides, they look good in court.  Up in Pelham Bay, we knew our track suits, and only the best would do.  Besides, I was only reporting on one theory of one set of scientists.  Geogre 00:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Pelham Bay? And where exactly is Pelham Bay? I don't believe I know anyone in Pelham Bay - I see you live somewhere called Georgia! Which explains things somewhat.  And please do not refer to my friends and family as mooks, if you wish to enjoy a happy Christmas in your entirety. now I'm off to that lamentable article to try a and sort it out  - and I advise you to find a decent tailor, I assume they do have such things in ....er...Georgia! Giano | talk 13:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In Georgia, we have no need of tailors. Overalls are one size fits all, and we believe in function over frippery down here.  Pelham Bay is a famous spot.  Certain people and their friends would meet at an Italian-American social club out there.  Apparently, some of those friends lived two doors down from me, when I lived there.  Nice people -- Goodfellas, you might say, but they weren't lofty enough to have the track suit (preferrably Adidas).  There may be a reason why I'm in Georgia, you know. Oh, and Merry Christmas.  Geogre 14:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah well keep this up, and your next suit will have zip from head to toe! Giano | talk 14:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If that's a joke, it's not funny, and if it's a threat, push off. We don't tolerate it here. 86.133.53.111 05:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oi you!...get back on your camel! Giano | talk 14:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In the context, it is very funny. Best not to jump to conclusions about private conversations unless you are aware of the full story. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Georgia? Geogre? Geo-ogre? Eogregay? I think I need to sit down. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And in a suit? Can I sit down beside you? Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not in a suit. As I said, we just wear overalls and hang out at the "fillin' station" and drink Grape Nehi while we swat flies and wait for Yankees to come along and ask for directions, so we can tell them, "You can't get there from here."  However, I'm wondering if Giano is actually an Expert on Sicily.  After all, he didn't know about Pelham Bay!  That's like not knowing about Statten Island or the profit margins that can be found in the waste disposal and building trades in NYC (but, mysteriously, nowhere else).  Geogre 12:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm only a simple goatherd, I don't do criminal circles Giano | talk 14:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, noes! A simple goatherd with a feminine side!  Now that is self-containment and self-content -- at least until an earthquake comes along.  Geogre 22:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And I do have a suit! I've worn it a couple of times, too.  After all, I need to be buried in something.  Now, though, Paul and Filiocht are sitting down next to each other.  Ooooooh!  (Down here, men do not sit next to each other.  There's no room, what with the guns, and you need to preserve some distance anyway so that you have a place to spit with your chewing tobacco and/or dental snuff.)  Geogre 12:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We Old World men have this thing called our "feminine side" and we like to get in touch with it from time to time. This means that we get to wait until much later in life before we have to think about what we want to get buried in. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Has Fil been dallying with Paul? I'll get my gun. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I asked if I could sit down with you! Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought so... I wasn't sure where this Paul chap came into the picture. Feel free to rest awhile - would you care for a cup of tea? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Milk, no sugar please. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok not only can't Geogre count, apparently he has a hard time reading as well (perhaps its a Southren thang). Any way just to set the record straight, "dilly" is the only kind of "dallying" this Paul has done recently. Paul August &#9742; 18:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a Ph.D. in Reading! You just didn't see the first draft, the unpublished manuscript of the message above, where it was definitely you that Filiocht was sitting next to.  Besides "the margin is the center," and what is not said is very clearly something repressed.  The fact that Filiocht hasn't asked to sit next to you only proves that he had to stop himself from asking, which means that it is the real issue.  (At one notable institution, this type of reading was used to establish definitively that Wordsworth was a pedophile.)  Geogre 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A PhD in Reading or from Reading? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a Ph.D. in Reading and a girl in every port. I have a physicist in Berlin, an MD in Tokyo, and a paleographer in Kokomo.  Geogre 13:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you people are talking about, but it do sounds like you're not being productive. I'm going to have to step in and demand you all go back to editing. This is what you are here for. We have assigned time-wasting as a separate task to more qualified people. Let's trim our talk pages in accordance with the Wikipedian lifestyle. JRM · Talk 08:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not disrupt Wikipedians to make a point. We have been highly productive and reductive.  What we've been producing may not be in accord with all you eletist rouge admins snobs, and what we've been reducing is mostly server space, but we must never bite the newbies, must be gentle and loving and water them frequently and put them in windowboxes where they can get adequate light, and we must laugh merrily at the cute little articles they make.  So there!  Geogre 13:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not talk back to admins. This can be considered a personal attack on Wikipedia's integrity. As an administrator yourself, you should know this. I would never bite newbies; persistent trolls laboring under false pretenses of a cooperative spirit are another matter. Keep this up and I will make sure you are desysopped, defrocked, and defenestrated. I have met Jimbo once, so be assured that I have the connections and influence to ensure it. JRM · Talk 13:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Jimbo sez that he's going to get you for that. He's a close personal friend, and you had better start assuming good intent, or else!  I never make personal attacks, and we do not tolerate threats being made.  Consider yourself on double secret probation.  One more, and I will invoke the injunction made against your sock puppets to block you forever and then some!  No one is as inoffensive as me, and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly offensive.  I always assume good faith, you troll!  Geogre 16:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, some might consider "cosmically insignificant adolescent" a personal attack, but I, the recipient, instead considered it username material. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Some might, but the attack was on an article's subject, not a user. The fact that the article's subject turned out to be a user was confirmation of the deletion guideline.  One is not supposed to write an article about oneself.  Geogre 03:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you aren't, that's why, as you may have seen, on afd debates since then, when I've voted delete on vanity pages, I've used Chris bensko as an example of a worthless blather article. BTW, on your userpage you said that we all have lists in our heads of Wikipedians whom we think our worthless, am I on a list like that? Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 17:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Open mouth, insert foot
Me, that is. Is it perhaps a doubleplusungood idea to dare ArbCom to raise the level of sanction? But seriously, I just cannot give a flying fig anymore. I tried to be patiant, I tried to maintain a sense of homour. I took a little break and came back feeling nice, did some actual article space work. But this is a joke, and this is obscene. - brenneman (t) (c)  23:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You knew that Snowspinner or Tony would try to use your comments as ammo, I assume. Don't get excited.  So far, the community itself has been stepping up to protest the lack of procedure.  You're better off remaining as removed as possible.  Let those without a play at the table venture the stakes.  I think you over reacted, to some degree, because all that those findings were were "fact: it happened."  I don't agree with Kat's endorsing of the "fact" that you edited deletion policy, but it's nothing to get worked up about.  Call me Polyanna, but I just don't see anything coming of this.  I'd continue to let it wither, which is what it's doing right now, and don't feed it.  On the workshop page, at least, the arguments are overwhelmingly against Tony's prosecution.  I know things are going slowly, but such is the case with ArbCom.  I don't think many of the arbitrators are interested in getting into it (hence the lack of votes), possibly because it's getting clearer all the time that it's fairly poorly licensed as an RFar.  Geogre 02:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Adspam?
Not sure if you want the Christmas Eve Featured article promotional message I've crafted (the red one) here on your talkpage; do you? Shall I put it on? Merry Christmas, honey! Bishonen | talk 01:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel better, be well! Bishonen | talk 11:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course he want's it - he loves it, I've decided to award Geogre one of my personal limited edition Christmas cards.

Merry Christmas!!


Cool! I wanted a bicycle for Christmas. Now I'm Geogre on Wheels! Geogre 12:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Holiday greetings to my favorite "reactionary foamer" Paul August &#9742; 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)



'Oh! MY Goodness!  I am flabbergasted. I'm glad that he came to the conclusion that I'm not a reactionary foamer (one wonders...right or left wing? I didn't know socialists were "reactionaries"), but I am left puzzled at what I had said that led him to make the assumption in the first place. Well, at any rate, it turned into a nice left-handed compliment. I don't know why, though, folks think that somehow we're against web comics or for them or anything else. I think most of us are just quite upset at going straight from "I'm ticked" to RFar, with none of the procedurally mandated steps between, and then ArbCom doing the inexplicable and accepting the case. Geogre 18:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You may not be a reactionary, but admit it, you can foam with the best of them. Oh and has Foamer eaten Giano's little doggie? Paul August &#9742; 22:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Now we know that Foamer is crazy: he missed eating the hat! My non-foaming dog will routinely destroy plush toys, but she would never forget the squeaky bits, nor the hat.  If it's soft and makes a noise, she eats it.  (I do not foam!  I thunder, often righteously.)  Geogre 12:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I stand corrected, "thundered" is more apt. (A new epithet, "Zeus Ogre?") By the way, as I look back and forth between Foamer and doggie, I'm noticing a striking resemblance. Is it possible that Foamer is really some kind of an Ovidian Metamorphosis of Little Doggie? Am I just imagining the beginnings of a rabid gleam in Doggie's eyes? and the first frothings of foam on Doggie's tongue? And now I see of course, those are Foamer's actual ears not just red earflaps on the Santa's hat. Now I'm convinced, Foamer is Little Doggie" (I wonder if Giano knows). Now the chainsaw makes sense. Paul August &#9742; 17:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I fancy more Odin than Zeus, in that regard. After all, Zeus only hit titans and a few exceptional mortals, while Thor could be counted upon to throw Molljnar just about anywhere, and for any reason, and he had a thing about trolls.  I think you're right about Foamer and Lil' Doggie.  I don't think that a metamorphosis is necessary, though.  It's just that Lil' Doggie is the more advanced case of rabies.  After foaming, growling, staggering, and biting friends comes smiling vacantly.  I see the exact same expression on the faces of Christian Coalition members and the people leaving the Primitive Baptist Church in town after the pastor has decided that one of his congregants needed his sins confessed for him, and no one can deny that those folks are rabid.  Geogre 18:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)



Have you made your New Years revolution yet? Paul August &#9742; 06:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As Twain said, I think, a boy learns a lot from a dog: faithfulness, courage, and to turn around three times before laying down in bed. (That poster looks like something August Strindberg would have starred in during that phase of his career.  More proof that he was an Anarchist?)  I think I'll go edit the If I Had a Hammer article and point out that it's a clear neo-pagan song, where Phil Ochs and company show their desire to worship Thor again.  (A Wiccan was in a medieval literature class I took.  She wore hearts, moons, and clovers for earrings and kept suggesting that every female in medieval literature was a sign of "the people missing their goddess worship."  After a while, the prof just began pretending that he couldn't hear her.)  (She would later be a Dervish, then a Christian.)  Down here in Baptistville, there are no revolutions, and evolutions are merely a theory.  Geogre 13:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I bet she liked The Da Vinci Code. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, absolutely! It was all that folderol.  Basically, Laura Ridding's masterpiece, The White Goddess, which she allowed Robert Graves to write, with all its amazing misunderstanding of medieval literature (e.g. believing that the material from the Dun Cow Book and Book of Taliesin was true and literal) as if it told the real story of history, with a soupcon of Green Man and a sprinkling of every conspiracy theory around, as an approach to literature and life.  When she expressed the view that Geoffrey Chaucer's Book of the Duchess was an expression of this suppressed love of the goddess, I lost all patience with feigning to think about her comments and began allowing myself to laugh audibly.  ("You're not being repressed because you're dangerous.  You're being repressed because you're silly.")  Da Vinci Code came out later, but I'm sure, had she managed to remain a wiccan for more than a year, she'd have loved it.  (I have some real grousing to do with The Rule of Four, which isn't as stupid but isn't smart.)  Geogre 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I should never have said she probably liked Da Vinci Code. On reflection, it's an obvious violation of WP:NPA. (Or does that not apply for former classmates of other users? Somone should open an RfArb to find out.) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That reminds me of one great gag we had. We used to say, "You read Longfellow!" and "Don't listen to him: he reads Fenimore Cooper!" as insults.  When "enjoyed Da Vinci Code" is a PA, we know we're in the right company.  Geogre 13:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember Hollaback Girl?
I don't know if you noticed that Hollow Wilerding has been nominated for adminship. Bishonen | talk 04:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You left a comment on User:Bishonen's talk page...
I do plan on running at RfA again someday. If you want the full details on why I never revealed why User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario are friends of mine, please access the following link:

This link. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding. . . (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Wild
Thanks for the comment on my talk page! =) And again, I want to say I'm sorry for how I treated the Wild article. It was not at all deserved. Jon Harald Søby 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this?
You probably have, but I thought I'd point it out in case you hadn't. William Connolley,fights for two years to get Global Warming to an appropriate state... this quote is particularly cogent ''"It takes a long time to deal with troublemakers," admits Jimmy Wales, the encyclopaedia's co-founder. "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense."'' Global warming is, in the grand scheme of things, a bit more important than webcomics. (I watch talk pages I post to, feel free to reply here, I'll see it)++Lar: t/c 16:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyking
Geogre, no, Everyking's dispproval of the HW block isn't recent. It was posted on User talk:Hollow Wilerding, early on, because Everyking is banned from commenting at the admin noticeboard pages (I'm pretty sure he is). You prolly want to delete/strike out that comment. I hope he doesn't think you're getting at him if he sees it (I know you're not). Thanks for commenting on the RFC, though I expect none of us should have, really, considering it was created (not "filed"—it's not listed on the main RFC page) by a blocked user. Blocked does mean that you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 06:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no strike through is necessary. You had asked about the block in the logical and licit place (AN), and the feedback there was unanimous.  Everyking's opposition was not on your user page (telling the blocking admin that he disagreed) nor at AN nor at the mailing list.  I don't know about his being blocked from any particular page, and it's a shame if true.  I don't imagine Everyking can think I'm trying to get at him, as, after all this time, he ought to know that I pretty much stay out of the frays he has been in.  I hope he knows my opinion of him (excellent editor with a sore spot that leads him to trouble).  I don't think anything more needs to be said on the RFC.  Geogre 13:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

From you-know-what
That's like expecting Ken Starr to apologize to Bill Clinton for prosecuting him.
 * Huh. I didn't actually try to parse this until your latest comment, rather I had decided to stop feeding the troll. Now that you mention it, uh... hmm... let's see, Search4Lancer is the prosecutor and... uh, was Bish the defendant? Now I'm just lost. And would an apology from Ken Starr be all that bad? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's see: Ken Starr exceeded his mandate, concluded his investigation into the matter he was charged with in a year but kept going onto three matters he was not charged with investigating, employed evidence from illegal phone records, and produced no evidence of criminal wrong doing. Hmmm. A perfect example of a person who was righteously prosecuting and who should never apologize? Uh, not really. He could have said "asking the Neuremberg prosecutors to apologize for prosecuting Albrecht Spier" or something, but choosing Ken Starr is just one of those magnificently unconscious bits of irony. Geogre 13:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cynna Neele
I read your comment on the FAC, and I certainly see where you're coming from, but I'm not all that sure how to fix it. While she's a fairly celebrated figure in the sport, she's not a household name, as even though netball is probably the most widely played sport in Australia, it doesn't get much recognition at the elite level - I think there's only about two players from the national team who'd be considered household names. On the same note, I don't think it could be said that her successes have brought any extra attention to the sport - only Liz Ellis has seemed to be able to achieve that one, and that's more because she's become a media personality than anything else.

I'm not sure what you mean by "wider career" - do you mean in the media? Virtually all netballers here (apart from the Australian captain) here have to take on a full-time job as well as their sporting commitments, but since Neele was a university student up until a year ago, and was unemployed for most of this year, there's really not that much to say besides what I've already added, I think. Please understand that I'm not trying to shoot the comment down; I agree with it, but I'm just not quite sure how to broaden the context appropriately. Ambi 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see where you're going, and it makes sense. I'll try and work some mention of that into the article in the morning. Do you have any other suggestions for how I might address this? Ambi 13:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In terms of your university question, it's a bit difficult - many of the younger ones are university students (or even high school), but because their careers typically last for quite a few years after graduating, there's a lot that aren't. As for putting her in the context of the sport, I'm not quite how to go about it - while she's amongst the best in the country right now, to my knowledge she hasn't smashed any records or done anything to definitively etch a legacy into the history books. Ambi 14:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography
Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wierd
Yes, my tendancy to be cryptic has not helped this at all.

The 1st user box was untenable, and the block was just if abrupt. The second was was rude and ill-advised, but blocking for it was a little hasty. Editing the user page of someone who has just been blocked for (in effect) saying he would be opposing her for ArbCom (something that we should be able to say, as long as we do so sensibly) reeks of gloating.

I have now, however, pushed my tendancy for necro-beastial sadism way beyond the point of diminishing returns.

brenneman (t) (c) 03:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Innocent III
I noticed this page was linked from the WP main page on Jan. 8, but when I went to look at it I saw it was horribly unclear, so I rewrote it. If you'd like to clean it up even more, I'd be delighted. Halcatalyst 05:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I gave it a brief "information only" edit. I'll look over it for style later.  It needs some rewriting and perhaps sectioning to make events a bit more clear.  It seems, at this point, to concentrate so much on the Italian penninsula that the motives and objectives aren't clear.  Geogre 13:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mail
Mail! Bishonen | talk 19:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom Activism
I'm surprised. What have I done to cause your ire?

Kim Bruning 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ire? I have no ire toward you.  I didn't support you on ArbCom, but I don't dislike you.  It's just that the business where that fellow left after his RFA failed and you came along behind to wonder why I could oppose was a bit...intrusive and suggested that there was a right position and a wrong position and that I had taken the wrong one.  I had been pretty well reasoned, and yet that whole episode suggested that the redefinition of deliberation to consensus and consensus as unanimity was something worth going along and bugging folks about.  That was enough to make me uncomfortable with how you'd do on ArbCom.  Let's put it this way: a great number of AC cases seem to come down to "he/she called me names and hurt my feelings!"  Perhaps I'm radical on that, but I'm getting less and less interested in "feelings," as they more and more indicate the entropic principle of forum-speak taking over Wikipedia.  We're less and less an article-based enterprise and more and more a community of chums and enemies.  If I hurt his feelings by voting against his RFA on the basis of what he said, and if that made him leave, then, well, concluding that I was wrong or that I needed to be interrogated was a bad sign.  Again, though, certainly no ire.  I have no dislike, just discomfort.  Geogre 14:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh! And my intent there was to actually soften the blow of Gmaxwells words, and to figure out what was actually going on. My apologies for failing to mitigate your discomfort. Kim Bruning 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim, no one likes two on one in an argument, and it sure looked like Gmaxwell (or whatever name it is in this context) was upset and going off the beam, and then you were coming along to hold his coat. Very unpleasant.  You didn't question him on his exceptional (and trollish) comments, did you?  You weren't on his user page urging him not to go to talk pages and tell everyone who voted against his buddy that they should never again express an opinion, did you?  The fact that you were, at least publically, silent about someone doing something that extraordinary and outrageous was a bad sign.  Now, I didn't go ape over it.  I figure Node is a good user most of the time and that he was just having an episode, but it was astonishingly bad form for him to do that.  Geogre 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

hi :)
hey george, what did you mean by all this posts by one particular user may be i don't know what for a freshman I don't know what...? I'm really sorry, I didn't get your point, but if u wanna tell me something, go ahead, just please make it straight forward because I speak spanish. :) --Cosmic girl 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was referring to your asking so many open-ended religious questions. They are a bit more discussion topics than actual questions, and the reference desk is really supposed to be non-discursive.  We're not really supposed to chat there, just answer questions.  Questions that can't be answered definitively really shouldn't go there.  When I was 15-20, I used to love to talk about religion with people with different points of view.  I was trying to solve my own feelings on the matter.  This is a fairly common time of life to have discussions like that, and they're wonderful things that are very necessary.  (I'm not trying to accuse you of being any particular age, just explain what I meant by "freshman dorm room bull session" -- college freshmen meet up and talk about Life the Universe and Everything.)  It's just not appropriate on the reference desk.  I was trying to send a message to the other folks that we should keep our answers simple and not get into talking to one another.  Also, since I am a Kierkegaardian Christian, I think that talk has little to offer us in terms of final answers to the nature of ultimate reality (see Linguistic determinism).  Geogre 14:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ok, u r right :) thnx 4 pointing it out.--Cosmic girl 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ps. what I understood from that article of linguistic determinism is that we can not know about a thing which we haven't defined linguistically, but I'm confident that some day we will be able to understand God by creating concepts for him/her/it, like the example of those people that only had 3 words to talk about cuantity (one-two-many) so they wherent able to distinguish or comprehend more objects, same with us and God, we can not comprehend him because we havent pinpointed any termns nor descriptions that are objective regarding God...but someday, as we evolve more, we may be able to understand even God's subjetivity, or at least, that's what I hope.--Cosmic girl 20:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Christian existentialism (Kierkegaard and his followers) say that we do experience God, but we can't "understand" God, for understanding implies limiting. At most, we experience an aspect of God.  However, the thing about words is remarkably like what Ludwig Wittgenstein said.  He said that we are like a fly in a bottle: it cannot fly directly up, and it will fly around and around until it dies.  God is above the bottle, but we are only able to look left and right.  As for the question of whether or not there is a God, Wittgenstein said that the question cannot be asked: when you ask it, you posit the answer already, since you used the word "God."  Whether there is an objective existence of God, Wittgenstein said that there was simply no way for philosophy to say, "But, for me, I am too old to bend my knees that way."  Kierkegaard said that philosophy is mute on the question because philosophy is a grammar of logic, and logic is incapable of approaching anything that is outside of the human mind.  Geogre 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Exclusive club
Hey, we've both voted "oppose" on the fellow leading the arbcom voting. What's wrong with us? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In my case, it's a long memory. Back when only admins would close VfD's, he allowed his personal opinion to over rule the votes and was simply deciding on his own to keep articles that the voters had decided should go.  When confronted, twice, he cut it out.  There was another, similar, case, as well.  He didn't do like Tony Sidaway, where there were vows that "you'll never stop us," but there was a decision that put himself above the regular process.  I don't have anything against him, but ArbCom is the wrong place for him, IMO.  Geogre 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm planning to keep quiet regarding my ArbCom voting rationales except for those based on candidate inexperience; I was just glad to not be so lonely down there in that one! I see Bishonen has joined us too. Now you know there's something wrong with us ;-) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I assure you I am quite well informed about the HW matter, as I've been following it for months. I started observing her edits back when she was Winnermario; we both edit a lot on pop music topics. I also have read most of the content she's added and the FAC discussions. I really doubt there is anything significant about the situation I'm not aware of. This "failure to research" business is insulting, and sounds like an attempt to discredit or dismiss me. Everyking 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but you showed no evidence of reading, much less addressing, the central issue of that case: a user was evading blocks repeatedly. Further, you didn't address any of the points raised by Bunchofgrapes, Bishonen, or me.  Further again, feeling that the quality of that user's edits (or any user's) was such that we should ignore our rules against block evasion would make you, in my personal view, inappropriate for ArbCom.  This is my view.  I have said all along that you are a good editor with a few blind spots, but I couldn't support you for ArbCom.  Geogre 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't feel the block evasion was important. If we could all agree on something reasonable, no punishment for block evasion would have been necessary. Things can just be let go in exchange for a constructive solution. Everyking 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Block evasion can't be tolerated. In particular, ArbCom members can't countenance it.  I have my own quarrels with the blocking policy, but, as it is the policy, we have to change it or obey it.  Geogre 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly can be forgiven, if the person is willing to settle down and obey the rules in the future. I suggest that someone who doesn't understand this is highly unqualified for the ArbCom, not the other way around. Everyking 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So who isn't forgiving? Forgiveness requires that the person be repentant.  However, that person never stopped evading blocks.  That's the thing.  Had she taken her block, the first time, the second time, the third time, or the fourth time, then it would have been possible to forgive, but what you're talking about is not forgiveness, which is given after the fact, after the sin has ceased, but waiving the policy.  And for what?  Why this particular person?  Why would this person get more of a chance than you, than Anthony, than Sam Spade, than Willy?  Because she writes about pop songs?  Nah.  Let her repent, and then we can forgive.  Geogre 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere. If I can get her to "repent", will you unblock her yourself? Everyking 04:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Repentence means accepting the block. So far, "she" has continued to edit non-stop.  Geogre 12:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. Let's say I can convince her to "accept", "repent", or whatever. Everyking 14:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By your lack of response, should I assume that this "repent" business was just an argument you were using? I mean, I posed the question of whether repenting would get her out of it, and no response. If you meant what you said, obviously that should get her out of it. Everyking 07:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I was waiting for you to achieve this miracle. Also, there is a discussion now on an/i about it. I know that that's not very helpful for you, but the editor himself is there, and I outlined my position. Basically, it's this: if he takes a 2 week block, he'll have caught up with the offenses committed as Winnermario and Hollow Wildering. As for what penalty there should be for block evasion (which was not known until then), I'd prefer to leave that to an ArbCom. I'm not a member of that body and do not seek to be, at least partially because I'm kind of conflict averse. Geogre 11:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, the two week block was arbitrary in length, and individually imposed; it's not like her sockpuppeting corresponds neatly to a two week block, and then you must serve out the sentence. Secondly, I remind you once again, blocks are not supposed to be punishments. If the problem is fixed, the block is unnecessary and may be removed, so that the blocked user can go about improving the encyclopedia. You sound like a judge handing down sentences to be served consecutively. That's a totally wrong approach on Wikipedia. Our goals on this should be: A) Get Hollow Wildering to agree to be less aggressive, B) get her to stick to one account, and C) get her back to editing normally. Your punitive stuff is entirely counter-productive. Everyking 04:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hensca, Geogre!
Any time, G! Yes, I noticed his "imagination" when I browsed through his contribs. I think you're right - his insistence to come back so long after the issue was closed for good proves that you got him right on from the beginning. It also demonstrates that you hurted his feelings, lol! I've added your user page to my watchlist just in case he feels like coming back. Btw, you sure look impressive with that shotgun! Kisses, --  Phædriel  *whistle* 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hensca again, dear Geogre, and I hope you don't mind me bothering you (am I?...) I really wanted to write you a sonnet, but after failing miserably, the best vandalism for your user page I could come up with was merely this. Feel free to add it to your user page, and should you ever want to get even bolder, I'd really love to help you improve your shooting technique with the shotgun. Take care! Kisses, --  Phædriel  *whistle* 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not very good with borders, myself (but I respect boundaries, according to my kindergarten teacher). I am absolutely the worst shot with a shotgun, ever. The one time an animal can be absolutely it won't die, unless it's from a heart attack brought on by laughter, is when I'm aiming a gun at it. On the other hand, no tree can call a dead pine cone its own, when I'm armed and on the loose. (One must always be on guard against killer trees.) What does "hensca" mean? (I have always been interested in my long distant Creek heritage, but, once I began investigating the timeline, it just grew depressing. My great-great-great grandmother married in around 1820.  That's a significant date, alas.  Not that I have any evidence that it wasn't a wonderful love match, but the year is simply too grimly coincidental.)  No bother at all. Until I can get back to researching and writing, I'm merely puttering around and thundering at folks. Geogre 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh, that sounds pretty impressive - ever tried to shoot at a killer cactus? They're pretty nasty, especially when they stalk you from behind... Anyway, I've never shot an animal myself, and I doubt I ever will, yet I'd love to try my aiming at a sockpupet someday... now there, you'll have to teach me the technique! Hensca is the Muskogean Creek word for "greetings", that's all - or so I've read. No need to be ashamed for not knowing it, I hardly know some phrases in N u m u (Comanche), despite my descent is closer than yours. I really hope you liked the version of your user page. Please, dont't feel compelled to use it simply because it took me a day and a half of tidying, testing, editing and fighting with the incredible wikicode mess. It's great to know I'm not bothering you, G, although I'll bet you'll end up kicking me away from your talk page. Someday, I promise you a poem in the Indian style - now that will be original! Kisses, --  Phædriel  *whistle* 00:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. Btw, the bit about your user page was a poor show of my classic ironic humor, G, please do as you will - I really hope you don't take offense from it...

Of course not! I'm honored. I am always amazed when people even notice me, much less when they do such clever and interesting things. ("Lexicographer: n. Maker of dictionaries. A harmless drudge.") In fact, now that I'm finally getting back to some books and reference works, I plan to make that brag list of mine grow again. (I always feel like I'm only worthy of being here as long as I produce, and every day that I only produce some policy argument or troll bashing, I feel like I'm treading water.) The people of southern Georgia (where I am this year), incidentally, are so totally unaware of the Creek that it's astonishing. The closest thing to it they know of is "Tecumseh," and that only in combination with "Damn" and "Sherman." Geogre 17:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fil's gone missing?

 * There once was a poet from Dublin
 * Whose absence is really quite troublin
 * Back on the third
 * Was his last word
 * Concerns they are daily a doublin

The last I knew he was on this page having a cup of tea with ALoan. Did somebody slip him a Mickey Finn? Shall we send out the dogs? Organize a search party? Notify the proper authorities? Paul August &#9742; 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it. The fillow is about to be an arbitrator, and yet he has gone dark withal.  I suppose we can all e-mail him, and I can e-mail him directly, but one supposes that he's not at a computer in general, lest we'd see hide or hair of him.  Geogre 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I did email him about a week ago. No response. Paul August &#9742; 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's not panic just yet, he's only been missing for 9 days, he never edits weekends and saint's days.  He's probably just found a discount post Christmas "all in" getaway break to Phuket or somewhere.   Its all very well for all of you living in the sunshine of Australian, Florida, California and.........er Georgia. but for those of us in exile from our own sun-kissed shores living in this cold, grey drizzle can be very depressing, even Bishonen has the consolation of the sauna, Abba and "Absolut  raspberry vodka", which must be very nice for her.  No -  for the time being let us think of Fil  in his speedos and ray-bans lying on golden sands, being caressed by the ocean and Mrs. Fil, while lots of little Fil's are reciting poems and building sand castles Giano | talk 10:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Giano: Is it time to panic yet? Paul August &#9742; 19:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The time is not yet right for panicking, or for Fil's "Missa pro Defunctis".  We will pray to St Jude  and St Giacomo for a while longer.  We must give him a year and a day.   Definitly not time for the  Viaticum yet. Giano | talk 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here in "sunny" Cambridge today it's cold grey drear and raining, but picturing Fil in speedos does help. Paul August &#9742; 15:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't do a thing for me. (Here, it's about 20-22 C, rain with tornado watches.  That's right: it is, in fact, 20 or above.  Now, today, we're having a horrible cold day -- all the way down to 40 F with wind -- but we'll be back up to the merely chilly 18-20 C (65-75 F) tomorrow.  The biggest danger is deciding whether a noise is thunder or someone shooting ducks or turkeys.)  Geogre 15:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather picture Mrs. Fil, in her exotic string bikini with...... anyway the last time I went on holiday I bought some ray-bans like Fil's at the airport duty free very cheaply indeed (they were real ones too, not like the old ones I bought from a man with a suitcase standing outside the colloseum in Rome) So the entire family (there are a few of us) boarded the plane, and Mrs Giano (who has less sense of style than me) said in if took the ray-bans off and put on my propper glasses I would see the film better and stop asking her what was happening - to cut a long story short, the pen-ultimate baby Giano than sat on them and they were broken beyond repair - the moral of the story - perhaps the rain is better than a family holiday - even in Phuket so envy Fil not. Giano | talk 15:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here in sunny Oregon, we've had rain something like 24 of the last 25 days, and, if you watch the news, it turns out we're all going to die from flooding. But don't worry: I live on a hill. I shall die from landslides instead. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oregon....Oregon..... and where exactly is Oregan? Is it the sort of place Paul August could run around in speedos, wearing counterfeit ray-bans while drinking "Absolut  raspberry vodka" with my out of control children and their pet goats  in hot pursuit Giano | talk 20:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a mysterious area, sort of a black hole between California and Seattle. Ray-bans are useless, except to keep the rain out of your eyes, and speedos wouldn't fit in either. Alcohol and goats are both quite popular though. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
 * Three: One to screw it in and two to turn away the 50 Californians who came to "relate to the experience."
 * No, it's six: one to screw it in and five to fill out the environmental impact statement. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I hear that in Oregon they make their Speedos out of Redwood and use wrap around Raybans, all the while wondering if they can persuade the eastern part of their state to join Montana or Idaho. Geogre 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha! Now we know!  Bunchofgrapes is not a Eugenian (where they love the environmental impact statements).  Let's see...those wouldn't be hops instead of grapes, now would they? :-)  Geogre 02:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We mock what we love. I grew up in Eugene, in fact, but am now a suburban Portlander. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Oregon the one where you all drive about in little horse carts wearing funny hats and having loads of wives? Giano | talk 16:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I think that's Sardinia. Or maybe Utah. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't you call me geographically challenged BoG, (in your smug edit summary) I have done mountain rescue in the Italian Army - swinging perilously from a helicopter and  carrying people on my back for kilometres to safety through driving blizzards and drifts  - well - I would have done had the need arisen, it wasn't my fault there was no snow that year.  I would probably then have a whole article about me in wikipedia because of my bravery and navigational skills.  All you have to do is let the horse decide where to go, while Geogre shoots the Turkeys to feed you and your wives.  Anyway a boy from our village went to America - and was never heard of again - which just goes to show what sort of place it is.  Anyhow what has this to do with poor missing Fil - I suppose I shall have to go to Phuket to rescue him from the Hawaiian hand-maidens or whatever the natives in those parts are called. Giano | talk 18:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is totally unfair of you two to have multiple wives, when I don't even have one yet. We need to equalize the balance of payments henceforth.  Send me one.  A nice one.  One with good earning capacity, a lively wit, a sense of style that is open minded but not too adventurous.  She should be moderately libidinous, but not noticeably so.  Modest and kind, she should fit into a normal airliner seat.  Geogre 19:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You want to marry Bishonen? Giano | talk 20:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Send her over, and we'll see. I think those Swedes don't believe in marriage, though.  Commies and all.  Here, if you stand still with a woman and hold her hand, someone'll pronounce you married.  Geogre 21:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

New HW uproar
New uproar and weirdness on WP:ANI at "Attempting to resurrect Wikipedia career". Sit out the block, any block? Don't make me laugh. Bishonen | talk 05:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

Barnstar
I hereby bestow upon you the title of Defender of the Wiki - FCYTravis 23:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Gosh, thanks! My only point of pride on the project is that people should know what to expect from me.  If an admin is going around the process, I'll holler about it.  If a user is trying to avoid the process, I'll holler about it.  I have my own list of policies that need to be changed, but compliance is not optional: we agree to all the policies whenever we change a single byte of data.  If we don't want to abide by the policies, we can go to Everything2.  Geogre 01:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Eavesdropping on Bishonen's talk page
You're quite right. Catholics should be creating more articles on lives of the saints. I accept your challenge (or at least, I will when I get my next assignment in)! Cheers. AnnH (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your messages. I've never heard of Amelbert, I'm afraid. My plan is to go here and make some of the red links turn blue. I'm particularly interested in Nicholas Owen. He wasn't a priest; he was a carpenter who built secret hiding places for priests at a time of persecution, and he died on the rack.


 * By the way, I'm a bit confused by all the titles in Category:Saints. Sometimes it's St. X; sometimes it's Saint X; and sometimes it's simply X. Is there any method behind this inconsistency? I can't call my saint "Nicholas Owen", because there's already a stub on Wikipedia about somebody called Nicholas Owen. AnnH (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Several more to go, but this is a start. Improvements are welcome. AnnH (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Call me?
My last name may be Wilerding, but you are never going to be able to call me as I reside under a different surname. Don't you dare bother looking at any of my family/friend(s) user profile emails. Also, I'm already going to be filing an RFar against Bishonen if she does not stop constantly accusing me of being three users. 64.231.168.115 02:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Would this link be enough to convince you that Cruz and I really exist? Please don't call my house, I really don't need that. He is a writer on another site, works with Zelda (as demonstrated through my editing Majora's Mask) and has Mariah's name in his biography. He has been a user here since January 3, 2004, and did not join Wikipedia until April 2005, so this registered account is not a hoax to return us to Wikipedia. It is but evidence that three of us exist. 64.231.168.115 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In other words, your user page, which said that you were Courtni Wilerding, was a lie? The user page that said that you were a teacher in Toronto was just another deception?  Don't worry: I was going to call the real teacher to alert her that one of her students was pretending to be her on Wikipedia.  That's all.  I'm sure that's of no concern, if you're telling the truth.  Geogre 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What in the world are you talking about? I am Courtni Wilerding! The links and everything I have provided relate to my brother Cruz! You want to call me? You really want to and get proven the facts? Look up under Balogh in the Toronto phone book. 64.231.168.115 02:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This link states that I have been teaching since December 2003 at my current school. Is that enough evidence for you that Cruz and I are two separate people? Now Mariah does not have anything distinctive online. 64.231.168.115 02:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that Courtni Wilerding, Cruz Wilerding and Mariah somebody exist doesn't mean that any of them have ever edited Wikipedia. Now please honor the community's wishes by going away until your block expires. FreplySpang (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Amen. And when you come back, have the decency to pick one set of lies and stick with them. On User:Empty Wallow, you already told us "My name is Mariah Wilerding (not Courtni; that was a pseudonym)." &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Back in grad school, all those years ago, someone was complaining that he didn't want to take 18th century British literature. As a Modern American major and a Southern minor, it was irrelevant. It would do him no good, etc. A professor of Romantics who had finished with his own student walked over to this querrulous person and said, "You, Sir, are a vaccuum!" Talking to this editor about himself/herself/themselves is like tossing iron filings into a vaccuum: the words disappear, and you end up with as much of a void, as much suction, as before. After her second comment, above, I figured that I wouldn't play anymore. The facts are the facts. The user evades blocks. Nothing else really needs to be known. I was only concerned that the teacher had a student who was pretending to be her and that this teacher was therefore going to have a horrible surprise if she ever decided to contribute: she'd set up a user account and find that she was already labelled a problem. I figured that these misrepresentations were a form of identity spoofing, and I was worried about the real teacher. It was her I wished to call, and most emphatically not this user. As Billy Pilgrim says, though, "So it goes." Geogre 13:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Geogre
Dear Geogre, please allow me to present you with this small gift, which may seem unsignificant - but believe me, in my eyes, it only means you're a very special person. The way you defend a lady like Bishonen from mistreatment, shows you're both a gentleman and a gentle spirit. As you strive to keep WP a better place, I want you to know that there are some of us, the common and nameless editors, who value the commitment, quality and effort of people like you. Ai! Cheers, Phædriel tell me 03:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My goodness! Thank you.  What a rare thing.  I've never seen the like.  (Hmmm, time for me to clean up the photo of the Cherokee Rose I found (it's an awful photo I have, but I understand it's a quite rare flower), and I've certainly only seen one in my life.)  That really adds some cheer to a page that had taken a late turn to the dark.  Geogre 13:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't miss this!
Don't miss this CheckUser request, you'll like it! Bishonen | talk 01:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If anyone reads this talk page without reading Bishonen's talk page, you should click on that link. I'm not telling how we manage to be in Sweden and the US at the same time, or how we manage to edit around the clock without actually being in vastly different time zones.  --Geoshongre, Better than Jim Henson

Hello. Here's one to take you back: Adam Bede for your perusal. Danny 11:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ugh. That's one nasty non-article, alright.  You'd figure there's more to say about it.  Geogre 12:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm blind!
So I was innocently glancing at those fun-loving 40 Martyrs of England and Wales, and I had the misfortune of seeing this. My eyes! Make it go away, Geogre. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

AAAIIIIIIIIGH! The goggles, they do nothing! Geogre 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

(Who in the world thought of a "Solid Gold Top 40" emblem for people who died horrible, horrible deaths? Owie!)  Geogre 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the nightmare from the six pages it was on (each an every one of which remains a formatting mass, BTW). I just had to share the pain, first. Unbelievable. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You know how gullible I am? I'm so gullible that, when you showed me that, I didn't check "what links here." Know why? I was sure, absolutely sure, that people working on the 40 Martyrs would never use something so gauche. I really had faith that people working on articles about such somber and sober subjects would not inflict that blob on people. I need to get more cynical. Geogre 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, man
Oh, man, this new way of doing things is stressful at certain moments. Sheesh. That was one of the moments. The first thing I need to teach myself, obviously, is to not reply on IRC at such a juncture, even if it's you. I hope you got unblocked, and thanks for reverting my page. Can I call tomorrow, like at 3 PM EST? Bishonen | talk 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
 * You were fine, but the rest of IRC was absolutely useless. I stayed blocked, and so I just logged out.  3:00 PM is fine with me.  Maybe my mood will have improved.  My classes are going well, so far.  The students seem to enjoy them, and we're still in that Edenic period before they hand me anything and before I give them any grades.  It's that time of innocence, when they believe that they're good writers and I don't know different.  (The Marston article was a longer haul than I counted on.  At least it confirmed something I've always wondered about: why did Chapman, Jonson, and Marston get arrested for Eastward Ho?  The answer is that no one knows, and no one can figure it out, and 250 years of people with suspicious minds have been unable to find things to take offense at in it.)  Geogre 04:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please put on safety gear
As the mailing list is mostly, in my opinon, where bad ideas go to get amplified by a yes-man circle jerk... but don't get me started. I just thought this thread was equal parts fascinating and repellant. - brenneman (t) (c)  14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Charke
You credit me when I am not due. I saw the redlink and wondered whether it was worth linking to the article for the Earldom rather than the specific Earl (our coverage of the UK peerage is quite good due to the efforts of Emsworth). Then I saw the scandal on the page for the subsidiary Viscountcy - relating to this specific person - so how could I leave that out! -- ALoan (Talk) 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha! See, I'm intellectually lazy.  (Well, I am!  Don't laugh.)  I figure there are too many things to know in this world, so I have a very bad habit of not linking things that I know could link.  I just run away after the first draft and then come back (like a dog to its...well, nevermind) for a long time.  Our Anglophiliacs have their benefits, I admit, but they have their right honourable pains, too.  Geogre 14:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Most potent, noble, right and trusty, best beloved pains", I think you mean ;) Yes, one of the delights of this project is when you liberally besprinkle redlinks through an article, and someone finds the right page or writes one for you. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I have two interesting ones on deck now. One is Ann Cargill, and that should create some red links.  Then I'm going to overhaul my own Henry Carey, as the guy who wrote it first (me) obviously didn't do his research (well, I tried).  Geogre 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Isles of Sicily? Or of Scilly? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

D'OH! Da odder one. Geogre 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, ALoan? Thanks, man.  The Carey is vastly improved, too.  That one was a devil of an article.  Other than the DNB, there simply isn't information that I'd been able to find.  There is this well-known-to-specialists phenomenon called the Macaulay hangover.  Basically, Thomas Babbington Macaulay's Whig History dominated -- practically monopolized -- all accounts of the 18th c.  Well, Macaulay was a Whig, and the entire run of interesting authors got short-sheeted by his work.  Swift?  Insane.  Pope?  Malcontented and wasted his talents on politics.  Johnson?  Reactionary.  Aphra Behn?  Obscene.  Henry Carey?  Ditty writer.  Thus, as recently as 1975, big hairy reference works would give glib silence to authors like Carey, and I looked in all the blue-spined positivist reference works, finding diddly squat.  For what it's worth, the DNB author I read didn't do anything except read Hawkins and know Pilkington.  Well, actually, that's rather a lot.  It's more than I did.  Geogre 23:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

HW again
Pathetic. But "she is something she has yet to possess" is curiously apt, somehow. Take a look at the other contribution of this one, too. Remind me, why do we ever bother to block anybody, again? Or at least, why bother to block the unscrupulous? Bishonen | talk 02:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Pesonally, I blame Coutni and her gang of nonsense. Ignore her most noble Bishonen, Geogre - she continues to fail to AGF regarding all residents of the Toronto area sharing the same interests and having similar styles of English language mutilation. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That particular mangling of English was one of the worst. What's more, it began with "yo! her posse!" and then changed its mind and then went back to "is something she has yet to possess."  (She has not yet possessed herself?  Does that mean she's possessed by an unclean spirit?)  There are three different tones in the message.  "She" wants Everyking's personal e-mail.  One hopes that he does not provide it in the space provided below.  Geogre 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bunchofgrapes, that is the greatest happiness in a long time for us too. Wow.  If only it were true!  (I think it may be.  The writer doesn't seem too thrilled by Courtni and may exhibit foreign language interference rather than attention deficit interference in her writing.)  The great happiness and the self not being what possessed of are both suspiciously non-native English patterns.  We can only dream and hope our dreams come true.  I know Gwen Stefani will be sad.  Geogre 14:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're living in a fantasy now, I'm afraid. look, the same IP's other contributions were to The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker... it's still her/him/them/it. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean s/he/it is still with us, still evading blocks, and still trying to add inestimable expertise to things Mario and Gwen. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: puberty is a disease state.  Geogre 16:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Help me
Please help me contact Bishonen, I want to negotiate the unblock of the fighterforfreedoms, but her page is locked. This is urgent, please. User:fffreedom]


 * I'm sure Bishonen has seen the message, but blanking pages and leaving obscenities is not negotiation; it's resetting the blocks and demonstrating bad faith. Leave Bishonen and Bishonen's page alone a bit first, eh?  Geogre 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of fighterforfreedom. I am a war buddy of his. He was having difficulty thinking because of the medicine he was taking for the 5 bullets he took in Iraq. He would apoligize for his actions if he was unblocked. Thank You. Fffreedom 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

shiny gehry and pagemove
I was just leaving you a message saying no problem, and that I enjoyed your sermon and found it very sound, when the talk page was whisked out from under me by. My edit ended up getting saved to the redirect and I assume is now deleted. How very bizarre. In any case, I did like it, and I'm glad you kept it up. Chick Bowen 04:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move circus
I hope I got it right. I moved and deleted and undeleted and reverted and carried on, to fix the vandal move of this page. Please see the history, and here. Bishonen | talk 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC).


 * I think it's right now. Thanks all.  Antandrus  (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks for incorporating my message, Bishonen.  Skilfully done.  Chick Bowen 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the vandal was an AOL floater (hence the unblock). So it goes. The amount of intelligence involved is only slightly less than the value of these peoples' edits. Thanks all for the maintenance. No problem, Chick; I'm told that my little essays ended up influencing the current standards, such as they are. As you can see by the link from Brenneman above, some people find them far too constricting. Geogre 11:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if the page move vandal is, in fact, and AOL user, I, at least, know how to deal with the collateral damage hitting me. Geogre 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gutenberg
I just noticed that Gutenberg's index by authors has links to Wikipedia for those authors that have articles. I guess that means that the ones without links are writers without articles, and well, I thought you might like to know. Zocky | picture popups 16:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha! Well, it could mean that their volunteers haven't linked to our volunteers yet, as they work the way we do, with "anyone can edit" and all meaning "somebody has to, or it won't be done."  However, that is a good way to find out about gaps.  Thanks.  Lately, I've been on a transvestite lesbians of the 18th century run, but I'll snap out of that soon, as I'm running out of transvestite lesbians.  Geogre 16:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a problem that I often have. The key is knowing where to look... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For the 18th century, the best spot was no doubt the theater, with a coffee house being next up (high pitched voices from some of the "men" discussing politics, and that's not a periwig). These days, the local Virago's Bow bookstore.  Geogre 12:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting!
Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you!  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For your amusement
Take a look Sadly they have missed the page does not have a reference section at all. Otherwise I would vote for it - just to be bloody minded. Giano | talk 15:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I yelled at them a little. It's a flipping wonderful article.  I agree that references are needed, so I had to object, but when all those people could say was "inline, or I'll object until my face turns blue and my balls fall off," it's just pathetic.  Geogre

16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So I see, you edit conflicted me there! I agree with you, might stop a little short of you though - I may want to be a parent again. Giano | talk 16:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that wasn't me objecting like that. I wish to keep my balls (how else to play a game of jacks or baseball or kick balls?), but I was referring to the general fry of voters we've been seeing on FAC lately.  There is something truly dangerous about such folks, something that seems perfect for a life at the low end of the civil service.  I can imagine such a one grimly withholding food from starving children until they fill out the appropriate form 22-9-D.  I can see them telling Edward Pilgrim that he should have filed his complaint in a timely fashion.  Geogre 16:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah Edward Pilgrim of blessed memory. I had to learn all about him when studying planning law years ago. Just fancy you knowing about him.  I'm dealing with soem other suspected civil servants at the moment, this time very noble ones - all very worrying, think I shall emigrate again and come to the land of the free! Giano | talk 16:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you really? Cool.  I stumbled across his biography in the DNB when researching Laetitia Pilkington.  The summary sentence, "1904-1954, victim of beauocracy," hooked me, so I made notes and wrote the article.  Reading it, I was convinced that he was the original Arthur Dent and the original behind a number of victims of beaurocracy in British humor.  Here in America, we're very clear: money rules.  You got the money, you make the rules.  Geogre 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's one of the things I love most about your lovely country - never having to appolagise for enjoying and wanting the nicer things in life - here have a nice car and someone kicks it parked in the street - they are all so jelous of anyone who has more - very sad Giano | talk 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I hesitate before coming here criticising your golden prose (I shall disappear up your arse in a moment)  but do you really feel "In London, Colley Cibber, the decayed and wealthy poet laureate" that in this context "decayed" is the correct adjective.  It sounds to me as though he was just having a problem with his dentist.  I'm sure the page is great, just something I thought I would bring to your attention "en passent". Giano | talk 20:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit idiosyncratic and purple, I admit. I knew what I was doing, and what I was doing was intentionally choosing an archaism because I wanted to suggest that he was not only old, but kind of disgusting. I was trying to insult him as I described him, and do it in a shifty manner. I can be plainer and more NPOV. (Well, not NPOV exactly, but less clever-clever.) Geogre 20:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 193 at present. I would have gotten to 195 on Friday, had I not had to conduct an historical tour and not known about it in advance. This weekend is all grading first papers. Monday, probably, I'll get a chance to do some research on E. Montagu and rewrite that to claim it as mine. Then I'll do a few more. I do want to get to 200 before I take my next step, which will be to read secondaries on either Charke or Scott and work one of them up to FA. Geogre 21:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I see where you are coming from - trouble is I know there is a better word, but I can only think of syphlitic and festering. I'll email you at 3 in the morning when I wake up and think of it. Giano | talk 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nohhhh! Colley remained spry and discreditable into ripe old age, a fixture at the public gaming tables, stared censoriously at by the moralistic young! I think I've got something on the FAC page... yup, here. "A hale old man". No, he wasn't disgusting, just a relic from another era! Except that he was always a disgusting opportunist, but he had a lot more scope for being it during his active years. Anyway, Geogre, I came here to point you to this user finally sharing his views on the Most Noble debate. This, Your Grace, is about changing the recommendation of the Most Noble Manual of Style. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Well, I like his being decayed, Dorian Gray-style, as his lecherousness, gambling, and drinking caught up to him. That they didn't is neither here nor there.  Aristotle said that the historian should describe what must have happened and what should have happened and not merely what did happen, and my "decayed" did a lot of sneering in a very small package.  It's gone now, though.  I'll check on the Most Honourable Revered Brouhaha.  Geogre 18:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could reinsert some now-much-missed sneer by qualifying "poet laureate"? I gather he wasn't much of one. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an understatement, although I'll let Bishonen -- the keeper of the Cibberite Flame -- expound. He was positively dreadful as a poet, and he got the laureateship by braiding his nose hairs to the backside of Robert Walpole.  As Walpole rose, Cibber was dragged along behind.  I can't work it in in the Pilkington article, but I sure can insert a bit in the Charke article.  It's fairly obvious that, at least for a while, she was not fond of her daddy.  Geogre 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you, you Tory satirist. Bunchofgrapes, I'm sorry, but if you want to get the full flavor of Colley's impoverished poetry and crooked business dealings, you'll have to go to the extreme of looking through Colley Cibber, where Geogre and I both lay it on the line. Bishonen | talk 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Hey, I've got to be fair to my folks! Let's face it, the Whigs won.  They won in real life, and they won historically, as no one would now (well, not no one -- after all, the right honourable and most noble folks might) support what the Tories argued for, so the least we can do is let them triumph in reputation for brains.  Geogre 14:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, rest assured, absolutely everything I know about Colley Cibber is already from Colley Cibber and bits of The Relapse. Somehow the man didn't come up in my impovrished American education. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is, is it? Then I'll tell you what you need: a good long look at John Vanbrugh, the one article I know of that's located right at the intersection of architecture and Restoration drama. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
 * And Geogre, how's the Amazing De Novo Jubilee coming on? What's your article count as of now? Please keep me informed here. You need some sort of counter on your userpage. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

British vs English
Thanks for backing me up on this. We have continued our discussions at the incident board if you'd like to comment there. Arniep 00:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review
Advertisement - Please join the talk on if all articles brought to DRV should be fully restored and open for editing by default. brenneman (t) (c) 15:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV
Hi, I saw you wondered what that was. It is "Wikipedia:Deletion review", formerly "Votes for undeletion". The name change was to accomodate disputed "keep" results on AFD debates. Also, do you have any opinion on using the Arbcom against people for following process? Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What a mess.  Gerrard wants to take it personally.  Tony wants to take it personally.  Snowspinner wants to take it personally.  The question is whether all this personal umbrage is genuine or yet another way to introduce static and sidetrack the discussion?  Well, I'll never claim that these three personalities aren't a reason for my being alarmed, but my objections are not personal objections, but procedural.  Only the old ArbCom -- the one everyone seems to hate for his own reason -- could manage to pull something this 11th hour, this in the dark, and then proclaim self satisfaction over it.  Geogre 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
Thanks Geogre! I am going to take this to ANI shortly. Arniep 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Then again, AN/I seems to have its head up its rear on this.  It was as if no one had ever heard of the bio talk page, had never had the distinction occur to him, and they all wanted to settle it on AN/I.  :-(  Folks is goofy.  Geogre 12:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gazeebow Unit
How amusing. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Yep, he's a clerk alright. I'm just a regular admin. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He went round and round and round and round with me on one before. I suppose it's time for yet another admin to delete it.  That makes 4 admins deleting it as an appropriate deletion and just Tony insisting that he's more important than they are.  This is one of the clerks of ArbCom?  Geogre 12:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If that makes you a lower-life form, I'm not sure I'm even multi-cellular. - brenneman (t) (c)  13:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See, the question is whether being a clerk makes anyone a higher life form. Its defenders say that will never happen, that anyone could have been one. The problem with that logic is, first, that two of the clerks already think they're more equal than others and have demonstrated a...distorted...sense of how supported they are, and, second, that the people who criticize the system didn't want to be clerks because...as we've been saying quite clearly...we don't agree that the position should exist. 11th hour, in the dark, lame duck, and now deal with it. What a fiasco. Geogre 13:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Come now, the poor dears on the ArbCom can't make a good decision without clerks, why should we begrudge them that? - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, shame and humility don't seem to be bothering Tony much these days. He was a great asset to the WebComics case, he is saying on AN/I and wrote all the findings of fact. (sigh) How many people will have followed that case and know the degree of weakness in that "summary?" Geogre 13:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Citizens! Cease communicating with your cronies on the wiki, or I will have to ask you to report to Ministry for re-education.  Nandesuka 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Give us write access to the cabal mailing list, comrade, that we may comply! - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  13:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Christ Jeezuz, amen! Hamster Sandwich 14:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows that it's our fault for not subscribing to Wikien-L and seeing the glow(er)ing evidence there (i.e. a post from Tony). If no one objects loudly, quickly, instantaneously, and conclusively, then it's obvious that everyone agrees with it!  Geogre 15:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The question I have for the clerks is this. If any editor can perform the same tasks as a clerk, without actually being a clerk, why do they want to be clerks? Paul August &#9742; 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A question I have asked, indeed, and not been answered. What is the advantage of a clerk writing an executive summary, providing additional evidence when they're party to the dispute, and/or being controversial, and how the hell is this advantage stronger than the blindingly obvious disadvantages?  Answer: You don't like me, do you?  ("Hey, here's a red herring!  Look!  It's red!")  Geogre 15:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe an RFC on the matter would help? Having various summaries and endorsements thereof would be better than the present forest fire. The ArbCom does sometimes listen to community input (e.g. WP:RFA/SV). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree with shining a light in this dark corner, but I find an RFC...strange. First, RFC's on content for ArbCom are going to be a bad precedent -- something the AC members will instantly point out. Second, there isn't content. For behavior, it's even weirder, because an RFC on conduct, if successful, goes to...ArbCom. If Tony doesn't archive the page every time it looks like there are a few voices taking a contrary point of view, no one should need a "summary" to see what the community thinks about the summary feature. I'm also livid that this was done by "no one objected in a day, so it was something everyone agreed with." That kind of thinking is endemic among a certain set on Wikipedia, and my longtime desire for quorum and a demand for positive assent is something I think few people even understand, and those who do understand it are benefitting by its not being followed. Geogre 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Caveat
You may with to look at this Raul654 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fond
Aww, I'm fond of you. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Have some cocoa
Just going through and looking at the disputes you are involved in right now (most of them scrolled way too high up on AN/I) has stressed me out; I imagine you aren't feeling so great either. Here's some hot chocolate. May everybody who thinks knows they are right, and must do what is right for the good of the rest of us, get a nasty case of boils. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I sure could use it.  I decided last night that I was over-exposed as a voice crying out in the wilderness anyway, at this point, and so I'm going to be quiet and let the rest of the world speak today (well, ok, I may only take a half day break from the disputes, but no less).  Geogre 11:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, please enjoy your cocoa. You deserve a nice relaxing moment of repose. I agree with everything you have written on the L'Affaire clerk. And I think you deserve much thanks for writing it. Having discovered the issue late, and being by nature slow (Fil put it nicely once when he said that I was the most "considered" editor he knew), I have yet to make much of a contribution to the debate there (besides you were doing such a bang up job). I spent much of last night trying to find and read through the debate, and trying to formulate responses, but I could never quite seem to catch up. Now I feel a bit remiss for not joining in with more words of support &mdash; would that Fil were here to lend his voice. Paul August &#9742; 16:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I did think it was true that I was overwhelming other points of view, too, so taking some short break from it was also a way to let other people get a word in edgewise. See, it's that one function, summaries.  The rest is something few people care about, but summaries when the disputants have no say in it is a really poisonous possibility.  Still, I've made my views known.
 * Besides, I have some notes here to get my article count nearer the magic 200 number. Coming soon Giles Jacob, Elinor James, and Giles Mompesson!  Geogre 17:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Styles clarification
Hi, your comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29. Thanks Arniep 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Cliques Happen
Hello, Geogre. First, thank you for the kind acknowledgement at the end of your comments. You do make some valid points about "In-groups" and "out". And about how friendships can blind and bias. But Cliques form. It is a basic fact of human behavior. There are, naturally certain people and groups we gravitate towards or away from. Cliques are the inevitable result of this tendency. I freely admit to having mine, and please don't deny that you have yours with Giano and Bishonen also. You accuse me of only backing my friends, well clearly you are guilty here of the same "crime". Pot meet kettle...Glass house meet ROCK:> Let's be honest with eachother. I see nothing wrong with informal, friendly cliques, long as they do not become hostile, warring FACTIONS. This is the dangerous waters we are heading into now, which is another reason why I sent my apologies along with an offer of peace to Giano and Bishonen, which he (taking the liberty to speak for her too) soundly and coldly rejected. Unless we find some way to resolve our differences as civil adults and Wikipedians, this petty feuding will only continue and grow worse. So I extend my apologies to you as well. I plead guilty to the charges of standing up for my friends and for causes I believe in. I'm sorry if, in doing so, I've offended you in any way. The respect you have shown me as a writer and editor are mutual, even though outside the realm of Fac's and Rfa's our paths seldom cross. I regret this. It is perhaps one reason for our misunderstandings. Best regards,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually have no knowledge of your disagreement with Giano or Bishonen. That's the truth.  Bishonen is a friend of mine, and I like Giano, but I try pretty assiduously not to get involved in the conflicts that either of them individually gets into unless it personally interests me.  My opposition was based on my concern.  It's just one person's opinion.  Geogre 14:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean such as This or This or This. I'm sure your talkpage histories would would also contradict your claims of "Neutrality". Admit it, the three of you are thick as thieves, if you pardon the expression:> And I do not begrudge you that...so please don't begrudge me my friends. Since you seem to be the most reasonable and level-headed member of the trio, perhaps you would intercede with them to, if not withdraw their opposition, at least accept my apologies and peace offering. Your opinion and concerns MATTER to me, Geogre, if they did not I would'nt be bothering to reply even yet make a sincere effort at amens.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're referring to. If a matter is of interest to me, independently, I express an opinion.  If it isn't, I don't much care if Bishonen or Giano are involved.  Again, my friendships are off the Internet.  My Internet activity is based on my own views.  I don't particularly like clubbing online, and feel free to find diffs showing my opinion being the same as anyone else's, if you wish.  I perceive a strong, dark difference between those who share interests and those interested in sharing.  Geogre 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So that big, tawdry Peacock at the top of ALL THREE of your talk pages, pimping Bish's latest FA, is just a coincidence huh? I have both offline and online friends, I don't see why I should value one group less than another merely due to lack of geographical proximity. It is all too easy to forget that behind those pixels are thinking, feeling beings. It is easier, still, to have misunderstandings. But it is difficult to clear them up. The first step is to admit you've made a mistake and apologize. I have done so. Whereas you, won't even admit you are part of a clique. So this makes twice you have denied your friends, Geogre...You want to go for three times? Hark! I think I hear the Peacock crowing ;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you came here for an explanation of my vote, I have provided it. Beyond that is asking me to defend or change it, which I'm not inclined to do. Geogre 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just cannot believe your explanation. That you are opposing me because we had one mild disagreement on FAC last year, or that you fear I'll somehow show "favoritism" to my friends as admin, just does'nt cut it. That you are opposing because Giano, and via proxy Bishonen, oppose, seems far more likely. I only want us to be honest with one another. Your intellectual integrity is one of your qualities I respect. All you'd have to say is "Oppose per Giano" and I would have no qualms. Incidentltly, Geogre, trying to devalue someone's vote by pointing out their low edit count, is BAD FORM and beneath you, sir!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. On RFA, low edit counts that low (and someone who had most edits on a single article and then all to RFA) and spotty is normal procedure.  The bizarre comment that went with the vote made me wonder, and edit tools showed that I was correct.  The account is likely a role account.  Geogre 11:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Even so, it still doesn't look good. It looks like you are trying to "Shout down" the opposition (Or support in this case). Maybe you were correct, but if and until policy changes (Let's not hold our breath) any registered, non-sock user is enfrancised.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying very hard to avoid any insult, here, or anything that would create or increase animosity, so perhaps I've been too subtle. Everyone has his own view of "the #1 problem on Wikipedia." One person recently said that he thought personal attacks were the #1 problem. Well, I don't. I don't think personal attacks are even common, much less a big problem. On the converse, I find people who take things personally, who put personality first, who approach the project for personal affection/disaffection, to be the source of personal attacks, as well as the source of hamfisted reactions to supposed personal attacks. Tony1, for example, took things personally. He took them so personally that not getting to be an admin was a reason to not only leave, but to go down swinging and cursing and to resume the battle when he returned. I opposed him for reasons that had nothing to do with Giano's or Bishonen's. I opposed him because of a temperament issue. I felt that he took disagreement as insult, took everything personally. My opposition to you as an administrator, and only as an administrator, is that I fear that you take things as being to the person when they're not. Unfortunately, the fact that you have tried to rebut each oppose vote and wrestle with each objector has somewhat confirmed me in my opposition to only promotion to administration. The reason I would oppose administration only is that our most serious crisis right now (unaddressed so far) is "wheel warring" and peevish RFC and RFar procedings, and the thing I see in common to them all is putting personality above article editing. I wish all of us to watch carefully for that. Geogre 11:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have been too subtle...or I too dense, or both. Please don't think I take disagreement as insult. I want to know the other side's views and arguements and you have made yours much more clear to me now. I generally agree with your above assessment of the macro-problems currently controfonting the Wiki. There are a number of important "Meta" issues which must be addressed. And until they are, as I stated, anything else will be merely treating the "Symptoms". Stuctural and policy changes tend to be blunt insturnments. The simple, unsubtle fact remains, people DO take things personally. Whether or not they SHOULD is a separate, debatable matter. I'd argue it's not always, necessarily a bad thing. Sure passion can be adverse when we allow it to control us. But when it can be properly harnassed and channelled it is what DRIVES us to excell. Indeed, why bother making any endevor at all, unless it can be done with at least a mordicrum of the stuff:> Doubtless I have allowed mine to get my better on far too many occasions, though. I hope you don't feel I've been trying to bully or beat you down and sorry if you think this is the case. I merely wanted to engage you in a constructive, honest dialogue. I'm glad you, and now Bishonen, have reciprocated. I conceed, to a degree, your point that good editors don't always, necessarily, make good admins. But that all depends on the personalities involved, doesn't it:> Thanks for your time, no hard feelings--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking advantage
I've taken my life in my hands by altering another editor's (your!) comments at Reference desk/Humanities by altering "baronetcy" to "barony" because I know that's what you meant. Should you think this too forward of me, I'll understand. - Nunh-huh 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Pffft! I'm not one of those people.  I make mistakes.  I don't think this was a big one, but "barony" is probably better (as it applies strictly to land) than "baronetcy" (which applies to title position).  I like to be corrected...most of the time.  Geogre 11:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what I had in mind is that the question was medieval, and baronets weren't invented until 1611. But I'm happy you're not a "tread-on-eggshells" kind of guy. - Nunh-huh 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dang, I've been out-17th-centuried? I guess that shows that there are even more things I don't know.  (Peerage is one of those things, absolutely, which may be one of the reasons that I find the passion some people are devoting to the "right honourable" debate on the biographies portion of the Manual of Style page so mystifying.)  (But no one out-18th-centuries me!)  Geogre 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I find editing is ever-so-much-more blissful if I maintain my ignorance of what the Manual of Style says from moment to moment. I don't even want to get into whether it should be "The Right Honourable" or "t'he Right Honourable". <g>- Nunh-huh 00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that will be next. Currently, it's whether it should be "The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher" or "Margaret Thatcher, styled 'right honourable,' baroness of Blue Meanie, was born...."  If the title folks were to succeed, they'd then have to arm wrestle over The versus the.  I'm sure that whichever was most worshipful would be acceptable.  (I'm a fan of the 18th c. Tories, but not what they believed in.)  Geogre 04:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * Hey congrats! Oh look, the Description, in postage-stamp size! How... tiny :-) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. What's more, the DYK listing has, so far, generated good edits and no stupid edits. I hope it keeps going that way. I know there are thousands of people who took a Shakespeare class and got told about Mompesson more recently than I, and one or two may help the DNB account. You already did so with the reference to Massinger. I have a feeling this is one of those guys about whom there is a lot more under the surface. Geogre 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So much easier to get a DYK than an FA, and almost as fulfilling. OTOH, front-page FA (op.cit., supra) is the tops. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Raul to rediscover Restoration literature, or even Augustan literature. Oh, well. Mo' visibility, mo' problems. I doubt Bishonen has been able to sleep all European night for her article being on the main page. The amount of vandalism is staggering and varied. (See WP:ANI for one delightful little turd who was attaching things to the article.) Geogre 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Raul can be nudged gently at WP:TFA. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My own (and only) FA Attalus I has been waiting in the wings since, Oct 2004. At first it was standing there rigid with stage fright, knowing it would flub its lines. Only later did it begin to worry about the possibility of missiles from the direction of the audience. Now it sits quite contentedly, pleasantly sharing the odd bit of cheese with the mice, and winking reassuringly at each FA as it goes on stage. Paul August &#9742; 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness! I need to go over to commons and find an image. You absolutely get the Bridesmaid but not a Bride barnstar. You've been that patient for that long? And it's not like Attalus was a very minor guy. He invented velcro and solved Mario 3 in only thirty minutes! He wrote four of the Star Trek the Next Gender Nation scripts! He discovered salt! (Seriously, if Raul needs a nudge, you should be nudging. That's a long, long time.)  Geogre 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No nudge needed. I think of FA's on the main page as good PR for the encyclopedia, and not for the benefit of the authors. I think Raul does a good job, I'm happy to let him decide what he wants on the main page. Besides I'm not sure it belongs on the main page, I didn't nominate it for FA, and I didn't vote support either ;-) But thanks for the "Bridesmaid" award. I'll cherish it always. Paul August &#9742; 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Re Hart Hall - not my spot, actually: I edit conflicted with an anon who had fixed it. A google search would have helped a litte, but we do need a redirect... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Saints, martyrs, categories, etc.
Hi, I think I'll start a new thread, as it's probably difficult to find my posts when they're right in the middle of a long page.

No problem about the revert. On reflection, I agree with you. I suppose I was mixing up categories with lists. It was just a kind of instinct &mdash; what's she doing among all those martyrs? But I can quite see that it doesn't mean that she's a martyr: it means that she's a relevant entry for people who are looking for information about martyrs.

On the same note, I'm now wondering whether two articles (stubs, really) that I created a few months ago should be in the saints category. They are Jacques Fesch and Elisabeth Leseur. Originally I'd have said no, because they haven't been canonized. (I think that, out of tact or sensitivity, the cause of Jacques Fesch is being delayed until the daughter of the policeman he killed dies.) But they would certainly be classified among lives of saints in a library or a bookshop.

Anyway, I'll keep going with the forty martyrs. And actually, I have books about a lot of the other English martyrs from that period as well. AnnH (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I'd agree with you that they can be in the category if they've been beatified. If they're at "blessed," I'd say their in process for canonization and therefore saint-ly.  Where things get a lot trickier is with martyrs who aren't part of the martyrology.  For example, the famous Foxe's Book of Martyrs lists all of the martyrs of the protestant church.  Lexically, these people are certainly martyrs: they were killed for their faith.  By the legal usage of "martyr" as "imprimatur, college of cardinals endorsed, official liturgical calendar martyr," they're not, because they're martyrs of a set of churches that does not create saints.  Interesting question, yes?  (For my part, I'd put those who died for their faith, if they died for their faith and not another reason, in the category, no matter their faith, and the counter-reformation martyrs suffered for their faith as much as the reformation martyrs did.)  I'm not sure if I can find Foxe's Book in print form, but, if I can, I might try to grab a few of them who don't have articles.  Geogre 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)  (Now I'm going to go read those stubs.)


 * Say, isn't Leseur now beatified? Isn't she "the blessed?"  I thought she had cleared the first hurdle and had been pending true canonization for quite a while now.  Geogre 19:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure that Elisabeth Leseur is not "blessed" yet. I can't lay my hands on my copy of her spiritual journal at the moment, but it's a fairly recent edition, and I think it said that her cause was interrupted by the Second World War, and was then resumed.


 * I'd agree that anyone who dies for his/her faith is a martyr, regardless of what that faith is, but my feeling of martrydom is that there'd have to be a choice. A lot of the Catholic priests in England were offered their lives if they would acknowledge Elizabeth as head of the Church, or if they would attend a Protestant service. They refused. Even if some of them weren't, they still knew that by being in England as a missionary priest, they risked execution. If you're a Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Presbyterian living your faith in perfect security, and then, when a new King or Queen comes to power, you're arrested and executed for having been of that faith, with no possibility of pardon being offered, you might not really be a martyr. You might be planning to join the church of your oppressors if they'll spare your life, and they might simply not offer you that escape. I don't know to what extent the martyrs in Foxe's book had the chance to save their lives. Some Catholics who accept fully that Edith Stein was a saint, still feel some doubt as to whether or not she really was a martyr. And then there are the Holy Innocents. They were certainly killed for Christ, but were they really martyrs?


 * By the way, I saw afterwards that the category of martyrs had been explained on the Margaret Roper talk page, but I generally don't bother to look at talk pages when doing a minor edit on an article that I mightn't look at again. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Protestant martyrs were offered a choice as well. They could perform the auto de fe, generally, and Foxe's accounts are full of Protestant missionaries and people like Tyndale who were quite well aware that they might be martyred if they kept on going and could easily have avoided it.  It was a horribly bloody period of the world.  Before the US attack on Afghanistan, there were some young protestants who were arrested by the Taliban for handing out Bibles and doing missionary work.  They said that they hadn't broken the Taliban laws, that they weren't handing out Bibles, that they weren't trying to convert people.  I thought, "Wow, these people really might be martyrs, how strange."  Then, after they were released, they said, "Yeah, we did try to convert people.  We were handing out Bibles like crazy and preaching to them."  I'm glad they were released.  I'm sorry they were lying to try to save their lives.  Geogre 04:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

more AOL autoblocks
User_talk:Dante26, this person has most of the 205.x.x.x range autoblocked--205.188.116.11 14:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Any idea who the target (the actual target) of the block was?  I.e. I'd love to unblock the vandal and thereby stop auto-blocker from blocking all the rest of us.  Otherwise, I have to go through and, IP extention by IP extension, unblock them.  There are no range unblocks available to admins, so far as I know.  This is irritating.  Geogre 16:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, I know you've unblocked a lot of users for that exact reason, but you do realize, unblocking the username doesn't actually clear the IP autoblock? that unblocking the vandal only accomplishes one thing? leaving a vandal unblocked?--152.163.100.71 02:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're wrong on that. I've unblocked only one user, and that user has been me.  I know that particular case, because the IP shows up, and I can go in and reblock it for "0 minutes."  Unblocking the vandal, if the vandal has been using an AOL proxy, does not leave the vandal unblocked.  Since AOL cycles its IP's, the vandal was never blocked in the first place.  The vandal has slid over to another AOL IP in a few minutes, while a regular user of Wikipedia going through an AOL proxy set has moved over to the "vandal's" proxy.  This is why the block page is extremely clear: do not block AOL IP's for more than 15 minutes.  That's because 15 minutes is about the life of an AOL proxy assignment.  Geogre 02:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (I hate it when people think they know what's going on and don't bother to investigate before making charges. (Assuming that AOL didn't roll its proxies, what the heck use is blocking a dynamically assigned IP when the user base is that large?  What are the odds of that particular vandal getting that particular IP again?  Sheesh!)  We're all frustrated by the dynamic IP problem and the AOL problem, but trust me: unblocking the AOL vandal is, in fact, policy, because it is, in fact, policy not to block for longer than :15 in the first place.)  Geogre 02:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (Some people!)