User:Geogre/Talk archive 19

Archive 19: after the fire before the pan  

Thanks
Hi there, Geogre. Thanks for your words and for your advice in here. Regards —Lesfer (t/c/@) 04:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So then Lesfer, please apply his suggestions in the future and avoid violating WP:NPA in the future. Further personal attacks will be reported. NetK 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's the difference between you and me: I see my mistakes and learn from them. You don't even face your own behavior. I hope you do forget about this personal grudge against me. So read Geogre words and keep them in mind when thinking about making false accusations of vandalism as you did in here. This whole thing begun due to this false accusation. And drop the threat-act. That's not civil. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lesfer, the page you keep directing my attention to is your mention on my talk page is your comment and a prior "Orphanbot" comment, not a comment from myself. Regards NetK 18:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! No one attacks, no one defends. Work on the articles, not each other. No one needs to be right, only the articles do. Geogre 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Geogre, agreed. My apologies for my part. NetK 18:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I am glad you are willing to talk to me on IRC. I hope you are willing to talk to me on-wiki now as well? --Ideogram 20:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA for a bot

 * Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA

I'll try to keep it short, unusually enough for me: While I'm sure that the technical specs are fantastic, they are a bit too eager for my liking. There was appeal to authority, some hazy research, and in general a solution in search of a problem. I've vowed to personally do all 250-odd blocks of proxies a month.

Goodness, that was hardly a neutral "please state your opinon, whatever it may be," was it? Sorry, I'm just a bit het-up over the lack of serious discussion on this.

brenneman color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG. I was going to say something about "For the Lost character, see Jack Shephard" but this takes the biscuit. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you're not spamming, Aaron. You already had reason to think I'd be interested & that I wouldn't have noticed.  I want to go vote for someone there, too, but, given how "controversial" I am all of a sudden, I didn't want to be early in the votes, lest that biased people one way or the other.  As for the Lost character, the whole project has a shady character, but I guess that's not the same.  If there is only one other Jack Sheppard (there isn't...there is some Star Gate character too, I think), I'll leave it as proper (if shabby), but if we have a dab page, I'll kill that ref.  I didn't want to snap to it, though, as I don't want to hurt the other editor's feelings or suggest that this article is better than his, etc.  No point in being mean.  Geogre 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I regret that I missed WBardwin's RfA, as I wanted to support him. He suffered long under the shadow of AOL, and we need more administrators who can represent that side of things in the face of overly zealous vandal fighting.  (Vandal fighting good.  Blocking all of AOL indefinitely bad.)  Anyone have good ideas about the misery of Jack Sheppard and the TV character?  Obviously, there should be a disambiguation page for all the "Shepheard/Shepherd/Sheppard" with "Jack" in front of them, but the TV character isn't "Sheppard" and there is only one.  The person who wrote about the TV character went to every permutation to put up that dab link.  We probably need a single dab page, but at which spelling is the question.  Geogre 03:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Put the dab at Jack Shepherd, with redirects. Then we can use otherpeople. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. The Shepherd is, I think, a race car driver or something...maybe the TV character?...but this is a whale of a weird disambiguation case.  Don't know that template, myself.  I just type stuff out. :-)  Geogre 11:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Leader,
I'm starting a labor movement. Please get your mignions to cooperate. Zocky | picture popups 04:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, click "labor" above, or the above message will make you think I've gone mad. Zocky | picture popups 04:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't clicked, yet, but if this is what I think it is, it's one of the most needed things we've had since the project began. Geogre 12:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I need help thinking about 2 questions
 * is "job center" a good name? It needs an instantly memorable title and a good real-life metaphor, but I'm not sure this is exactly the right one. I'm also not happy that it isn't spelt the same in all flavo(u)rs of the language.
 * since the goals include getting an overview of how Wikipedia works, maybe the current grouping is wrong. Maybe it should be organized according to article lifecycle, i.e. going from creation to FA or deletion, with "new article patrol" grouped with "write an article", not with "recent changes patrol". Zocky | picture popups 13:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I thought the name was great. In the US, we tend to think of the guys hanging out outside of the home supply store, as our govt institutions aren't loved/trusted by certain people.  The title works.  It's a great title.
 * 2) I think there should be two significant divisions, corresponding to my "inside the covers/outside the covers" or three. Within the "inside the covers," the NP and RC patrols are both editorial (in the literal sense) functions rather than compositional/redaction process.  I.e. inside the covers, break it down between "maintenance and include/exclude" and "article life cycle."  The "improve an article" section can redouble back to "NP and RC patrols" (i.e. list those two spots).  Geogre 13:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exampli gratia

 * 1) Article authorship
 * 2) Request an article
 * 3) Report a redlink
 * 4) Request a collaboration
 * 5) Report a substub/stub spotted from New Pages patrol
 * 6) Request help in providing substantiation for claims based on Recent Changes patrol
 * 7) Help Desk volunteering
 * 8) Clean-up (vital!)
 * 9) Article oversight
 * 10) Afd
 * 11) CSD
 * 12) Articles spotted on New Pages patrol that need to be built up quickly or deleted
 * 13) Discussions of ongoing point of view, neutrality, or conflicting reference matters where help is needed
 * 14) Efforts to calm or find consensus in contradictory editors.
 * 15) Conflict resolution
 * 16) Requested efforts at preventing RFC's
 * 17) Mentoring new users (rather than welcoming)
 * 18) RFC link-to
 * 19) Mediation link-to
 * 20) Arbitration link-to
 * 21) Vandalism patrol link-tos
 * 22) Various outside stuff the which I don't normally think of. Geogre 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"The King Has Ass's Ears!"
My stars, but you're dumb! I thought you were trolling, but now I think you're every bit as incapable of comprehending written English as you appear. No, you're not being an evil clown troll: you're just as bright as a box of rocks, and twice as useless. Sheesh! Geogre 03:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. (No, I'm not talking about you. The person I am talking about won't be smart enough to think I'm talking about him or her, so if you apply this to yourself, you are clearly not the person I intend.) Geogre 03:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very curious who you are talking about Geogre. Perhaps I am too dumb to figure it out.  --Ideogram 03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries please
Hi Geogre, Can I trouble you to add edit summaries, at least on pages where people are trying to beat each other up. Thanks, Ben Aveling 04:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's one of my only consistent boo-boos, to forget to add summaries.  However, yes, especially where people are trying to draw blood, I will attempt to remember to remind myself/shame myself to add edit summaries.  Geogre 11:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * D'oh! As soon as I said that, I made an edit & left no summary.  Geogre 14:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I set my preferences to force me the day I noticed I was only at like 85% for my last 150 edits. Fear the mathbot!  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 14:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to think of the edit summary as a quick conversation - ideally, a reader should be able to view the history and not have to look at the page. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've looked back at my usage, and I find that what's funny is that I use them precisely when they're not needed and don't use them when they are! When I'm editing an article, I tend to put up summaries (something like 95% of the time), but when I'm in the midst of a controversy and I'm delivering something I think is majestic or deadly or beneficent, I leave out the edit summary.  I'm not sure why that is.  Geogre 11:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd guess that the the two activities have a different emotional impact on you? Ben Aveling 11:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, and I don't think it's emotional as much as eagerness. "I'd better say something quick!"  I.e. I'm rushing to get the message in there.  On the other hand, I pretty much never use them on talk pages, but that I understand: I tend to think of talk pages as non-pages, sort of.  They're rapid communications and should be short enough to find.  (Obviously, not in my case now.  I will archive as soon as the case closes.  I hate having my page this long.)  Geogre 12:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as a reminder, you can set your Preferences to automatically prompt for an edit summary if you forget the first time. It's saved me from posting summarylessly any number of times. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (cur) (last) 02:21, 12 October 2006 Geogre (Talk | contribs) (→Resysopping)
 * Hi Geogre, What's missing from this picture? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Selective Archiving
Have you considered something like Werdnabot? Ben Aveling 13:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care for -bots. I'd rather see us as minds at fingers at keyboards, and an automated summary is sort of not answering the question.  I.e. if I used a -bot, then I still wouldn't be adding summaries, but summaries "would be added."  Therefore, I'm still not a better user, even if there are more tracks.  To me, it's all rather like the anecdote of the folks who developed PowerPoint.  When it was bought by Microsoft, the folks of Redmond asked them to come up with templates and wizards that will help users automatically generate a product.  The PowerPoint people shot back, intending to joke, "You mean like AutoContent?"  Microsoft answered, "Yes."  The first generation after the purchase, therefore, had "auto-content."  The Redmond guys didn't get the oxymoron.  I don't mean to sprinkle dirt on anyone who writes or employs bots, but I'm old and cranky and crusty about these things (oh, and snobbish).  Geogre 13:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant using Werdnabot to selectively archive those sections of your talk page that are no longer active. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, apologies are all mine. I'm fixing to anyway.  By now, anyone who is ever going to want to read the disagreeable stuff has.  Geogre 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Review
Well, I have soldiered on to the end of my Article, despite distractions. Mary Seacole is a remarkable woman - I hope you will agree after reading my rather heavy biography. I have a few more books to cull, but there is plenty there already. What should I throw away, what should I add? All ideas gratefully received. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Much copyediting and spell-checking is required. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just picking as I go, for now. If I see "this section not as strong, this needs more," I'll pass that along as comments. I'm trying not to do any stylistic changes, but the "first 55 years in the first chapter" was strong but, I thought, benefitted by "single initial chapter" to indicate both that it's the first and that more than half her life for a chapter is rather extreme. Geogre 11:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

55 years? Oh... some mistake (1805-1850)... Anyway, I have had another pass. Funny how you lose focus after a few sections. The last section is by far the worst, as I have few literary sources for it. I have a list of journal articles too (The Lancet, History Today, Philological Quarterly, African American Review, etc) but no access to an academic library, sadly. Anyway, many thanks for any wrinkles that you spot. (Other reviewers are welcome too, btw - I will add it to WP:PR later this week, I think). -- ALoan (Talk)

Joseph Addison citation
Hello, Geogre, My article Battle of Schellenberg is currently a FAC. I have added a brief summation of some relevent lines from Joseph Addison's The Campaign in the 'Cultural reference' section but most reviewers are not happy with the citation, or lack thereof. Featured article candidates/Battle of Schellenberg.

I hope you don't mind me asking but, in your no doubt extensive library of literature, have you got a book with Joseph Addisons' The Campaign so I could add it to the list of references. Author title publisher ISBN

I went to my local library but that proved fuitless. The section is no very well written, its really only an adjunct but it needs citation. Thanks. Raymond Palmer 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My home Addison is confined to Spectator pieces and aesthetics. To find the piece in question, you'll need to go to his Works, which is 19th century.  There are multiple anthologies with it.  I'll see if I can find a specific for you.  The problem is that items selected for anthologies rarely show up in searches (e.g. if some Eighteenth Century Literature compilation contains it, any bibliographic service won't note the inclusion).  I'll see what I can do tomorrow (hopefully) with full MLA access.  Geogre 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Book by Alexandre Beljame, Bonamy Dobrée, E. O. Lorimer; Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1948 Subjects: Addison, Joseph--1672-1719, Dryden, John--1631-1700, English Literature--18 Century--Histroy And Criticism, Fiction, Pope, Alexander--1688-1744 ...CHAPTER III: JOSEPH ADDISON 1688-1721...Defoe, Congreve, Vanbrugh, Gay, Addison, Prior, Montague 212...Attack.--The Danger averted by Addisons "Spectator".--The Difficulties... Subjects: Addison, Joseph--1672-1719, Fiction, Steele, Richard--Sir--1672-1729, Swift, Jonathan--1667-1745 ...Addison as the Undersecretary for Sunderland, the senior Secretary of State. Addison had inaugurated his political career in 1705 with the publication of the Campaign, and now in 1708, the initial year of his friendship with Swift, he issued...
 * Some starting points:
 * Men of Letters and the English Public in the Eighteenth Century, 1660- 1744: Dryden, Addison [And] Pope
 * The Curse of Party: Swift's Relations with Addison and Steele Book by Bertrand A. Goldgar; University of Nebraska Press, 1961
 * Steele, Addison and Their Periodical Essays Book by A. R. Humphreys; Longmans, Green, 1966 Subjects: Addison, Joseph--1672-1719--Criticism And Interpretation, English Essays--18th Century--History And Criticism, English Periodicals--History--18th Century, Great Britain--Intellectual Life--18th Century, Steele, Richard--Sir--1672-1729--Criticism And Interpretation ...victory at Blenheim in The Campaign 1705 ; his high...not for his essays, Addisons literary reputation...the Prose Style of Joseph Addison Uppsala, 1951...THE PROSE STYLE OF JOSEPH ADDISON, by J. Lannering...
 * However, none of those contains the poem. I'll keep looking and post to your talk page when I find it.  A full collection of Addison is hard to come by.
 * '''Stop the Presses! I found it, online (subscription).
 * "The Campaign, a poem," by Joseph Addison, pp. 281 - 291, in Crane, Ronald S. A Collection of Poems. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1932.
 * Woo-hoo, and a big cookie to me (and Bishonen). Geogre 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * . . .and a very well earned cookie. That’s great Geogre


 * Oh! And thanks for introducing me to a new word – Lucubration. At first I thought hunting for second-rate poetry had driven you to the bottle and you were in desperate need of Lubrication!! The basis of a rhyming couplet to 'vandalise' you user page perhaps. Thanks again. Raymond


 * I learned "lucubrations" from Swift, and he even made it a pun by having an oil lamp/darkness metaphor with it. I couldn't manage all that, I'm afraid, but it's a very cool word.  You're welcome.  It's always nice to have a challenge.  Geogre 11:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Holophusikon
I can't beat "lucubrations", but how about Ashton Lever's Holophusikon (or Holophusicon) in Leicester Square? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merriam Webster only says "holophrastic," which is a darned cool word, too: "Expressing complex ideas in a single word." I suppose the holophusikon is that word?  Geogre 12:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have created an article. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A good one, too. Swift comlained of raree shows, and Pope accused John "Orator" Henley of being a raree show all his own, and there was much crying out against the showing of lussus naturae. In particular, there were accusations that the Royal Academy had turned into the biggest collector of freaks in England. I think that was based on their actually buying a few freak births. That connection between science and freakshows was forged early on. (Of course Gulliver himself becomes the "lussus naturae" in Book IV of GT and he becomes a raree show in Book II.) That said, they all apparently paid the penny to see what was in the booth at Bartholomew Fair. Geogre 17:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The revamped Hunterian Museum is a new take on the curiosity gallery / freak show (freak skeletons and anatomical samples in bottles, in a post-modern white-and-glass setting).


 * To connect the threads, this "retro"blog is entitled "lucubrations" (from the title of a work by Rev. Vicesimus Knox) and mentions my Holophusicon (as one of several "pompous titles derived from Greek and Latin", saying "public sights and public places and buildings abound in them" - Eiduraneon, Panorama, Vitropyrix, Microcosom, Lactarium, Rhedarium, and Adelphi - is he being satirical, or are there lots of redlinks to fill?) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, satirical. He's making fun of the habit of people to coin ugly Greek/Latin (sometimes in the same word) to make things sound more august. He's then giving examples, primarily from buildings. Even Swift's "lucubration" usage was slightly satirical. (In fact, it's a word that has as much satirical currency as straight currency, as I recall.) I.e. he's making fun of the "This Way to the Great Egress" habit of people to be impressed by the antiquity or seriousness of any use of a Romance root. Geogre 19:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not so sure - it seems that a Samuel Crisp (a playwright! and friend of Fanny Burney) opened a "Lactarium" in St. George's Fields; a balloon was launched from the  "Rhedarium Garden", west of Grosvenor Square, in 1784; there was a "Panorama" building and exhibitionin Leicester Square in 1787; and the Adelphi is well known, of course.  I suspect that the others really existed too.  The "Eiduranion" was apparently a form of transparent orrery (according to a German link I have found and translated mechanically).  Heaven knowns what the "Vitropyrix" and "Microcosom" were (Google certainly does not). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He can still be satirical, although accurate in finding examples. He's not making stuff up, but I still think he's making fun of the people who created those names. For example, a "lactarium" is simply a "creamery." You know what a panorama is. Vitropyrix is a good example of mixing Latin and Greek in the same word (the living fire?), and you know what a microcosm is. I think the things exist, but he's still snorting at the people. Geogre 10:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, but I think these are all buildings, probably in London, in around 1780 (Knox's book was 1781, I think). I wonder if Crisp's "Lactarium" was indeed a dairy (I can't find another source).  A book, "The Microcosm of London; or, London in miniature", written by William Pyne and illustrated by Augustus Charles Pugin (the father of the Pugin) and Thomas Rowlandson, was published by Rudolph Ackermann in 1808, but it is a bit too late.


 * Ah - just found it: there was a Microcosm Theatre in London from 1779 to 1781, showing marionette operas!


 * Well, that leaves "Vitropyrix" (and a more convincing "Eiduraneon" would be nice). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, a "rhedarium" seems to be a "place to manufacture, display and sell carriages" (thank you, Murdoch Mackenzie of St. Marylebone, coachmaker).  But I have added the Garden to Jean-Pierre Blanchard - its main claim to fame, it seems - and expanded Pilâtre de Rozier.  I'm sure Bish will enjoy these early ballooning articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gosh, Leicester Square was clearly very much the happening place in 1781, what with the curiosities at Holophusikon, and the "moving pictures" at the Eidophusikon! The 360° image at the Panorama (a type of cyclorama) came later (1787 in Edinburg, 1792 in London).  Presumably Knox must have been referring to something else. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Leicester Square was the happening place. Basically, it was land to let, for one thing, and where London was going, for another. Thus, it could attract new money, and new money is famously fond of new things. New buildings for the new tastes, new attractions for the newly educated and newly minted. Neighborhoods in London, as you know, are as much as neighborhoods in New York City particular in their ethnicities, industries, and educational levels. The interesting thing about 1781, though, is the influx of Scots. Johnson was p*ssed off by them, as were many other people, but they all showed up on the heels of Lord Bute and the new "northern" ministry. There was a Scottish renaissance underway, too. This is around 1760 - 1780, with backlashes and whiplashes coming presently. However, the Victorian confidence begins around 1780, as England grows ever more aware of itself as an empire. (When was the conquest of India completed... around 1770? As Horace Walpole said, "It was easier to conquer it than to know what to do with it.")  "What to do with it" was becoming the question, where "it" is empire, so there is a triumphalism and reform comingling. Geogre 14:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A proposal to replace NOR and V
Geogre, I'd appreciate your input at Attribution if you have any time or interest. It's a proposal I've written with a view to getting rid of NOR and V by combining them into one policy, and also getting rid of WP:RS in its current form. I'm arguing that all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source (i.e. must not be OR), but of course need not actually be attributed to one, because a lot of material needs no citation. I've also added some allowances for people working in pop culture and fiction, because they often complain that the current policies are too restrictive. I think the page is easier to understand than the current versions of NOR and V, and one is better than two, I think. Your views would be most welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Where you and I are likely to disagree is over the allowances for pop culture. I'm a very conservative editor in that regard, as I don't think we have the need or get much benefit from being ahead of the web on these matters, and most of the arguments for getting comixpedia here, etc. seem to rely on "we need to be the first."  I'll take a look a bit later, but we're probably nearing the old problems of amending the US constitution: no one wants to open a convention because, along with getting rid of the electoral college, someone is bound to offer up another amendment declaring the nation Christian or the language English or the flag sacred or the prednisent holy defnsior fidei.  These are initial, though.  I'll get into the details, I promise, and carry no prejudice.  Geogre 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Wild
...demoted in France ("Pas de sources ni de Biblio, dommage") Quel dommage! -- ALoan (Talk) 08:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because they don't have the books in the book? Huh?  (Please don't tell me that translates through idiom as "no inline sources.")  Geogre 10:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The section "Bibliographie" was only added recently for some reason. Our article must be one of a very few without a "References" section.  I'm not sure whether the absence of inline citations was a factor (it would be here in WP:FAR). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh. I thought I did refs in mine, though parenthetical, which is the only type I'm going to do.  I suppose the translator didn't?  Oh, and for references, the reason mine doesn't have it is that there's only one source.  Well, two.  You've got your Howson, which is in depth and full length, and you've got Defoe.  If you're not using Howson, you're making it up.  This remains the case, by the way, and it was Howson's biography that spurred all of that theatrical interest.  So, it wasn't as much "this particular fact from there" as "the whole account has been digested from this book and recast into new words, and, where information comes from a different source, it is indicated in the text."  Geogre 12:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * From the dates, he must have known Sir John Gonson. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Argh! You found information enough on Gonson to profile him?  DNB was silent, and I so wanted him to get a bio.  All the porn hunters and whore hunters of the period need to be worked up, and Bishonen and I keep trading who is least unwilling to try to write up something about the Societies for the Reformation of morals.  Geogre 17:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Barely enough, but I have some quotes. A source to substantiate something as simple as his dates would be nice (seems to have died in 1765), and something to justify a mention of his "Whoring Committee" and his civic crusade against "Lewdness and Idleness".  There are books on gin and Hogarth and Fielding and so on at Amazon, but I don't have access.  There are also some relevant academic writings, but again I don't have access through google. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

ping? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No matter. Anon. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)


Apologies
Hey, I know I recently said something to the effect of "Everyone can write," and that upset you. I'm sorry about that. I obviously didn't mean that everyone can write well. I certainly wasn't suggesting that writers are somehow interchangeable, or that we shouldn't value good ones. I just got upset that some people were placing an emphasis on writing talent above talent in all other areas that are just as necessary in accomplishing this project. Remember, without MediaWiki, we'd all be writing in raw HTML :-P. -- Cyde Weys 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've said all along that the different skill sets are simply different, and retorts are easy to make on all sides. (E.g. "There are lots of flashy websites and lots of empty wikis.  None of them make top Alexa ranks, but Wikipedia does because of its authors.")  The idea that writing is commonplace is the heart of the problem for writers.  So long as we don't go sneering at or devaluing the people who don't possess our skills, we'll be better off.  Apology accepted, and an apology from me, too, for the heat of my comments.  Geogre 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Could it be both?
Hi Geogre, I'm wondering if a post could be both legitimate evidence and incivil and the same time? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It can be evidence of the state of mind and habits of the speaker, I guess, but what had bothered me was that there had been no sanction based on it. In other words, given all of that evidence from Kelly and all the evidence about Kelly, there was no finding of fact that addressed it.  Instead, and this is what had apparently upset Giano, there was, "We thank Kelly."  Now, with no clerks involving themselves, and with no arbitrators saying anything about that evidence, and with nothing but the losses of status that Kelly 1) volunteered for 2) came from, most likely, separate matters, I can understand and even share Giano's puzzlement.  Since no one was going to have a finding of fact, Giano unwisely blasted the blog, as he had no reason to think that people needed to play nice on the evidence page (what with that blog post being entered).  He could, of course, have gone to an e-mail or a blog of his own or IRC or something else and then gotten someone to paste it in, I suppose, but I'm personally troubled by the constant use of loopholes already.
 * Actually, a bit of evidence can be both, but blogs are not Wikipedia. Suppose a person were in trouble for making legal threats.  My recollection is that, in the past, we didn't count that person's forum posts.  That was the basis of my initial questioning of it.  We don't let not-wiki things become wiki things.  It's also the basis of our prohibition on IRC evidence, and not the "public logging" thing.  I didn't understand why we made an exception here.  Geogre 10:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if you want me to comment on the tenor of Giano's comments: I disagreed with his posting it as well as the way he said it. It was written in genuine disgust.  I do not think it was a personal attack, but I would have advised him, had I been asked, not to say a word about it.  I thought it was blowing on the embers, and that was nothing anyone needs now.  I think there are left over issues, big ones, partially because of the way that Fred shaped the discourse on the proposed decision, but there is no point in trying to pursue them in an overburdened, nebulous Rfar.  If folks want to pursue those later, in well formed Rfar's based on new actions, I'll lend what support I can, but I don't want this case prolonged or widened.  It's already far too long and wide.  Geogre 11:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I pretty much agree with Geogre. I agree with the thrust of Giano's comment, and can understand why he thought something needed to be said, but I do not think it was particularly helpful to make the comment now, nor, indeed, do I like the tone in which his comment was expressed.  However, I don't think it is a blocking matter to express yourself in strong or disagreeable terms.  He was blocked for making a personal attack.  It was not. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fanny Hill
Hi, in connection with this edit - do you have sources describing the censorship as solely the result of the introduction of homoeroticism in the novel?

Best regards, --194.145.161.227 11:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That came from J.H. Plumb. He was concluding based on timing, mainly.  He noted that the initial publication got little official notice, but the pirate edition came out and all hell broke loose.  Whether that is a post hoc ergo propter hoc or accurate I cannot say.  The matter is complicated considerably by the fact that prosecutions of the novel won't quite say what, exactly, it is that makes it a public nuissance.  A second pirate edition was also prosecuted, but, again, the historical record is muddy.  At any rate, Plumb was my source, whether he was right or wrong.  Geogre 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but if I have gotyour more recent edits to John Cleland right, the pirate edition with the gay episode appeared after (post et probabiliter propter) the official withdrawal, which came after (post et probabiliter propter) Cleland's arrest. So the initial arrest wasn't due to the pirate edition; instead, it is suggested that the pirate edition motivated the later prosecution concerning the 1750 edition, which was subsequently dropped. Was that what Plumb wrote?


 * BTW, Britannica 1998 asserts plainly that "When originally published, the book was immediately suppressed" (with no mention of pirate editions); so the hypothesis about homosexuality having been the chief problem obviously isn't shared by everyone. And theoretically, it seems rather debatable to me. At that time, Fanny Hill was likely to be viewed as highly obscene as it was. The original text should have been quite sufficient for an arrest, and I don't see why homosexuality would have made the big difference. --194.145.161.227 12:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a google account, you may find this of interest. The book says (page 185): "Cleland's Fanny Hill, banned for centuries largerly as a result of a passage depicting male sodomy..." -- Ghirla -трёп-  15:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, Ghirla. Britanica doesn't use experts as much as it should, and it does repeat some "received wisdom."  In this case, it's a classic myth that Fanny Hill was in 1750 what it was in 1950.  1750 was much looser and dirtier than people think.  I can offer up more titles of unsuppressed filthy books.  Once a filthy book got into the literati's consciousness, it's going to get clobbered or at least test morality, but the cut-rate booksellers had plenty to satisfy the lustful young apprentice.  Geogre 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Britanica is flatly wrong, as the book was not immediately suppressed. In fact, you can see that it took a year.  The first arrest was a good bit after publication, and he got off with disavowal and expurgating.  The second arrest was due to the pirate edition(s).  As for whether homosexuality would have been a tipping point, it most certainly would have been.  Prosecutions for obscenity at that time are kind of rare, although they picked up not long after.  Edmund Curll, for example, was printing up obscenity for decades, but it took his sadomasochistic texts to provoke prosecution.  While Merryland goes unnoted, The Way of a Man with a Maid gets attention.  You may be underestimating the amount of pornography that was out.  Hardly any of it had any literary quality at all, and Cleland's offense is at least being good as being dirty.  However, the depiction, and particularly the praising, of a homosexual scene between men was intolerable.  The prosecution of molly houses, for example, goes in waves.  We can have someone like Charles Hitchen who is killed, essentially, for sodomy during a crackdown (actually for being in the pillory), and then we can have Thomas Gray getting glossed over when his students complain of his activities.  However, a public text suggesting pleasurable gay sex was, to my knowledge, never allowed.  Geogre 15:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as I understand, we do agree about the basic order of events -first suppression, then the "somdomite" pirate edition, then the second arrest. I think this is the most important thing in this particular case.


 * I agree with your argument about Britannica (which I expected), although they could simply have a different concept of "immediately" :). I only cited it in order to show that the "sodomy-related" interpretation isn't so well-known and universally accepted (the truth aside, whatever it is). As for the historical context - well, this would be a very theoretical discussion, and I admit I know very little about the period (thanks for all those wiki links :)). It does seem that I have been underestimating prejudice against and persecution of "sodomites" in the 18th century . On the other hand, I think it's clear that Fanny Hill describes the act with (somewhat hypocritical) reproach and disgust, not with overt praise. As for the pornography - again, I have few other sources than wiki articles to which you have contributed a lot yourself. I don't know how explicit most of Curll's stuff was (Merryland certainly seems rather mild), and from the article, it doesn't become clear that it was "A Treatise of the Use of Flogging in Venereal Affairs" and not The Nun in her Smock (due to extreme explicitness and "indecency" in general) that proved fatal (the article about The Nun in her Smock actually asserts that that book was crucial for the conviction). Fanny Hill would appear to have been different in a number of ways - I'm guessing an attempt at a quasi-realistic plot, combined with extreme explicitness. So - I dunno. But as I said, all of this is theoretical. --194.145.161.227 20:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Homosexuality is very strangely treated in the 18th century. Men who were private about it could be somewhat obvious, and no one seemed to care (e.g. Horace Walpole, who we have no evidence of acting upon his homosexuality), but the moment a man made his homosexual practice overt, they would react with extreme horror.  The homosexual incident in Fanny Hill is reported with horror and disgust, and Fanny wishes divine curses on the men, etc.  It occupies something like a page.  Merryland is quite ... disturbing in a way.  I've read it, and I've refrained from doing much with the article.  It's more of a gynecology tract than anything, with great detail of anatomy and many "witty" references to sexual acts, but nothing affective.  One of the most important things about FH is that it combines the "I" of some of the women-in-peril novels (the sort that Eliza Haywood wrote) with the pornography to give a really detailed experience of the sexual act.  Defoe's Moll and Roxana are fairly happy with their whoring until their repentance, but they do repent.  Fanny, on the other hand, does not.  I'm not sure how common such female point of view pornographic novels were, but they seem de rigeur today.  I know that France had a hit with Autobiography of a Flea, which has a flea on the thigh of a young girl watching her get ravished by various large penises, together with mild domination scenes.  Harold Weber has a book on the Sexual Underworld of Restoration Fiction, but it's kind of sparse on these things.  There was a man...forgotten his name...who did nothing but molly houses and mollies in fiction and the connection between Mother Midnight and the mollies.  He was convinced that there was a second, shadow society in London in the 18th century.
 * Anyway, back to the topic: it would be difficult to prosecute FH as we have it for its sodomy. It would be difficult to single it out, too, except that it was very high quality.  On the other hand, I haven't read the pirate chapter(s), and I don't know if Plumb did, but he was a hell of a historian.  I agree with you that the piracy -> 2nd arrest theory isn't widely circulated, but I think it's right.  However, once Cleland retracted and expurgated, the legal settlement would have continued to apply: it would have remained a banned book in its full form.
 * Incidentally, there are also politics involved. Even I, though, wouldn't say that was the cause of the prosecution, and I tend to see party politics as the cause of most things in the 18th century.  Geogre 22:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On the problems we offload on the wiki
Bishonen | talk 12:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

You're most welcome and THANK YOU


Glad to have provided some genuine laughs, which have become a scarce commodity around these parts of late (along with congeniality, collegiality and good faith). As usual, my friend, you manage to see subtleties where I see only starkness. To my view there are basically two groups here-Those of us whose prime interest is building the 'pedia (hello:) and those whose primary interest is controlling it. Also, to my mind, you deserve no small amount of THANKS, for successfully standing up to some of the key leaders of this latter group. I have never doubted your integrity but, I'm ashamed to admit now, I did doubt your metal (And have looked to a certain Sicilian compadre of ours to provide quantities of that quality:). You have pleasantly surprised me, and I'm happy I was wrong about you on that score. Who doesn't want to cheer for the seemingly milksop honor student who stands up to the schoolyard bullies?!...Except, of course, for the bullies themselves. You have done far more than I, in both building the pedia and standing up to the bullies, here. And you have even given me greater courage to do likewise. So it is the least I can do to provide you with some laughs and encouragement along with my sincere respect and perhaps even fashion a "horse" to run in your derby:> --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Skype
Hey, you look online to me--Skype has been saying all evening, my evening, that you're not. Everything OK? Let's talk another time. Bishonen | talk 01:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
 * I'm full of rage and hate toward myself for my sins and habits of sloth and despair. I've been online very briefly, off and on, but to little purpose.  Yes, another time it must be.  Geogre 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The animalibri colibri has been released and given the freedom of your page! Just revert if it drives you crazy. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC).


 * At home, it stands still. At work, it flaps madly.  I wish I could do the same.  At any rate, it's a nice bird, and it reminds me that I need to refill the hummingbird feeder at home.  I put one up 3 weeks ago, and the little guys finally found it.  I haven't seen any using it, because I'm not at home when they're active, but they're drinking away.  Friends tell me of sitting outside near their feeder and the hummers buzzing by like little dive bombers, entirely unconcerned that a person is there.  One friend even got hit by a hummer because he was obstructing the bird's path to the feeder.  Geogre 11:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fix—OK?
I changed your post, figuring you accidentally mistyped. OK? Bishonen | talk 10:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Sure. I probably did.  I kept staring at one of my typos, figuring that it just goes that way.  Do you remember the results and vote totals initially being secret for last year's arbcom election?  I see that The Signpost eventually had something, although what it was isn't altogether clear, but I didn't even know it had that much.  It seems that Filiocht had been most voted.  That's surprising and heartening, although I'm sure not to him.  Geogre 10:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, that's all a blur to me. I do remember Filiocht topping the vote, and that's it. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC).


 * The raw numbers are at User:Mathbot/Results.


 * On another tack, look at these. Comics, indeed. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember: the comics people are not less intelligent than the mathematics or chemistry or astronomy or literature people. They aren't.  Your eyes are simply deceiving you.  Also, although somebody somewhere might suggest that the series of plates (usually moralistic, usually 19th century) is the first instance of telling a story graphically and that therefore it traces back to Hogarth, that only means that William Hogarth and George and Isaac Cruiksanks are now comix authors, and it is futile to suggest otherwise.  Look: there is a tag, so it must be so.  Why, one person is getting a Ph.D. in webcomix!  (I can't even manage good satire at this.  Let's just remove the tags and tell the people responsible to go pound salt.)  Geogre 11:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the raw results, it would be impolitic in the extreme, I suppose, to say, "Oh, if only, if only...." Geogre 11:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See generally David Kunzle, History of the Comic Strip, vol. 1, The Early Comic Strip: Narrative Picture Stories in the European Broadsheet from c. 1450 to 1825 (1973); ibid., vol. 2, The Nineteenth Century (1990). Newyorkbrad 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I believe you. It's still absolutely wrong, though.  To suggest that moral prints are anything related to comic strips takes quite a jump.  There were pictorial stories (like Classics Illustrated) in the later 19th century, but there is no way that the moral/satirical series has anything in common with the comic strip except the use of ink.  (For comic strips, you have to go to journalism and the cartoon, IMO, so it begins not with Hogarth and his fellows, but with very much later Cruikshanks.)  Geogre 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Blame Scott McCloud, of course, whose widely-read Understanding Comics made it fashionable to call any such "serial art" a comic, etymology be damned. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Facking academics trying to create an industry for themselves to fill! High bogosity pseudogenres attract bored assistant professors and slothful graduate students, and suddenly the clove cigarettes in the Bowery are raving about it, and then those bored assistant professors make tenure, begin wearing a strange hat, and entertaining more slack-jawed graduate students come to worship at the slacker god of obfuscated onanism (like the regular sort, but with really big words).  Meanwhile, those of us who concentrate on the boring, difficult, and thankless jobs like textual editing are relegated...until they wonder why they've run out of things to suck the life out of, as there are no more books to read.  Blah!  A pox upon them, except that they'd begin wearing black spots on their cheeks as "beauty marks" and wonder why anyone without the pox dare showed his face in public.  Geogre 01:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * <> ... thank you for reminding me why I am no longer in academia. Indeed.  What I like about Wikipedia is that here I can scribble all I want about obscure things, I'm free to not go to lectures on the latest post-post-modern multiprotodeconstructionalist fad, and no one who writes my paycheck, or decides on my promotion, knows that I actually still love the subject in which I bothered to get a doctorate.  < > Antandrus  (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Any fellow sufferer welcome. Dreadful people with degrees but no sense, with jobs but no imagination, with that same fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of private manias that characterizes the worst people on Wikipedia, thicken the hallways of academe.  Along with the people doing real and hard work, there are always people so bewildered, so lost in the maze, that they think that there is something akin to fame to be had or something even remotely like a revolutionary thought possible in such a place.  I'm now where those folks do not exist, but there was a lot to trade for such peace -- pay being not least.  The other day, someone was speaking of needing to teach Jacques Lacan to youngsters, but the way he said it sounded like Chaka Khan.  Sometimes the Renaissance idea that all rhymes betray essential similarity gets proven correct.  Geogre 09:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's okay, I think: everything I need to know about Jacques Lacan I learned from Sokal & Bricmont. Newyorkbrad 10:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen, brother, and don't think for a second that the sciences are immune from that sort of fashionable trash (the word that often gives it away is "interdisciplinary"). I was working in such a place once (well, I needed the money) and my God, was it awful, walking "eye-deep in hell" every day indeed, thinking once could do actual work as a single person. Well, in such cases one does well to remember that Abraham wasn't bargaining God down further than ten righteous. After a year fire did rain down, there was much smoke, and in such cases one does well not turn back or one ends up as a pillar of salt. This concludes the biblical imagery, it's apt and only slightly over the top. Dr Zak 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Newton's three laws of thermodynamics are masculinist gender policing! There are three laws...and Assimov had the "three laws safe" robots...so, clearly, Newton was trying to suggest that we are all robots.  (Chronology is unimportant, as the words and polysemy are the conceptual reality.  Besides, whatever one does not say is what one represses saying, so the Principia is absolutely dripping with talk of sodomy.  Because Newton was a homosexual, the fact that he didn't say anything about it means that he was trying hard not to say anything about it, and therefore every word that is away from a discussion of sodomy is an expression of his homoerotic lust.)  (Ceci n'est pas un parodie.)  Geogre 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have voted too!
I think the problem lies with trying to make a formal definition of things. The point of Wikipedia guidelines is not to codify law, but rather to explain how the encyclopedia works. The statement "we may all agree that we discuss rather than vote but may never be able to ratify that as an official guideline" appears to be self-contradictory, in that if we all agree that we discuss rather than vote, it is already a guideline that discussion should be preferred. This should, of course, not be confused with a policy to purposefully prohibit polling, which other than appearing as appealing alliteration has not in fact been proposed anywhere and would not be supported. The point is not whether or not AFD is a vote, the point is that people should discuss their opinion therein, rather than just going " ".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not as contradictory as it appears, because the moment a thing is announced, it's ossified, even in description. Therefore, the target has to be flat as a board, linguistically.  I'm afraid that "not vote" is about 20 storeys high.  "Discuss" is simple enough, and the pleasant and warm feelings all have about that nice word will allow them to rush forward to its defense and support, but the "not vote"...that's where it gets hard.  Another factor is that there are a load of people (some of whom pushed me in front of the crowd recently) who are worried, very worried, about people quoting essays as if they were guidelines, guidelines as if they were policies, and policies as if they were for suckers and the other guy.  Whether they're justified in thinking this way or not (and I don't think so, because the people who abuse this way are bluffing and can be slapped down if necessary), they do think that way, and so the voltage on the third rail increases.  Geogre 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the people you mention are more than balanced out by those who thinks essays are just some random guy's opinion, guidelines have enough exceptions that whatever they happen to be thinking of now is precisely such an exception, and the only policy worth thinking about is IAR. Some of that is hyperbole, but many users, especially novices, will happily ignore anything and everything that is not marked as consensual. To educate those people, it would be prudent to accurately mark which pages are and are not consensual. There are some misconceptions in Wikipedia culture, and while clearing those up is always a good idea, it is not useful to not address a particular problem because of a global misconception; any objection that applies equally to every issue is usually irrelevant to discussion of any singular issue.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha, but that's the question, isn't it? Is this merely the global misunderstanding that applies to all issues, or is there a specific misunderstanding that should be addressed?  I think it's the latter.  It's true that there are people who will do/say virtually anything, but the profile of the people who have been acting like bulls or bullies is fairly specific and has made the rest quite nervous.  The only reason I accepted the job of Stuntman for the Opposition recently is that I believe enough that this is a specific phenomenon that can and must be dispelled as to have risked wearing a target for a while.  The best way, I think, is being explicit.  (I wonder if one could unilaterally delete IAR in the spirit of IAR?  The fact that those who don't believe in the misuse of it won't do it, while the people who misquote and misuse it would, if it pained them, is the heart of my involvement in the recent unpleasantness.)  Geogre 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hail and Well Met
I am pleased to see you have emerged from the Recent Unpleasantness(tm) more-or-less unscathed. Well done.

All the best, Ξxtreme Unction 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So far, so good, but I've always wanted the principle of "I know best, screw the rules" to take a fall, and not any users.  Perhaps a message will spread out, perhaps not, but I do think this is an ongoing process that has been ongoing since I arrived and will keep going beyond this incident.  Let's reform our methods, if we need to, but let's not endorse even the right actions done arbitrarily.  Geogre 13:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A billy
A billy has arrived. :-) I haven't had any chance to pick it up today, but tomorrow is another day.   Bishonen | talk 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Nearly two weeks, but that's ok. I hope everything is intact.  "This morning a bowl of oatmeal tried to stare me down/ And won."  Geogre 00:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "I realized all my friends were/Insurance salesmen." My software takes such good care of me. The gmail alert just told me you have a new blogspot! Bishonen | talk 22:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC).
 * I soooo wanted to write a light entry, and I soooo couldn't. I also sent you a movie.  Geogre 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah... why are American towns so spaced out, so spacey, so spacious? Anyway, it's funny you should speak of Pope and Goodwin, for I just today took out Essay on Man from a proposed 18th-century reading list and replaced it with Caleb Williams. (No room for both, no.) Made me feel good. :-)  Bishonen | talk 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Poor, poor Mr. Pope! I never set out to be his primary apologist in any sense, but the poor fellow keeps getting knocked in the dust.  No one could understand the blog entry.  It was too dense, as it seemed to require everyone to have read those two philosophers recently and to have understood them in a way that not a lot of people do.  I meant to write a "explanation of the philosophy" blog today to try to make the dreary schoolboy philosophical point I was trying to make clear.  The shortest version of what I was trying to say is, "There exists a trend in America where right wing groups have decided that they need "intellectuals."  Therefore, they have these groups who have read excerpts from the 18th century and publish them for everyone.  They then get rolled out on dollies whenever conservatives need "intellectuals."  They're not intellectuals, or not intellectually honest, because they have a clip-art view of 18th century political philosophy.  By stopping the clock at various points to grab one tired Scotsman or another by his collar and hauling him out to say something, they're missing the entire context of 18th century Insular philosophy, which was a dialog of empiricism trying to deal with its glaring epistemological shortcoming.  Each of them tried to spackle over the dent at the bottom of the system, and their opponents were no better at system building than they were, but the very imperfection and mortal stature of the philosophers kept them going at it.  Conservatives these days don't have intellectuals, because their practical system is antithetical to everything the empiricists would have endorsed, and their quoted fathers, Locke and Hutcheson and Shaftesbury, would have had Barry Goldwater brought to the Bailey, while they would have had W. Bush committed to a private asylum.  All the same, conservatives fool themselves and apply small dabs of ointment to their intellectual consciences by saying, 'Oh, yes, what we're doing is firmly rooted in the best part of intellectual history.'  What they're doing is, in fact, global rape, but they convince themselves of the lie and then expect the gullible and the long gummed to believe it, too."  That's what I was trying to say.  Geogre 01:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You've got some other Pope, don't you? (Poor poetry, so much hated by our pagans today.)  The Moral Epistles (all of them)?  Not just Rape of the Lock?  (I'd kick out Addison first, Swift last, Pope next to last.  I'd kick out and lecture summarize Dryden, if needed.)  Anyway, I've written an "Edge of the Cliff's Notes" to the blag entry now.  It's not as funny, but it makes a lot more sense.  Geogre 02:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You and your rubber hammer. Addison? Haha. You have no conception of how few texts I can give them--someone like Addison doesn't come into it, believe me. (Also there's s'posed to be a theme to the class, and "most perfect poetry" ain't it.) I do remind you from time to time, don't I, that these are studies in a foreign language? Of a foreign culture? As it might be, if you were to take a class in 18th c German poetry? Like that. Bishonen | talk 02:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
 * My explanations are a rubber hammer? I do not hit myself with it, I assure you.  Granted, poetry in a foreign language is more foreign than language, but I hate to see Mr. Pope slighted.  The more you dive, the deeper he goes, at least in technique.  His philosophy hits bottom on the shallow end.  As for themes, I never seem to find but one, ever since I read that Michael McKeon book.  Geogre 09:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Ah, the edit summary. No.  I am the tool, and the tool softener was looking at my comments and figuring that they could be shrill and sharp, when they were meant to be miseracordia, O tempore O mores, sic transit gloria mundi, conspiratorial hand wringing at the fate of the world.  As for the prior summary, why?  I feel like I'm living in the last years of the Weimar, or maybe a year or two after that.)  Geogre 09:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Gronk... a person doesn't get much chance to reply without edit conflicts in these parts. By the time I try to save this one, you'll have caught sight of of "18th-century German poetry" in my message, I bet. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Had done, but I didn't see how anyone can be young like Werther or repent of the deal with the devil like Faust. Geogre 10:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Old discussion at Talk:Elros
I recently stumbled across an old discussion at Talk:Elros, and wondered if you'd have time to expand on your comments there? Carcharoth 01:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean expand on the subject of granularity and fictional universes and mythocosms at that talk page? I can.  Would you prefer it here?  Should we perhaps open a guideline/essay/discussion page to try to work out proposals?  I haven't really changed my view that mythocosms are interesting, and the most elaborate of them are quite involved, but that they are, nevertheless, so specialized as to be of limited general utility.  We are, therefore, better off merging whatever we can and leaving specialist wiki's to do the remainder.  At the same time, there are some greater and some lesser mythographies.  Those generated by commerce are necessarily going to be more popular and less valid than those generated by genius.  Those that are part of a global phenomenon are going to be greater than those generated by a particular madness (e.g. Henry Darger's elaborate 15,000 page world was his own schizophrenia).  Those that interact with the master fictions that generated them are going to be more integral than those developed as backstory or detail.  These three, to me, are in tension with one another.  A Pokeman might generate 0 on the first scale, 10 on the second, and 0 on the third, while a Simarilion King of Gondor might make 10, 10, 0.  It's not a cut and dried decision or a clear way forward, to me.  Geogre 11:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is fine. I agree with the issue of granularity, and that merging is a good idea in many cases. I just wish the redirect thing was fixed so that someone browsing a category of "Kings of Numenor" was able to click the redirect (which would be put in that category) and end up at the tagged entry for that king on a list article of "Kings of Numenor", rather than at the top of that list. At the moment, I am seriously thinking that the category is best redone as a list in the writable bit of the category page, using the anchored links I mention. Anyway, I digress.
 * The issue of how encyclopedic or specialist something is is something that I think should always be answered by seeing how widespread the external references are. How many people have written about X outside of the specialised topic area? Would it be of interest to a reader of a general-purpose encyclopedia? Should there be a warning to the reader that they are in a specialised area of the encyclopedia?
 * The other idea (not yours, I think) that I liked over there was the idea that not everything should be documented in exhaustive detail. When writing about fiction, people should hold back and give only enough information to give the context, rather than let the article become a substitute for reading the work of fiction. Similar ideas are give at WP:WAF. Carcharoth 12:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you generally. The way that categories, and subsection links in general, work is spotty.  One of the reasons that they don't work so well is that (and please don't ask for a citation, because this is part of The Lore) we had this "subpages are bad" thing a while back.  Basically, before categories, we tried to find ways of organizing taxonomically so that we could get hierarchical searches in topics, and it just didn't work.
 * So, if subpages don't work, how can we overcome the conflicting merge need and the detail need? I'm not sure.  I have an include/exclude that would allow in whole universes, but what to do?  As you say, one thing is that writers need to hold back, but that gets into the psychology of the editor.  Why does a person add a King of Gondor or Numenor?  If because of pleasure in the fiction and involvement in the shared fantasy, then that person will find holding back very difficult.  If due to a desire to correct mistakes, if trying to consolidate, if trying to fully flesh out, if trying to contextualize (more the case with the Star Wars people), then it's hard to hold back.  This is part of the "cruft" impulse, and it's part of the scholar of fantasies impulse both.
 * I understand the desires of the authors. I just feel like, after the iron has cooled, a dispassionate person needs to trim, merge, and overview.  This is yet another of those situations where it would be nice if Zocky's Job Center program took off, if people from outside the fictional fanbase could be drafted to bring a cold eye to proceedings.
 * Otherwise, I'm in favor of a long articles with a good table of contents. I know it's not optimal, but, until we do refine the system, I don't know that we're doing anyone any favors by being so granular.  The idea, after all, is to see these minor artifacts and characters in context, in terms of their world, as well as to learn more about them in their own right.  Geogre 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's very helpful. I agree that objective commentary is often needed from people not so involved in the topic area. If I could ask for a link, it would be to Zocky's Job Center, which sounds intriguing! Anyway, thanks for discussing this stuff. Carcharoth 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here it is: Job Center. Zocky's still working it out, but it's one of the best ideas I've seen in a while.  We really, really need to get a more functional 'requested articles' 'requests for expansion' and the rest.  Geogre 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My reversion of Giano II's edit on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano and your subseqent participation
Hi Geogre. I wanted to drop you a line here, so as not to prolong the silliness and further derail the attempt to get back on-topic over there. I don't think that I could persuade you of my view (nor is it my will), so I'll simply state my intentions with the assumption that you will take it at face value. I reverted what I perceived to be an inappropriate comment that's sole design was to antagonise and instigate. I have not been involved in any facet of the proceedings, but I've been following them with, at best, a passing interest. In Giano's snarky rhetoric, there was nothing but ill will intended and as such, certainly not appropriate for a civil discussion. It's ironic that my actions worked conversely to my intentions, and I believe that I should have used a more appropriate edit summary. I did leave a message on Giano II's talk page immediately after my reversion, hoping that he'd have the common sense to realise that his comment lacked any semblance of social grace and that he would word his opinions more appropriately in a forthcoming re-insertion. Without feeding you a spoon of wikibet-soup, Giano II's comment violated a plethora of fundamental Wikipedia policies. I've no ulterior motives or snarky intentions; I simply saw silliness and removed it, just as is done hundreds, if not thousands of times per day. As an aside, while I completely disagree with the comment you left and feel that it worked against what Jonathunder was trying to accomplish, I did find it rather proficient in its eloquence and use of rhetoric.  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are correct, though, then ignoring the comments will neutralize them far better than removing them. Ideogram is on a rampage on that page to get my attention, or my goat, but it's just not important to me.  Giano's comments were aimed at a pretty narrow few, I think.  They were vexatious, no doubt, and I thought he was wrong, in general (that people weren't going to behave the way he suggested), but there had been people behaving very badly and using admin tools to do it.  I didn't think his comments were helpful, but I also thought that we'd best have peace by just letting folks putter along, as everyone now seems to want this thing to end -- even Giano II and some of the people who have been saying much more hostile things.  (Giano's comments weren't, I thought, very hostile, although they were more insulting than some of the comments above that actually expressed more anger.)  Geogre 02:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A bear of very little brain
Sorry Geogre, I'm being an idiot trying to understand your last post to the Rfarb That moots the RFA entirely, and it moots the re-promotion against consensus are you using "moot" here in the sense of "dispute" - I've always used it in the sense that a thing can be debated - a moot issue - I've mooted a suggestion etc.? Also Nevertheless, the technicality being invoked here  - are you refering to my suggestion to let the Carnildo thing slide but rule on future situations? Or are you refering to the off channel communications issue - in which case - which technicality? Sorry Geogre, I'm full of flu and probably just being dim today. Pooh Bear | Natter 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * moot & moot point. Also, moot. Carcharoth 13:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah - bloody americanism! - Without legal significance, to make insignificant - the mists clear...........but still foggy on the technicality --Mcginnly | Natter 13:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha. I bear very little brain myself, but I'll bare what I can here.  By saying, "We changed our minds about demoting Carnildo forever.  Instead, we're making our previous ruling that he would be demoted for a period of 6 months and then re-instated," ArbCom is saying that he didn't need an RFA.  Therefore, the results of the RFA are negated.  It never happened, as it were.  Because it never happened (i.e. he was repromoted because ArbCom's demotion sentence was revoked and not because the beaurocrats promoted him), there is no existing case of 'crats appointing people against consensus (because he wasn't re-appointed at all...his punishment ran out).
 * I want to make it clear, though, that I'm entirely with you on the main subject: We have not settled the issue of whether or not 'crats can ignore or decide against consensus.  We haven't, but I think they themselves would be loathe to do so (again).  We also have not settled the issue of whether members of ArbCom have any business urging the overriding of RFA consensus as ArbCom.  None of that has been settled.  We just have to believe that they won't do it again (because of all the bloodshed) or that they will (in spite of the bloodshed).
 * If we really want to discuss limitations and licenses for beaurocrat action, though, we'll need some other forum, I think, because the issue has been effectively removed from this case by the technicality shuffle, above. Geogre 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Geogre, that's much clearer now. What you say is, I think, a deductive interpretation of the decision though, (unless i've misread it)another is:- Arbcom are comfortable with an ambiguous fudge having let everyone blow themselves hoarse on the talk page, to tired to fight we all disperse until the next time it happens, with new faces - as brad said, wikipedia just doesn't seem to learn from it's history and is doomed to repeat it - so I'm not exactly overjoyed that the central issue is being kicked into the long grass because everyones too knackered from kicking the crap out of each other. A lot of people disagree about a lot of things, but there's been no great hoohaa about this issue at all - perhaps everyone agrees? :-) it might be easy to solve........(god who am i kidding)


 * I agree we need a forum to discuss it, but it runs the risk of being a toothless talking shop.


 * I'd at least like some statements from Arbcom about the role they played in the affair - impossible to refute or not; a public statement on record would at least go some way to restore some trust - otherwise how are we to account for their reticence in this regard? Simple arrogance? Not wanting to actually lie? or just not wanting to tell the whole truth? --Mcginnly | Natter 15:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * God I really am being thick today - I've just re-read your post on Rfarb - it's your suggestion to amend the original carnildo Rfarb, not an interpretation of the ruling.......I'm off for a Hot toddy and a lie down......... --Mcginnly | Natter 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, look, I completely agree with your bitter statement, above. I think you're right.  There is some condescending "let them punch themselves out," some "this will blow over," but I think there is more, much, much, much more "We don't agree with each other in the slightest, can't discuss any of this while wearing our official hats, and couldn't pass a motion on it one way or another."  The actual voting shows that.  ArbCom is as divided (well, not as divided, maybe, but divided all the same) as anyone else over it.  They are not all with Fred, not all with Jayjg.  What's important is that I don't think there is a unified voice of power or old boys standing back there.
 * My reading of things is that the members of the current ArbCom who were involved in acts that others have found inappropriate were few. They were, I gather, two, with "one former ArbCom member" and a clerk (you can guess).  The identities aren't all that important.  What is important is whether or not this was ArbCom or just a couple of people who were appropriating the name and "power" of ArbCom or not.  The actual ArbCom, as opposed to the claimed ArbCom, is not united on the subject.
 * What made it worth risking everything for me was that I was pretty sick of the "I speak for your betters" attitude when coupled with people who would have been banned (not blocked) for their actions long ago were they not campaigning all day with friends. I.e. if someone says, "I speak for your betters," I just hoot in laughter.  If someone says it and then gets away with very bad actions, I stand up.  Part of the Carnildo "affair" was the speaking for the others, speaking for ArbCom.  That was worth opposing.
 * The other part was the idea that there is a pyramid, that there is power inherent in particular users at Wikipedia. There isn't.  There are volunteers at certain jobs, but that does not carry power.  We do not go Jimbo -> Foundation -> Trustees -> b'crats -> ArbCom -> admins -> users -> anons.  No one owes tribute.  There are degrees of trust, but trust only exists when it isn't claimed.  There are degrees of respect, but respect can only be given, not taken.  If the "crats" were going to say that their judgment trumped everyone else's (arguably on the model of administrators having discretion when closing AfD), it needed to be fought on logical and logistical grounds.
 * So, where are we? What can we do?
 * I don't think it would be toothless to have a discussion and policy motion. An actual plebicitic policy move limiting beaurocrat "discretion" would be a massacre, and I'm sure the 'crats and ArbCom wouldn't like to see that happen.  I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, either.  So, do we ask ArbCom to rule on it?  They shouldn't be able to, since it's not a dispute resolution question.  Do we ask the 'crats to agree to it?  Tempers may be too high for that.  Do we try to have a subsection policy debate/draft off AN?  Maybe.
 * That's where I'm stuck. I try to think of the proper venue, and I can't come up with one.  I do know, though, that no one needs to get permission to have the debate.  No one has to get a seal of approval from the 'crats or ArbCom for the conclusion, either.  I don't think a Wild West approach would be workable, but a forelock tugging approach would be useless.  Geogre 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just been watching the unseemly scramble to close, what I wonder is where is User talk:Jdforrester, why so quiet? Where has he been? Where do you suppose he could be? - should we send out a search party, I do hope he is not lost to us all for ever. I wonder if he was instructed to stay away until the unpleasantness was over. Giano 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that. He's been away since 20 September. Only did a few edits after the one that was brought up in the RfArb. I see from his talk page that he does a lot of work. I too hope he returns soon. Carcharoth 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he may have passed the odd comment on IRC, so he is still with us, as he says on his user page " I also hang around on IRC a great deal" Giano 22:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he recused in the case, appropriately. Part of what got people madder than a kicked pit bull was that he never was in article space or project space much, and he just appeared, apparently lowered on a wire from the machines, to tell everyone that we were wrong to talk about Tony's actions.  In other words, it sure looked like he couldn't be familiar with the case, and yet he was speaking with the official hat on.  That was as unhelpful as anything could have been.  I understand the subtext, Giano, and all I can say is that I wouldn't conclude anything one way or another because you don't see him contributing.  As he said, edits are not to be confused with contributions, as his contributions are somehow invisible. If his actions on Wikipedia are invisible to us, is Wikipedia invisible to him?  If one isn't on the project pages, interacting with the people, is one ideally suited to assess disputes?  I take no position on these questions, although I believe that the tasks we devote our energies toward make us experts at those tasks.  Mediators make arbitrators more naturally than programmers do.  Writers make better overlords of AfD.  Programmers make better rulers on those things that bore me like whether cross namespace redirects to templates on category subpages employing bot markers under the sign of Aquarius are appropriate.  However, it's almost impossible to choose Arbers rationally in an election or selection model.  I suppose republics, satrapies, and regional counsellors are the better and more natural solution.  (I'm rambling.)  Geogre 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems the Pen is mightier than the Sword after all. Thanks for the above explanations - would you let me know if you find out in which forum the policy debate occurs? I'd like to take part. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cyde has looked bad during all of this, and he's not alone. There have been a lot of folks who just can't seem to help being insulting about it.  Lord knows, I've been nastier than ever before.  John Reid is getting a disproportionate slap (or boot), but, as others have suggested, it's so thoroughly unproductive to do so that it sustains and legitimates the people who think there is a private club out to "get" others.  If we let people own their own emotions and proceeded calmly ahead, we'd be better off.
 * I really, really want a discussion of "discretion" to take place. I suppose I could lay down a sketch of reasons for when discretion may and may not be invoked to act as a framework for a future argument (in the legal sense of "argument").  I'm torn between "strike while the iron is hot" and "stop striking until the tempers aren't hot."  As for where to have it, the question has been outstanding, and those who had been in favor of invoking discretion have been very vague and suggested that the debate should take place in, essentially, off-wiki and obscure places.  That's not the way to go, even if a bum's rush to the voting booths isn't the best idea, either.  So perhaps "wikipedia essay" is the path?  Geogre 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact of the matter is that decision makers have to have a degree of discretion, otherwise we might as well get a machine to do it. The questions is how wide that discretion should be.

Can I be one of your satraps, please. I have always had a soft spot for Cappadocia, but Bactria would be fine too. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A degree? That degree, to me, is exactly the degree indicated by policy.  Discretion is rightly invoked with deletion decisions.  That's because on AfD it is possible that the voters "vote" against the deletion policy.  They can be a run of people with vested interests, and so the person closing has to invoke discretion to make a decision according to policy.  When there is an area where we have no guideline/policy indicating how people should "vote," then discretion begins to turn on the personal, and that's not proper, IMO.
 * I was thinking of getting out of Pergamum altogether and taking all of upper Egypt. (Of course, there's nothing anyone needs to do to encourage the develop of satraps.  They're more the natural consequence of having a user base too large to know itself.)  Geogre 12:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For some reason, we don't yet have a list of satrapies... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is what looks like a nice article at satrap, though I've always had a soft spot for the title of nomarch (eg. Cleomenes) after I had to correct someone's 'correction' of this word to monarch... Carcharoth 00:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See, I always had sympathy for the Antiochus clan among the Epigoni. They were completely unaware of how to rule, so they took Darius's system and adapted it.  It proved flexible, democratic, and economically efficient for a good, long time.  It was the way to rule an area too spread out for effective oversight.  That's why I invoked the term for our present crisis.  So long as the satraps have to answer to the king and have a codex that they all obey, it works.  None of them can be big enough to rebel, and you're cool.  (Of course, the 50 states are supposed to do the same thing in the US, but that hasn't always worked out.)  Geogre 00:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and two new words destined to be favorites: onocentaur (half man, half ass) and kakistocracy (rulership by the inept). Geogre 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. Though the RfA was unsuccessful, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 09:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Elephant Larry
I'd like to make a case for the undeletion of the Elephant Larry entry, which was deleted on the grounds that it did not meet notability requirements.

Elephant Larry is currently part of "The Great Sketch Experiment" run by jibjab.com and directed by John Landis. Landis as well as Gregg and Evan Spiridellis of jibjab.com were on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno to promote this contest on 10/20/06.

Elephant Larry has had a review published in the New York Times as well as Time Out New York, The Onion, the Charleston City Paper, and was one of Backstage's Top 10 Comedy Best Bets of 2004.

These, I believe, are the main facts that evidence notabiliy. I hope this is sufficient.


 * The problem at present is that it appears to be an act that is touring/localized. It isn't, at present, a group that has secondary references to it or queries about it to justify a third-party coverage.  In other words, is it enough of a historical fact, enough of an established group that it is referred to widely?  If so, we need to explain those references with an encyclopedia article.  If not, then we're an absolutely attrocious place to generate attention or announce things.  However, I will move that the matter be considered on Articles for Deletion rather than Speedy Deletion, where the article will have, usually, five days of deliberation and improvement.  Geogre 17:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A Brief Thanks
I just wanted to thank you for interjecting seemingly on behalf of myself for Americasroof's ad hominem attack in the AfD for Maryville High School. It's easy in such times to make an ad hominem attack right back, and after looking at his contribution history I easily could have, but I refrained and tried to remain civil. Thus, it was nice that someone else stepped in and said something as well. Thank you. --The Way 03:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I used to be one of the gargoyles of AfD, and that's how I ended up being, they say, the guy who came up with the "notability" criterion.  (They say incorrectly: I was just the guy who wrote the essay explaining how it can be applied logically, and then other people used that when drafting the stuff that people use.)  One of the things that I always campaigned on, though, is that we not argue with each other on AfD.  We can state positions about the articles, rebut statements about the article, etc., but the moment we start in on "you people" or "the nominator is a troll," we're not discussing the articles any more.  I'm sorry to see that Schoolwatch is still voting reflexively instead of logically.  Geogre 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

EMYLI deletion
Cute, but unsigned, undistributed, unreviewed: A7

Unsigned: No, as she is signed to her own label, which is a label under Rhythm Zone, Undistrubuted?! WTF?! http://us.yesasia.com/en/artTransfer.aspx/code-w/section-index/aid-511350/ If shes undistrubuted, how is she sold on one of the biger Asian sites? Unreviewed..... because all the REviews are in Japanese! argh!

Please, next time before you delete something, do some research first.... Banzai777 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask me how she's distributed, when she's sold on an online source? Do you know anything about the music business?  Making one's own label is, indeed, to be unsigned.  I have put out an album on my own label, with no Wikipedia article, and there never shall be one.  Do not come along making a snotty pleading for yet another MySpace league musician.  If you get 3rd party reviews in a national press, if you get distribution into stores, if you get a major independent label or major label to pick up the record (usually in distribution), then you can look at a reflexive article on the singer.  Until then, it's just more advertising.  Geogre 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A7 is pushing it I would think, perhaps it should have been prodded Brian | (Talk) 00:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't tag it and was merely cleaning out CSD that day. However, the author's attitude here surely isn't helping his case.  I'm not sure whether the artist is huge in J-pop or another vanity act, but the article itself didn't give any references or assertions of outside success that would have kept it away from A7.  In the most literal sense, the article "made no claims" for notability.  I've suggested, below, that the fan take it to DRV, where, of course, the decision will be more deliberative.  Given his childishness toward me, I'm pretty unmoved, so I'll abstain.  Geogre 11:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So your trying to tell me that YesAsia is selling "MySpace Musicans" material? What do you know about the Japanese Music industry? Next to nothing! WTH?! Her latest single was released on her own label, seventh code which is a CHILD label of UP-FRONT WORKS.... Want proof? http://www.up-front-works.jp/discography/SeventhCode/01/s_01/index.html

NOW the balls in your court, cough up or shut up Banzai777 01:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Above was a little abrupt, but ehres proof shes distrubuted http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/503-5205399-4768756?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=music-artist&field-artist=EMYLI

Now if you dont think Amazon is a credible source, then your just being stubborn.... Now all I've got to do is prove that shes reviewed..... Pretty hard especially since all reviews that arent online are in Japanese and are currently in Japan.... Banzai777 06:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Abrupt? Churlish might be more apt.  As for what I know about Japanese pop, I know what an article tells me.  If the author of an article is either too lazy or too unskilled to even provide indications of the significance of the subject, then no one else can be expected to take the time to supply the void.  Given the fact that "mflo loves EMYLI" has been inserted into four or five articles, the author begins to look like a fanboy or someone with a vested interest, which further erodes any desire on my part or anyone else's to go supply what he did not for the article.  What I know about "making your own label," though, is pretty extensive, and what I know about distribution is, too.  Getting a thing sold on Amazon in the US is not an indication of distribution (into radio stations, brick and mortar stores, magazines).  Distribution is, by itself, a way for people who don't have to be an expert on the particular genre/subsubgenre/scene of a music to know that a third party has expressed confidence through investing money in an artist.  If you believe that the deletion was out of line, and you appear to, then I suggest that you lodge it on WP:DRV.  Geogre 11:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

But, was that me that inserted M-flo loves EMYLI into there? You do understand that "m-flo loves" is a series of singles, if you actually went to ANY of teh links I supplied you would understand that...... ALSO, I'm not pissed that the article was deleted, I'm pissed that your dissing Japanese musicans calling them "MySpace League Musicians"..... How would you like it someone started calling "iconic" American icons "MySpace League Musicians"? Banzai777 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. Most of them are only marginally appropriate in an encyclopedia.  It's the kind of thing done more appropriately and better at pop sites.  Compare some pop-tart article to Agrippina the Younger: other than morality, they share nothing.  It remains the duty of the authors to supply the evidence, not the reader to have it already.  This includes claims to significance and verifiable references and an objective assessment.  Every single band vanity author huffs and puffs about how nobody is informed enough to assess the greatness of this band, etc.  No one would have to, if authors did their jobs.  Geogre 21:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You're a mover and shaker
Aren't you, now? Bishonen | talk 02:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Well, I'm certainly shakey. I might as well be a Shaker, given the amount of contact I have with the opposite sex.  :-)  (Thanks, but I'm just some dude.)  Geogre 12:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Giano
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service. As Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway gave up their sysop and other rights under controversial circumstances, they must get them back through normal channels. Giano II may, if developers cooperate, be restored to access to the account Giano. He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance. Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, Thatcher131 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
Okay, this article wasn't the one I was referring to before, but I was wondering if you could take a look at Hilary Duff (album) and leave comments at Peer review/Hilary Duff (album)/archive1. Yes, I am a fan of disposable teen pop, but it's so fun and wonderfully trashy! The article's probably too long and poorly written, and I'd prefer if it wasn't, but my eyes have glazed over. If you don't want to, I won't mind, but it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 12:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)