User:Geogre/Talk archive 9

This is archive 9. It follows archive 8.

No, thank YOU
I had a great time and learned quite a lot on St. Simons, Georgia. I had no idea just how cool Georgia was :) Thanks for pointing me that way. -Harmil 6 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

(Random thought for myself.)

I'm excellent, personally
That was the broadband connection effing with me. "Upgrading", are you ready for this? Upgrading from VDSL to ADSL. Yes. No, please don't explain I'm laboring under a misapprehension, I assure you that's what they call it. C is in a big snitch. We're back online now, anyway. ¿Como es usted yourself? Bishonen | talk 7 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)

What?
Eh? 24 at 8 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)
 * I removed the pornographic image, which was not necessary to the article and which had been inserted by a user who had received multiple warnings about uploading said images. The text says that a person might be aroused by pubic hair.  That really is enough.  A shot of a woman's mons veneris isn't necessary and is, in fact, inappropriate. Geogre 9 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)
 * No, I removed the image. You reverted all my changes back to his very first version. Look again. 24 at 9 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

verses
Hiya,

you recently voted to delete Matthew 2:16

however, a proposal by User:Uncle G covers a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a vote at Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

9 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

Woodlouse
Hi again Geogre. I was wondering if you could give me any tips on how I could get information on Woodlice used in medicine to cure coughs. I have been trying to find information using google but to no avail. Is it ok to add something very brief (like the medicine section that I added) if you think it is something that is worthy of being included? I'm not too experienced with wiki etiquette. Thanks --J011 22:14, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Geogre, brilliant information. Do you not believe what I wrote? I am pretty sure that the name Pill Woodlouse came from the fact that they used to be taken as a medicine, but now to find a trusted source to back it up :) --J011 20:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, again
As I was saying on IRC, I'm sorry if I was overly terse in my FAC comments, as I I really don't want to diminish the work you've done. I may be a bit finicky about style, but the effort you've put into the article certainly shows. The content seems to be a plenty, and I don't think it's very far from being perfect stylistically either. Ambi 13:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/The Fifty Worst Films of All Time
Hello Geogre, thanks for voting, and for the insights into the history of the subject, most interesting! Still I am wondering, what is it that you actually care to keep: the article about the book (presumably by a, uhm, notable critic) - or the list of "worst movies" in itself? (or both?) If what is to stay is an article about Medved's book, then how does a redirect to an article about another author's compilation make sense. Also, if it an article about the book then it should not be a mere list of the "worst" movies, I believe. If, on the other hand, it is yet another list that we keep, then how can it ever become NPOV? Yes there are other such list already in existance (e.g. references on the discussion page), which are kept, after vfD discussions, on the grounds that they clearly and profoundly state the POV nature of such article! Anyway :) - the article as such is in need of lots of improvement and doesn't it qualify for deletion just for that. What do you think?   - Introvert (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Drama yours
Then you must have a cheese sammich! I'll take a good look at drama yours. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Company (or, Oh, Christmas Tree!)
In fact why don't we enjoy it together in front of the fire? Bishonen | talk 16:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Augustan drama
Well, I have no familiarity with the era, but it sounds like that's what you wanted. Yes, I think I understand the point, and you conveyed the problems that a theater system something like modern Hollywood and a censorship program caused in terms of chilling new drama. There are a few minor things, all terms that are either unclear from context, or are just obvious link targets: Great article. I look forward to seeing it on the front page some day! -Harmil 01:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 18th century
 * propos
 * historical and didactic poetry
 * middle class anxiety
 * playwrights
 * Tory

The Dorset Garden Spectacular
Hey, I can feel an article coming on—I'm reading about the operas at Dorset Garden in the 1670s and 80s. Wow. Apparently Betterton went over to Paris and studied the latest machines, and then DG got all outfitted, and they put on stuff like the Dryden-Davenant-Shadwell Tempest. Here's a stage direction from Dryden's Albion and Albanius, 1684—85:


 * The clouds divide, and Juno appears in a machine drawn by peacocks: while a symphony is playing, it moves gently forward, and as it descends, it opens and discovers the tail of the peacock, which is so large that it almost fills the opening of the stage between scene and scene. (Act I)

In your face, John Rich! Another:
 * The cave of Proteus rises out of the sea, it consists of several arches of rock work, adorned with mother of pearl, coral, and abundance of shells of various kinds. Through the arches is seen the sea, and parts of Dover pier [nice touch!]. In the middle of the cave is Proteus asleep on a rock adorned with shells etc, like the cave. Albion and Acacia seize on him, and while a symphony is playing, he sinks as they are bringing him forward and changes himself into a lion, a crocodile, a dragon, and then to his own shape again. (Act 3). --Bishonen | talk 14:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Doan you undercut me, missy! Yes, I know opera and recitivo was spectacular, but the question is when spectacle just as spectacle starts to kick plays off the stage.  (I've seen a copy of Sodom, and the stage directions there look about 5 times more impossible than the 2nd one you have up there.  I don't know how Proteus could change shape, but Rochester has people doing things that simply can't be done with human bodies.)  What article would you do?  We could sure use one on spectacle, but we could also do with 17th century British opera or a section in Opera that says what's true about these "early modern" times.  (You know how I feel about "early modern.")  Geogre 15:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, "change shape"—you shouldn't expect computer-assisted morphing like in the cinema! Notice that he "sinks"? Into the floor trap, presumably. The audience wouldn't be looking for for a convincing transformation, I guess, they'd be there to get a kick out of how great the guys in the lion, crocodile, and dragon suits looked as they emerged from the trap. I was thinking definitely a separate article, with a title something like your redlink. Hey, Geogre, a pretty good web reference for you: Helton, Lowrie F. "Technical Theater During the Restoration: Lighting and Scenic Design England 1660-1800", part of a collaborative post-graduate web project, The World of London Theater 1660-1800. This essay is by a grad student, far from well-written, but full of good, carefully referenced info, take a look! (It's the most horribly formatted text you ever saw, at least the way Mozilla renders it. And NO paragraphing, believe it or not. Nevertheless.) Bishonen | talk 17:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so a sliding trap. He sinks (as Proteus), revealing Lion standing there, who then sinks, revealing Dragon standing there, while Proteus has gone back to the back of the queue and risen again behind Dragon? That would work...sort of. I'll take a look at the reference, as I could find nothing useful on my searches. They were all horrible. Meanwhile, I keep thinking of things to buff up the article some. Incidentally, I am not working this to any sort of FAC any time soon. I might self-nom it in the far future, or ask if anyone else wants to, but with Restoration literature and Augustan literature both having come up very quickly, the voters need a break from me and my hobbyhorse. I'm just working on it because it remains an intellectual problem that needs addressing and because I can't think of any new articles that I want to work on. Please do write something on spectacle or something like that. I'd love to be able to link "spectacle" everywhere I've used it so that people know what I'm talking about. If you clicked on spectacle, by the way, you'd see that it leads to spectacles: it's a spelling redirect. :-( Geogre 17:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

A question about deleting a couple of articles
Hello. User:JCarriker suggested I contact you. I ran across a couple of articles which seemed suspicious to me -- BODMAS and BODMAS! (they have similar content). The band and their albums don't seem to be real. User:JCarriker suggested I list them on the Votes for deletion page, and I think I did the process properly. Could you look them over and let me know if I was wrong in addressing the situation this way, and if I was correct, if I did the complicated process correctly? I asked the user who created the articles if the bands were real, since I can't find any references to them on Google, but he or she didn't respond. The band is also listed on List of songs about suicide for their record which supposedly sold 2 billion copies but doesn't come up on a Google search. Sorry if I made newbie mistakes. John Barleycorn 22:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'm glad I figured out the instructions. :) John Barleycorn 17:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Augustan Drama Links
No problem, it was a very well written article. I am aware of the linking policy (only link the first time a word appears in an article), but I guess I just missed the fact that a few of them had already been linked ..I did try to check first with ctrl+f ..oh well :P Keep up the great work on your articles! :) --Naha|(talk) 03:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Run for cover
As I'm a veggie, I'll see if I can trade it in got a quorn roast. I did revert an interesting edit where someone removed the second picture on the grounds that it was the same as the first one! Filiocht | Talk
 * A poor little canard on a veggy talk page - have you no tact or shame? Giano | talk 11:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, dang! Round here, eating that stuff would get you tarred and feathered as a radical subversive. If it don't moo, quack, or whistle, it ain't food. (Yes, we eat our football referees, too.) I'll see if I can find an illustrative photo. Little did I know that filiocht would be competing with the ducky for food! Geogre 11:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Argh (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005)
This one's just about got me at the end of my rope: Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005. The way we're headed the inclusionists will soon want to keep articles on individual stop signs and intra-high school chess matches, and everything2 will look positively erudite in comparison. (Not soliciting a vote, just needed to cry on someone's shoulder.) Oh, and I hope all has been well with you since we last chatted. Niteowlneils 01:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Referral from Sango123
Dear Geogre,

I have been referred to you by Sango123. The following are some of the vandalized and consequently blocked pages by username Joy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duklja http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travunia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Serb_lands03.jpg etc...

Please refer to the following discussion as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Serb_lands03.jpg

Joy insists on violating copyright protected materials. His map is a flase clone of a published work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kpdai30.gif and is in disagreement with the facts. Not only is it inferior, but wholly flase and in violation of copyright material.

According to most historians, all the historical evidence strongly suggests that Serbi-Bosnia's western border ran along the Una and Sava rivers, centered at Srb, an ancient stronhold on the Una River. According to primary historical sources Caslav's rule did extend to the west of the river Una as well. He shortly ruled Croatia. Neither map reflects this.

Last but not least, Joy seems to be in disagreement with the wider Wikipedia community. With only himself on his side, he has blocked numerous wikipedia users. I express my doubt that this should be tolerated. It hurts the whole community.

I thank you for your help in advance. SHould you be unable to assist with this, please let me know who is.

Thanks, UCLA - Pasadena


 * Response: Wikipedia is designed, by its very nature, to be like other encyclopedias, in that it is not the place for new information.  It is a tertiary reference work, and not a primary source nor a place for the publication of new conclusions or research on a subject.  Therefore, on all political and academic issues, it must take the most conservative, least disputed position possible.  That is why "cite sources" is important.  If citations disagree, then we can either say "both points of view have references" or we can simply not discuss the issue that is not entirely settled.  If it's in dispute, we are not the referee to make a ruling.  We are not the arbiters of truth, but only reporters of established truths.  Because Wikipedia is online, we do have encyclopedia articles not present elsewhere on subjects that are new, but in those cases, as with all others, our duty is not to surprise anyone with new information, but rather to gather, discuss, and present coherent summaries of what other scholars say.  Were I the greatest expert in the world, I would not wish to step in and say "This is the truth of ethnicity in Boznia, and this is not," because that would not be my function as an encyclopedist.  I do not mean to discourage you from arguing your case, but I must say that it is least appropriate to do battle in the pages, electronic or not, of an encyclopedia.  Our facts must be fairly dead, and not in motion, and especially when we discuss issues that have shed blood in the past.  Geogre 15:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"UCLA - Pasadena"
Please see Requests for comment/ARD and Jwalker and the linked pages for information about this whole affair. We've tolerated his mockery of our rules (and of common sense, even) for a long time... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   09:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's not an ethnic dispute even, it's a dispute between people who are on crack and those who are not. Granted, myself and Mir Harven are Croatian, but PANONIAN is a Serbian. This abuser isn't here to promote an alternative interpretation of history, they're just here to cause a flamewar by posting nonsensical images.

In case you hadn't bothered to read the background discussions, the summary is that the image (on five different filenames, but their actual image is only one) is marked to depict the 9th century and marked as something from Byzantine sources; whereas in reality they don't depict any century because they're a fabrication, and their sources are from the 10th and the 20th century, and they aren't actually using any of those sources but drawing their own maps without any real criteria.

Thanks for your patience. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   20:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

William Davenant
What happen? :-( I could have sworn there was a pic of Davenant of the syphilitic nose in one of the auggies, where'd it go? Bishonen | talk 10:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Aha, Restoration literature, sorry! Nobody set us up the bomb, thank you, as you were! Bishonen | talk 10:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * -) You've been watching too much arcade video game screens, and now all your base are belong to them.  Yes, D'Avenant of the amblyopia is in Rest.lit., not the Auggie.  I shall return to the Dorset Gardens RSN, myself.  Geogre 11:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Got any more empresses?
Geogre, I believe there exists a whole series of pics of the Empress of Morocco scenic displays. I uploaded this one myself, long time ago. Have you got any more in your book? Nudge, nudge? Also, can I interest you in doing me a cropped version of the naval battle scene that is at present in the User:Bishonen/Dorset Garden Spectacular? See, I was thinking, with that high resolution you use, I'd like to have the naval scene without all that theatre building around it—just a narrowish proscenium frame—so the ships could be good and big, and use that for the lead picture. Or, again, not, but I'd really like to take a look at how it would... uh, look. And then, if you have more of them, I could have the full picture with a different scene in it, further down the page. See, I illustrate the page at present with too many faces and not enough scenes, for the subject, don't you agree? Got to try to give people an impression of what "spectacular" looked like. So why don't I just grab the ships and crop 'em myself? Well, that's the thing. I tried, and Photoshop like to have exploded. :-( Bishonen | talk 19:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, unfortunately, I don't have access to any more of the Morocco prints to scan, so I'm no better off than you are there. However, I do have the original high resolution one that I uploaded, so I can easily get a detail of it.  Gimme a few, and I'll drop it right on your talk page.  Geogre 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Wanna delete old Nose?
Geogre, I've come across a bigger and better version of the Davenant image and uploaded it as Image:WilliamDavenant.jpg and put it into your Restoration page, check it out. Image:Davenant.gif is now an orphan, please delete it if you like. Unless you prefer it? I'll admit the unfortunate man looks better the fuzzier he is. I also found a better Wren playhouse section, used in User:Bishonen/Dorset Garden Spectacular, and deleted the old one. Oh, and I'm not on IRC, check out the box at the top of my Talk for why. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The bible
Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Bible verses.

18:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

All right
Awright. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. I like the scary ogre one. 3. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Next to the paranoid one (not visible), that was my favorite, too, so long as it's not seen large. Geogre 20:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I wanna see the paranoid one! Incidentally, did I mention how much I love having the scanned detail from the Empress of Morocco by the Lead section? It's the most decorative and informative thing, it really pleases me to see it every time I go to the page. :-) --Bishonen | talk 23:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * WOW, speaking of pictures, look at the pic of the day, Image:Wellington City Night.jpg! Click on the high resolution version. Man. I didn't know my screen could do stuff like that. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at that picture when the database locked, and since then there has been no easy editing. Therefore, I blame it. Anyway, I'm glad you like the backgrop. I didn't understand that that's the whole scenery. I thought it was a single painting always behind the action or an ornament in front of the arch. I didn't realize that they would move it here and there to provide 3 or 4 backdrops for the acts. I did a thing with my old City Heiress, where I put in Gould's insult and then tried to explain it. I'm thinking that I may want to read the play. There's a free e-text, so I'll glance at it and see if I can find a way to read off the screen that doesn't make me want to vomit. I'm reading A Confederacy of Dunces just now, and I was amused to see it refer to Hrosvit. I'm wondering if I should quote it in the Hrosvit talk page or something. It's amusing, as the main character compares her with American Bandstand. Geogre 16:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Geogre, you sound like you're looking for something to do! Do we still not have any article on heroic drama, or heroic play or heroic tragedy? See, I have these redlinks in my new article, and that's one of 'em. Nudge! There are others. Say no more! Bishonen | talk 20:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you back!
Missed you, man! Need an administrative favor of you. I've been going round and round with two rather contentious users as of late who are either one and the same or working in cahoots. They are rude, their edit summaries are even ruder and I for one feel they need some talking to. They are User:Mirror Vax and User:Sherurcij. That last one in particular has been hanging stub notices off of vandal bot entries and leaving the rudest edit summaries you've ever read. The first guy just has a bad attitude in general. Never heard of him before he flamed my talk page. Can you help? - Lucky 6.9 21:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The former is a kid (shrug). The guy naked in his bed shot by cops is a pure VfD.  You know this, I'm sure:  we do not have articles on victims unless there is something particularly notable about them.  Just another cop victim is just another cop victim.  As for the latter, he expands substubs.  In every instance I've seen so far, the substubs you tagged with CSD were CSD's, but he has moved them up to keepers, but only with nastygrams in every edit summary.  I left him a note about the vitriol.  The wretched edit summaries are clear RfC material, if you think it's worthwhile, but you'd have to be pretty much a mellow fellow as well.  Some of the "Every stub is sacred" people are hysterical about it, in my experience, and can't just buff up the stubs but have to shriek at the tops of their lungs in the process.  The buffing up is fantastic.  Would that all of them did that.  The shrieking isn't.  In fact, it's not allowed.  Geogre 22:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like they're both on the young side. If Sherurcij has, in fact, expanded substubs, more power to him.  You're right...I wish more would just expand them and be done with it, although I still am of the mind that whoever first writes an article is obligated to make at least something workable out of it.  I was pretty cool with Sherurcij, but he forced my hand and I listed him on the vandalism page.  Hopefully, he'll calm down and become a good user.  Those edit summaries were just wrong. - Lucky 6.9 04:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, you probably know that people use "personal attacks in edit summaries" as grounds for RfC. In my opinion, it's not a fit grounds for an RfC, but the point is that that's the recourse, rather than ViP, for that. I can't tell you how exasperated I am with some of the people who swear (in both senses) that substubs have every right to stay here, because someone who knows something could one day come along and write about it. Well, yeah, but the same could be said of having no article: someone might come along and actually write an article. Speedy Delete criterion #1 absolutely allows for the deletion of substubs, and it doesn't matter whether it's a good or bad topic. You also know that I have a big argument about why it's better to have nothing than to have an idiocy. Geogre 11:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No comment yourself?
Replied on my page, but btw, no comment yourself, to my nudgey message above, huh? I mean, it's up to you and all, but er, did you see it..? (And you ARE the article machine, we know.) Bishonen | talk 23:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Heroic drama
And suddenly the link was blue... thank you very much, sweetheart! It's a fine short article, too. Geogre, do you think I'm ready for FAC? It turns out Antandrus isn't ready to accompany me yet, maybe not for some time, I don't know; anyway, I don't want to wait, the music isn't so central anyway. Probably the linking needs a spit polish, I've got a feeling it may not be very logical. The length is now, lessee, 33 kb. Ow! Too much! Please, Geogre a) do you have any suggestions for stuff that can be cut? And b) Is it OK? Do you think that stuff amuses anybody besides me? Bishonen | talk 17:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, heroic drama just got considerably better, as I figured out something to say there that wasn't self-evident from context. Anyway, my personal feeling is that you're not at FA yet.  I'm Mr Prolix, so I may be the wrong person to ask.  I want it always longer, and I'm good at suggesting complications that must be dealt with.  (That's my function in life.)  In a sense, you don't need the music.  In fact, music is somewhat of a distraction, since your topic is the spectacle theater, so music is good supplementary information, but not pivotal for the effect of the visuals.  It would be nice to know if there are orchestra pits and where the players are in these productions, but much more on when opera and how opera is going to make it a different article.  Also, though, I think there is something of an odd conclusion, in that you have the super-massive spectacle as your topic (right? the topic isn't the English opera or just the machine house, right?), and you can say that it kind of stops with Dryden, but the mini-spectacle, or the machines without the expense of a lot of players or an important playwright is the lesson the houses learn.  I.e. Lun is just down the street, and he can dance around a real live giraffe, if you're tired of seeing a play about last week's naval battle that was written by someone whose name isn't even listed in the playbill because it's "Mssrs Cibber and Wilks present."  Let me read the whole of the article from start to finish with fresh eyes, and I'll get back to you.  Geogre 17:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

consensus
The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were
 * Delete - 21 (58%)
 * Keep - 11 (31%)
 * Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).

Would you be prepared to re-add your vote there? ( ! | ? | * ) 09:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It's Here
Not ready for ripping apart yet. Geogre 01:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's now in name space. It can die of attrition or neglect now. Geogre 00:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD thoughts
I noticed at User talk:Ambi that you were thinking about some of the problems at VFD. I recently wrote of my thoughts on just one small part of the problems in the VFD morass that I've explained at User talk:Radiant! if you want to take a look at it. Blank Verse  &empty; 13:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This sounds interesting; please keep me posted. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

African American Literature
I posted the African American literature article a while back on the Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article page so it had a chance to be seen on the front page. After two weeks, it seems that this is not going to happen. Could you go there and voice your support for the article? I think it would be great for a lit article to be seen on the front page. Thanks. --Alabamaboy 12:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me get a little perspective on the issue. If you get a chance, could you check out an item I posted at Talk:Charles Bukowski. Essentially, I did a major rewrite to the Charles Bukowski article a while back, at which time I added an external link to A critical look at Charles Bukowski’s poem "My First Affair With That Older Woman". My thinking was to present the pros and cons of Buk's writing style and this article presents the con view in a very blunt way. Now another editor doesn't like this article's critique of Buk. I know that the author of the article doesn't present his arguements in the standard "academic" fashion, but I think this is ok b/c Bukowski didn't write his poetry in that manner either. For what it's worth, the site the article is on has a high Google page rank and has been mentioned by a number of sources, such as the New York Times, as a valuable source of poetry analysis. Any thoughts on this? --Alabamaboy 17:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. It looks like the editor and I worked it out.--Alabamaboy 12:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Reversion and revulsion
No problem. You'd have done the same for me. Yeah, AOL sucks. Rob Church 21:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew the sequel
The POV that was in Authentic Matthew, an article you voted to delete, before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ( ! | ? | * ) 20:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

1000000000000000000
Hi Geogre. In Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000, I noticed you voted to delete the article 1000000000000000000. Could you please look into Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000 (number)? Thanks. --A D Monroe III 00:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Rogue Admin


For showing so much concern when speediable articles are walking up stairs or using lifts with weak cords, and for banning vandals left, right and centre, I award Geogre this "rouge" admin barnstar. Rob Church 04:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Handy award


Gee, Ogre! :) Thank you so much; come Wednesday, I intend to proudly display my rouge-ness for the whole world to see. :) In return, I offer you a couple of Mer Rouges, as well as the Moulin Rouge. :) Func( t, c ) 21:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how to get these images to line up the way I want them to.... :) Func( t, c ) 21:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Jorge Pinzón
Thanks for not treating my recreation of the article as bad faith. I am not abandoning it as it stands -- I intend to research it more fully, but it takes some time. Eliot 16:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

re: email
I sent you an email reply the other day. Forgot to leave you a message until just now. Sorry. Thanks for your interest. Rossami (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sonnet form
What do you mean, didn't quite work? Seriously though, I realize that the rhyme scheme wasn't standard Italian or Shakespearean, rather a mix of the two, but that was deliberate and I claim artistic license. I will concede, however, that although I carefully counted out syllables, I came up rather short of the mark in terms of giving the sonnet a natural metrical flow. Given that failing, it probably shouldn't be advertised as a real sonnet — perhaps you might consider it a NutraSonnet instead. --Michael Snow 04:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

THANK YOU!
To say that I was humbled and moved by your eloquent and heartfelt vote of support is the understatement of the year. It means more to me than I can possibly express. I promise to wield the mop and bucket with care and love. Anything I can do in return, just ask. All the best, Lucky 6.9 05:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Unilateral undeletions?
Hi there! You certainly have a point about this, and I suppose it would be inappropriate to undelete a VFD'ed article without resorting to VFU. I believe the community didn't notice this issue because it was later added to an already-controversial RFC. TINC notwithstanding, people are generally unwilling to be too harsh on long-term strong contributors. The other main issue there was that deletion results depend heavily on which admin closes it. This is unfortunate, but I can't think of a practical way of changing this (other than by going back to straight binary voting, which solves this problem but raises worse ones). Anyway if deletion reform comes to one or more useful proposals, it may be desirable to establish clear consensus on such issues as which votes mean 'keep' and which don't, and when VFU must be employed. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed
You think it might be a good idea to confiscate this kid's peashooter? Bishonen | talk 11:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, hell yes, but I think Tony has lost his sh*t altogether and is now arguing troll points of view, calling names, and altogether doing a yahoo act, and, for direct comments, he has been more offensive and disruptive than Ed's only-occasional whoppers. I am amazed and shocked at the outright hate being taken as normal on that talk page.  I'm glad I never have seen it before.  Geogre 13:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Tony inspired me to write that. Uh, are you saying you do want to confiscate my peashooter..? Or you meant Ed's? (That's not what I picture him wielding.) Bishonen | talk 13:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ed's! Tony's too, when it comes to that.  Disagreeing with everyone is a noble pursuit.  Disagreeing with everyone and then deciding that you'll just go ahead and change deletion results or blow away project pages or "making a mistake" on a project page is quite another thing altogether.  Believe it or not, I have no personal dislike of either of these users, no dislike of their edits, no matter what I might think of their points of view on policy, but, damn it, there is no enforcement right now.  Looking at that arb talk page made me think that some people really aren't here for the -pedia and only want the wiki.
 * BTW, I wonder if there would be any consequences if someone blocked, without RfC or determination of ArbCom, Ed or Tony or someone and then said, "Hey! It was just a mistake!"  The fact is, there are things you shouldn't take so lightly that you make a mistake with them. Geogre 13:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Congrats and hope you're holding up
Congrats on Augustan literature being on the front page. I hope the vandalism and idiotic edits that I'm sure the article is suffering through isn't driving you crazy.--Alabamaboy 16:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Me too, and thanks for all the good stuff on my FAC vote! Have a dahlia! Bishonen | talk 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You know I live in via dahlia, right? (Really, that's the commonly offered explanation of the town name.) I'm having to alt-L quite often (watchlist) and revert more than I'm accustomed to and block a bit, but, yeah. So far, one great edit, a few over-linkings, and 3-4 spray paintings. Geogre 19:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on the autism FAC!
Thanks! Its now a Featured article. -- Ryan Norton T 03:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocking policy
Apart from Jtd, you were the only administrator that commented on my entry on the Administrator's noticeboard. Humour me by explaining how my understanding of blocking policy bears no relation to reality.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here..." Third paragraph of the board page. The block I dispute was not for 3RR (that was previously), but a 72-hour for making edits Jtd disagreed with. I made a complaint and now I'm trying to figure out why almost everyone decides to focus on the disputes over some of my edits rather than the behaviour of the admin in question.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, but I did'nt realise the transgressions had to be so blatant. I did say the board was not the place to go into the disputes, but a lot of stuff was written it was hard for me to leave just hanging there.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin standards
Well, the Ed issue is now at the ArbCom (isn't it?) as is Stevertigo. Regarding Tony, I suppose the best bet would be to 1) take a leaf out of Deletion reform and get some agreement on what acceptable standards for closing actually are, or 2) keep an eye out for his closings and inform the community if you disagree, most likely on VFU. That's not an ideal mechanism for cases such as this, but it beats AN/I and it's the best we've got; in any conflict on deletion-or-not the article is likely to be deleted at some point so VFU would work (yes, that sounds stupid, but it's what's been going on lately). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway
Hi. I read your comment when you signed under Smoddy's view. Since it goes beyond Smoddy's view and reflects my own opinion in a large way please take a look at Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway if you haven't already. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)
I didn't get a chance to finish telling you how much I like Augustan literature. Obviously, it is still a stub...but I'm sure you're working on it! ;-)

Geogre, contributions such as yours represent the core of what an encyclopedia is all about. Feature Status == Geogre Status!!! :) (This, in fact, is the true definition of to geogre-ify.) It is for this reason that your support of my adminship meant so much to me, thank you. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 18:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Like bold Briareus, with a hundred hands"
Hi, Geogre, and thanks for your comments about my Dunciad tweak.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and admire the vast amounts of time you have put into that entry, especially the summaries. The "stall" is understandable, given the detail you are putting into it and the vast amount of other things you have going on judging from your user page. I think what Pope wrote about Handel, cited in my title just above, might also be applicable to all your many activities in writing and enhancing entries on these pages! Whew!

Your comments on the "Elegy to the Memory of an Unfortunate Lady" are well taken. I did try to choose the word "celebrated" carefully--certainly it's anthologized a great deal, as in the Norton Anthology of English Literature I still have on my shelves from my college days some two decades ago. Whether it is the most significant or great of Pope's poems is entirely another matter; I tend to agree with Maynard Mack that it's a bit out of focus. But even people who have big problems with it (such as John Wesley, cited in my entry) can't refrain from quoting it--it is a memorable piece, at the least.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments and certainly defer to your expertise in these matters. I look forward to seeing more of your work hereabouts. -MollyTheCat 23:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your further comments on my talk page. I've put the bare minimum "something" on my user page now, as you suggested. To your other comments, I can only say "whoo!" and "wow!" and even "whooee!" at your breadth of knowledge. I'm more of an 18th century enthusiast myself except for the 19th century delve into Austen (who as you point out is better represented than other 19th c. authors on Wikipedia); hopefully there will be some efforts to enhance the 19th c. by those who are lovers of, and specialists in, that literature. Until later, best regards. -MollyTheCat 09:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for deleting Vesa Ahonen. I must say, this was the first time I've seen Finnish schoolchildren insult each other on the English Wikipedia. &mdash; J I P | Talk 15:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep it up
I'm genuinely sorry to see you disappointed with the community and the project, but you have every right to be. Some seriously outlandish mistakes and silly, ideologically tainted behavior has been going down. If anything, a lot of inclusionists should take a long, good wikibreak to get some perspective on the situation and hopefully come back convinced that keeping lists of Simpson-episodes and Harry Potter-characters isn't really boosting the credibility of the project.

I hope I never see the day when you actually leave the wiki for good. Though I have still to actually teach myself much about 17th century literature, I see that you are clearly an extremely productive, qualified and generous editor that has contributed more to this project than most of us will ever hope to do.

And who would help me get subtlety up to standards? Don't let stubborn mediocracy get to you, dude...

Peter Isotalo 18:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Warren Benbow
Restored. The original version clearly described him as a "drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator". Looks like an assertion of notability to me; your mileage may obviously vary. --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Amazingly brave after it has been expanded. When it was created, it was a CSD.  It got tagged.  It got deleted.  Now it's not.  Hooray for that, but it changes nothing about its initial suitability.  When people comply with the rules and standards, their articles don't get deleted.  When they don't, the articles get deleted.  Finger wagging is deeply appreciated. Geogre 21:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But this isn't a social forum, is it? We're supposed to intepret their contributions as genuine attempts to create an encyclopedia unless there's pretty good evidence to the contrary, not make them jump through hoops.


 * Anyhow I'm not wagging my finger, I'm sorry you think that. I'm letting you know you speedied an article about someone who probably should have a Wikipedia entry.  I only noticed because I specialize in this kind of cleanup. --Tony Sidaway Talk  21:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you follow VFU? Indeed, I interpret them as genuine when there is sufficient evidence in an article for it. In fact, in the state it was in when I deleted it, it could also have been speedy deleted under criterion #1. So, again, if people write articles with enough information to guide readers, if they follow the rules, they don't get deleted. If they don't, then the articles get deleted, and you ignore all process to undelete them. I followed a tag, evaluated the contents of the article, and executed the decision. You just undeleted. Congratulations on the wisdom in telling the process to sod off. Geogre 21:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If the process gets in the way of writing an encyclopedia, it gets trashed.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  21:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Writing? WRITING? But Tony, you're not writing anything. You're just flaunting and trashing the rules because it pleases you to. Furthermore, if you were interested in courtesy, you would not undelete legally and legitimately deleted articles and then taunt the deleting admin about it. Instead, you would drop a note on the deleting admin saying that you believed that the article had been inappropriately tagged and allow that person the chance to do the undelete. However, what's clear is that you're not interested in the rules, in courtesy, or the encyclopedia. You're interested in being the sole arbiter. Is it any wonder why I supported the RfC against you, then? Is it any wonder that I'll be happy to support the next one opened on you, too? Geogre 01:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't accept that the article was legitimately deleted. I'm sorry but I really can't believe that you'd expect me to wait around while someone who has already mistakenly deleted an article decides whether or not to correct his error. I can do it myself in seconds and have a decent article in a few minutes. If there is a next RfC on me, I confidently expect it to be as unsuccessful as the last. --Tony Sidaway Talk 07:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, the first one on you isn't actually over. You might want to read up on it again. Show some RESPECT of other editors, and administrators.  When you undeleted, all you managed to do was burden Wikipedia with an article that was so bad that it could be deleted without further deliberation.  You didn't do anything virtuous, and your self-congratulation is the only thing you have for support.  Once you tune out that one hand clapping, you'll realize that what you effectively did was write a new article, but you did this by first defying Wikipedia process by not using VfU, second not working with the person who tagged the article, third by not working with the person who did the execution, and fourth by then fostering ill-will by trying to taunt.  Why this pathological desire to preserve the edit history of an anon who couldn't manage to write enough to keep an article out of deletion?  Why is that anonymous editor's glory more important to you than the rules of Wikipedia, your responsibilities as an administrator, respect for other administrators, and the smoothe functioning of the project?  Why, except that it gives you a chance to tell yourself that you are the defender of the poor, protector of the feeble?  If there's some better reason, your behavior obscures it entirely.  So set Tony Sidaway on /ignore for a moment and look around.  You'll find that what you've done and what you're trying to do is incompatible with Wikipedia, and if you can't "wait around" for someone else to do the undelete, then you really, really, really should be working at Everything2 or just on your own little blog, because Wikipedia means other people -- other people who should be respected.  Geogre 12:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, you're being a dick, plain and simple. That you're doing it through the abuse of admin privs, openly mocking those who present formal complaints against you and all the while acting like some sort of anarchist with an agenda is probably not going to boost your popularity. Take a break from VfD-work for a while. Like George said, step away and try to judge the merit of your claim that a whole bunch of fellow editors and admins are all dead wrong and worth your scorn while you're right and should be able to bend rules however you please in the name of... whatever it is you're trying to achieve.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to stick to my instincts and the policy; I won't accept naked attempts to make an end-run around VfD. If you want an article deleted, do it right. --Tony Sidaway Talk 17:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

To keep to the point of Warren Benbow, I have no idea to what extent Tony's article established his notability, but he has actually got a biography in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, or at least in its online edition. Uppland 13:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for speaking to me about it. I feel sure you're right.  In fact, I re-deleted it not for any dissatisfaction with the new version, but simply because it had been undeleted out of process.  It was also entirely rewritten by Tony.  The violation of policy is normally something I wouldn't care that much about, except that Tony's got an RfC which documents other cases of his deciding that VfU is for the other guy, that VfU's votes mean nothing to him when an article is listed there.  I wholly agree that we should have an article on Benbow.  In fact, I really like James Blood Ulmer.  However, undeleting a legitimate speedy, when the speedy was on grounds that it was a single sentence with insufficient evidence for anyone to research the topic (a name is not information, because a name should be on RA, if that's what we're really about) preserves for credit an author too lazy and unhelpful to even get more than a sentence out, and I think that simply writing a new article with valid and complete information is the way to go.  I'm not, by the way, doing this out of WP:POINT, either.  It's just that Tony has openly advocated ignoring the rules and letting admins do whatever they feel like, so my choice to be a stickler for the rules in this case is to demonstrate the consequences of "do whatever you feel, ignore other admins, and ignore votes."  The consequence is the most idiotic of revert wars.  If you believe that the article was deleted inappropriately (i.e. because it was originally undeleted in process), then I'll be happy to undelete it myself.  I certainly don't want there to be no article on the guy, but I even less want people to say, "Hey, everyone breaks the rules sometimes, so let's just ignore Tony's saying that he's happy to trash them" and thereby excuse disrespect, renegade, and childish actions like his in this case.  Geogre 16:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is simply false to state that I completely rewrote the article. I expanded it from material that was given in the original.  Since you're insisting on speedying, even though it was never a speedy candidate, I've resurrected and put it on VfD.  I'm utterly non-plussed at your odd attitude--are you trying to build an encyclopedia or just play silly games? --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd also add that I do not advocate ignoring the rules and letting administrators do whart they like. It is precisely this that Geogre is doing by speedying the article for a second time.  I am going to play it by my instincts and by the book--which both tell me that this attempted deletion cannot take place without a discussion on VfD. --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you do not advocate ignoring the rules then why do you keep ignoring the rules as they apply to VfU? Zoe 18:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Until you go through VfU, it is an improperly undeleted article and should be deleted. Go through VfU. Listen to somebody for a change. Let the vote go forward. Obey it. I note that you have now doubled your violation of policy by undeleting a second time out of process. This is not good. Geogre 20:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Now make that a third time out of process. I guess Tony thinks the rules don't apply to him. Geogre 21:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency
I ask you to re-consider your vote on Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. I respect you and your views, but if you read the project page, this is clearly a project aimed at imposing a standard of decency (i.e. POV) on Wikipedia. I would never vote to delete an article about the concept of decency, nor a political party, etc. But this is not that. See my comments on the idea that they're just trying to discuss the legal angle (they're page says otherwise).

I hope you re-consider. Thanks. -Harmil 13:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Grrr... I dislike your response. I dislike it because it's arguably correct, and that makes me want to revise my vote. :)


 * I do disagree with you about parties to an extent. Block voting is ugly and anti-democratic, but there's no way to draw that line reasonably. One of Jimbo's points on why WP works is that people watch those things that they are interested in. This is why my dispute with User:AlexR over Sexual characteristics never resulted in my bringing him up on an RFC: he's being a special interest, and while he's pushing a POV, he's doing so with a certain degree of restraint and improving Wikipedia more than he harms it. The same goes for these folks, I suppose, so I'll have to consider how I want to deal with this... do I change my vote? Not sure yet.... I may at least switch to userify. -Harmil 20:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

On speedy history only undeletions
Hi Geogre (who thought TCS Victory ought to be deleted :-) )

Isn't the rule for history only undeletion that they can be performed without any debate? The exceptions of course being copyvios in the history (I eliminated some song lyrics from the history today) and perhaps pure vandalism.

Also, on the subject of administrators "overruling" consensus, what's your opinion of Neutrality overruling my "no consensus" keep call on Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews?

Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Don't take the first line of this note too seriously, I think you're a great guy.


 * I think I found the relevant policy at Undeletion policy: "History only" undeletions can always be performed without needing to list the articles on the votes for undeletion page, and don't need to be kept for a full ten days. Article histories that include copyright violations should not be undeleted.".
 * Regarding the TCS Victory article... yes it probably should be merged, but it is quite a task to merge everything in Category:Wing Commander spacecraft together. Anyway, I have long since "graduated" from writing articles about things in computer games. I had a period where I worked on completing the coverage at Category:Chess openings, but there are not many more articles needing creation there.
 * My latest article was on the Oslo tram system. My next article will be on a high school... yes the high school I went to... but being 852 years old should give it a fair chance of surviving VFD, no? Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Still more thanks
Hi, pal. Just swung over to votes for undeletion to see if anything I'd done wound up there...and I saw your comments. I just wanted to thank you for the unwavering and much-appreciated support. That's another one I owe ya. Best, Lucky 6.9 17:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have an interest in reading...
Regarding Tony Sidawy: User_talk:Theresa_knott

Deletion of article in question
Looks like you deleted the article Watmm on August 11th.. might I ask why? A copy of the article is still at answers.com and I see nothing wrong with it. User:Academic Challenger also deleted the article a day after you did, and I have posted a similar comment on his/her talk page. comment by User:Easterlingman

History of South Carolina
Hello. History of South Carolina is on Featured Article Candidates for a third time due to recent controversy. Because you commented on one of its past nominations, you may be interested in commenting this time at Featured article candidates/History of South Carolina. Toothpaste 19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002.
Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 12:06:34, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes
Oh, for shame. He is a Norwegian who likes cricket, poor chap. He deserves a little latitude (or at least a more southerly one).

Ignore all rules, Geogre. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ouch! Well, I guess my nose asked for that.  I agree that we don't need a full report of every cricket match, baseball game, etc, but if someone want to write them and then incorporate them into an overview after the season is finished then I have no complaint.  I'm not aware of the discussion to which you refer (was there a VfD?) - if there was a consensus to delete then I would expect it to go (or at least be stored outside article space).


 * I must admit that I very rarly visit VfD (mainly because the articles I am interested in very rarely get VfD'd, and I am much more interested in writing good content than deleting bad content).  But if I was asked your first question - "The vote is 5D and 5K on Racism in Ireland. What do you do?" - my answer would be that there is no clear consensus to delete, so it should be kept; and to your second question - "What is your threshold for consensus on delete votes?" - I have no clear answer: consensus means everyone agrees, but with a vote that is almost impossible (both cases are illustration of why votes are "considered evil").


 * I think WP:IAR is quite sensible - it is the Wikipedia version of equity blunting the brute force of the common law. It clearly does not mean "do what you will" but rather "don't slavishly follow the rules where following the rules would be worse than not following the rules".  Ho hum. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Your recent comment.
At vote for admin, Rl. My thoughts exactly. Hamster Sandwich 21:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA
Thanks for the support, and thanks for the comment. It's good to know I don't come across as horribly unreasonable, and I've actually been meaning to thank you for a little while about clearing up the speedy keep vote for me. Your viewpoints on it helped change mine, which resulted in me looking a little less asinine than I otherwise might. Thanks a lot, and it goes without saying that if you have any problems with my edits, I'd like to hear from you.--Scimitar parley 14:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Rouge Admin
Are you the party responsible for the term? Not "rogue admin" of course, we already know who promulgated that piffle. But if you're the source for rouge admin, then Bravo! and high marks for subtlety. FeloniousMonk 19:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Indeed, I have a bit of a manifesto for Rouge Admins, as well.  Feel free to award the award to any of the award, including yourself.  A Rouge Admin terrorizes and oppresses those too incurious, injudicious, and insane to know the difference between face powder and theft. :-)  Geogre 19:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)



Vfd trouble
continues to behave strangely with respect to VFD closings - in particular, relisting any discussion with less than five votes even if they all vote the same (e.g. here), thus unilaterally creating a quorum policy, except when he already agrees with the outcome e.g. here; closing 3del/3redir results as "keep"; and closing VFDs as keep when he in fact already merged or redirected the article. I believe this to be misleading at best, WP:POINT at worst. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the good part is that we have an outline for an improved VFU process that would stop at least that part (specifically, it clarifies that it cannot be unilaterally bypassed, and that also disputed 'keep's should be discussed there). Tune in next week. RFC is ultimately pointless if its subject is not listening; but User:Zoe suggested RFAr, which could potentially keep him out of VFD closing. Other than that we'll simply have to clean up after him, I'm afraid. In better news, he has laid off on the personal attacks for the time being, and most of his closes are reasonable. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Per Tony and other Rouge admins, see the comments on my User page. Blank Verse  &empty; 08:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You'll have to be more specific, I'm afraid. Tony, btw, is definitely not a rouge admin. :-)  I consider myself a rouge admin.  Rogue admin, maybe, but I think that's of limited utility.  Geogre 11:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Geogre, I just wanted to say "thanks" for not letting this issue slide or drop. I (and I'm sure others without the Special Buttons) appreciate someone going to bat for the outdated idea that admins should help implement consensus, rather than manufacture it. Nandesuka 13:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Radiant was a bit naughty above, falsely purporting to present a case when I failed to relist a case where I agreed with the outcome. Actually the listing was inconclusive--absolutely nobody took the nomination seriously.


 * Geogre, you claimed (utterly without any basis as far as I'm aware) that I said in my RFA that I didn't think other people's opinions mattered. Well I do.  However you do have to give me something to work on.  I need a real complaint, one that actually amounts to something.  Not the nonsense that Radiant has been pouring out, nor your wonderfully unsourced claims about stuff that I'm supposed to have said.  We've been through all the things that I'm doing that are supposed to be naughty but, really, I cannot see what it is that I'm supposed to be doing wrong.  Some two dozen people endorsed my response to the original RfC--you claim it's deliberately misreading to equate endorsement of a response with agreement--well I don't.  I also looked at the many responses that said, basically, well he might closed some of them differently than I would, but he's not doing anything wrong.  Even most people who didn't endorse my response said that.


 * Since then we've seen all kinds of nonsense--for instance, false claims that an admin must go to VFU in order to resurrect a bad speedy. It ain't so.  I'm seeing Radiant trying to play about with the guide to VfD so as to make a redirect into a kind of deletion--that's utterly pathetic.  I have nothing to add to my response to the RfC.  Start a new one if you wish, but even if you got rid of one admin you don't like you wouldn't be able so easily to change Wikipedia policy.


 * Just give me a reasonable coherent explanation of why one single part of my closing procedure is against policy. Or a rational explanation of why you claimed that I must go to VFU in order to undelete a bad speedy. That's all I ask.  Just don't give me all these pathetic, no-hoper excuses for your disagreements with my actions.  And back up your claims, won't you? --Tony Sidaway Talk  03:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Can any live person write like that? Well, Tony, since you feel that having ambi, R Fiend, Brenneman, Radiant, Neutrality, Nandesuka, and about ten others condemn your actions are a vindication of your actions, I'm not sure how I can explain to you what you're doing wrong, except to say that you should really read the RfC against you. Most people take the presence of an RfC against them as a reason for changing their behavior, if it's supported by experienced users like those. However, you took it all as an endorsement. That's mystifying to me. In fact, it seems like a clear indication that you don't listen to consensus at all, that you don't care about it, and that you don't acknowledge, much less honor, the opinions of others. Were that enough, your responses on Theresa Knott's user talk page, where you went into lavish personal attacks on anyone and everyone who disagreed with you and swore that you wouldn't change (and then did, and then didn't), would have convinced me that you don't care about nor listen to others. In fact, the only voice you seem to hear is in your own head. You continue to treat VfD as if it were binary (see that section of your VfD and find for me any support for such a bizarre philosophy), continue to treat "no consensus" as "consensus keep" requiring no more effort on your part but the deleting of a VfD tag, continue to maintain that you do not, have not, and will not ever use VfU nor obey the consensus established there. Continue to engage in personal attacks on dissenting editors of good will. You have not recently gone out of your way to taunt people who have performed speedy deletes, but I'm convinced, from all the other evidence, that that is an accident on your part and not a change in attitude. You are free to cite any rules you choose that explain that VfD has only two outcomes, that those who close it should be lazy sots who are incapable of performing a merge (when that is called for) or redirect (when that is called for) or seeking mediation of the contents of an article (when the vote is divisive), or, for that matter, where your 70% delete is specified as the threshold for deletion. In fact, find a definition of consensus for VfD that you haven't authored recently. I would be content if you would, indeed, give up the delete/undelete buttons, or at least give up exercising them. You're a fine editor. Confine yourself to presenting your case and getting other people to do what you wish for a change. See if you can convince any other admins to agree with you. Since you believe your RfC was a ringing endorsement, that shouldn't be hard. Geogre 00:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Responding to that excellent suggestion, please feel free to contribute to User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway. "Put up or shut up" is a fair call on Tony's part, courage of one's convictions and all...  brenneman (t) (c)  07:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Tony Sidaway is very far from being solitary in his view that all VfD's are either keep or delete. I know of several people, including myself, who endorsed Kim Bruning's outside view on Tony's RFC that stated that explicitly. I still haven't seen an example of him closing a VfD that I disagree with. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Please check e-mail
Yes! --Bishonen | talk 12:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Valuable Award
I knew it would only be a matter of time before I was labled a "rouge admin." I just didn't expect it from you, that's all... Thanks ;-) I'll wear it with pride. FeloniousMonk 16:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Strange
While I've got you here, this seems a little strange. FeloniousMonk 16:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Assistance with African American Literature needed
If you have a second, could you check out a discussion I'm involved in at Talk:African American literature. One editor has an issue with how African American literature is structured b/c the article describes Black literature while following the history and politics of African Americans. To him, bringing history and politics into a literature article is wrong b/c the article should totally focus on art, form, aesthetics. I've already pointed out that Black lit is tied in with the history and experiences of Black people in this country. I also showed that Literature of the United States, English literature, Tamil literature and so on follows the basic sociological and historical framework that this article uses. This editor has made very few edits to the English Wikipedia (he is German) and most people--through the FAC process and in comments now--have agreed that the article is currently set up very well. However, another user has suggested mediation and such, even though I have agreed with almost everything the other editor has suggested (with the exception of a total rewrite and restructuring of the article). I'm about to go crazy over this. I mean, this other editor has contributed nothing to the article except to say he hates it and now I'm expected to agree with everything he says? Any help is appreciated.--Alabamaboy 01:24, 30 August 2005


 * Thanks for the wonderful and insightful comments. I wish I had your flair with words, because you explained so perfectly what I was trying to get at with my own comments (while also moving beyond my points to raise other issues that I totally agree with). With your comments (and the others who chimed in) I don't feel like such a voice in the wilderness in defending the article. In addition, people can see that there are a number of editors who generally support the article as it is now. I am seriously in your debt. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)(UTC)

Reliques
Thanks. It good when people notice that you write the "most important single volumes in poetic history". (sorry and article on) Unfortunately I can't much help you on Edward Bysshe however pivotal his role was but damn you he'll have to now go on my reading list. MeltBanana 21:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You should certainly bring to light Bysshe's role in poetry he seems like an interesting subject. His book is on the table of Hogarth's Distrest Poet so says DNB.  References and cited sources are all very nice and proper but I think they make people unnecessarily fearful on Wikipedia sometimes.  Just slap down what you've got, references are for VfD.  Note how I bravely wrote the Reliques article without any references.  It doesn't help when all you have to go on is the introduction to a cheep classics edition of the work and general hearsay.  Certainly if you can name check someone with a blue link, like Blake, you are on to a sure thing.


 * The importance of editors, compilers, anthologists, critics etc. is too often overlooked and there does not even seem to be a suitable category here for them. Writers, unfortunately, go on scribbling whether anybody is listening or not, it is the people who bring them to wider attention who are some of the most significant.  As Chesterton says " The greatest mystery about almost any great writer is why he was ever allowed to write at all."  MeltBanana  18:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Shooting Fish
You voted on the article's deletion, however there was also a film by that name which Sabine's Sunbird and I have edited the article to refer to. Note the film is linked to from both the Kate Beckinsale and Stuart Townsend articles. I hope you will reconsider your vote in light of this information. Hiding talk 21:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Geogre - Thanks for your vote at Featured article removal candidates/Matthew Brettingham. Giano | talk 06:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Wild Hunt
"Ghost Riders in the Sky" which I remember well had never occurred to me in this context. That kind of cross-cultural connecting I admire. (Been dispirited to see User:SimonP take the trouble to unwrap text round Contents boxes, putting pointless blank spaces into formerly pleasant layouts. Official vandalism... I stop here.) --Wetman 02:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC).

Michael Krop - elected official
Actually, Michael Krop was an elected official (and ended up holding his office longer than anyone else in local government in Miami-Dade County); and the superintendent of schools for the County has long been an appointed official (by the School Board that Krop chaired, no less). -- BD2412 talk 03:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)