User talk:Doom

Please take the time to look over the Manual of style.

External links should be indicated by:

External link

 * Yahoo!
 * http://www.wikipedia.org - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia!

And do write in complete sentences. Thanks. --Jiang

Principles
So, I wanted to say: I really appreciate the great list of principles you have on your user page. I agree very much about the level of detail and tone for an encyclopedic article. I think you and I have some different ideas about how to get there, but I like that we've got similar guideposts. --ESP 20:21, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dark Greetings ;) Rabauz 21:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was curious about the phrase you removed from "The Beat Generation Talk" page, "sugeti pula mai sclavilor cu articolul asta". I checked it out and it seems to be that other Latin language, Romanian; but it still could be Latin. Terry1944 19:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links
Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not vandalism
You warned me for blatant vandalism on Queen Elizabeth High School (Halifax, Nova Scotia), which wasn't the case. I was actually reverting to correct vandalism. I should have put that in the edit summary, which is my fault, but please look over the history before giving someone a blatant vandalism warning. KungFuGrip 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You do indeed do many vandalism re-versions, but I've also seen you do damage that's clearly intentional. -- Doom 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

An edit in the "Beat Generation" page, where KungFuGrip corrected some problems but also re-inserted some older vandalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beat_generation&diff=56364672&oldid=56108763

(Scan down for the phrase "we are not boring. We are hopped up. Shut up, Anna Pedtke.")


 * That wasn't clearly intentional, it was clearly a mistake. So I guess we're even now. ;) KungFuGrip 13:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Darkwave
HELP!!! I spotted in the darkwave discussion that you tried to do what I've been trying to do on the darkwave article, but I'm hitting a brick wall. Donnacha 13:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gary Snyder, independent or Beat?
Hi, Doom

About this question as to how to classify Gary Snyder, as a poet, more with the Beats or more as an independent:

Don Allen, who was the editor for Grove Press's The New American Poetry: 1945-1960, included a section on the Beats' poetry, but put Snyder in the anthology as an independent. I know that Snyder was friends with Ginsberg and Kerouac, but I don't know if he knew Burroughs. Further down in the Wiki G.S. article, there's a quote by Snyder and he says he didn't know Corso well. So he wasn't really connected to the East-Coast bunch, and knew a couple of individuals.

Given Snyder's stylistic individualism and typical sorts of subject matter, I wonder if it's misleading (in the first, introductory paragraph) to clump him in with the Beats? Maybe that weas done too much in the past, maybe now is the time to reconsider it? No biggie, anyway. Joel Russ 22:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Grove Press is an interesting cite, but I can't say I think there's too much of your other arguments... Sure, Snyder was West not East, but he was in tight with two of the big three beats, he was one of the "six gallery" poets, he was plugged heavily by Kerouac in Dharma Bums, Snyder himself talks about the Beats as "us", etc. etc. (And just on the basis of style/subject matter, it's hard to include or exclude anyone from the Beats -- they were all very different writers.)  Myself, I think the two key things you need to say immediately about Snyder to place him in the literary world are "Beat" and "Deep Ecology" -- though I take it under advisement that the "Beat" association may be fading a little these days... so I'm trying "originally associated with" to see if that will stay put for awhile.


 * I'm opening the subject again in the Talk:Gary_Snyder page, if you're interested in arguing the point. -- Doom 03:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Doom—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers.Tony 15:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Beat generation
Doom, I just wanted to leave a quick note to say what remarkable work you are doing on the Beat generation article. This has been an abiding interest of mine for nearly 20 years, but I am, unfortunately, not well-versed enough to make any huge contributions. Mostly, I've just tried to keep people from adding nonsense and/or vandalizing the article. But you, sir, have made great strides, and it is very much appreciated. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  03:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well hell, thanks much for just keeping an eye on thing. It does seem to be a magnet for freaks and weirdos (go figure), and it takes some work just to keep it from deteriorating.  -- Doom 03:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, all sorts of people whom I cannot imagine the "classic Beat hordes," as Ferlinghetti once said in a letter to me, would have anything to do with are attracted to the subject, but have not much of interest to say. Ah well... kids today, right?  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  03:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some Beat Generation discussions
I agree that most of the arguments I have with him are nonsensical and involve him just sticking to a point with out reading any evidence to the contrary or actually reading any comment I make -- the whole "howlers" thing just makes him sound like an insane person. I think I'll make one more comment and just ingore him b/c it seems like it's more purposeful agitation than actual insanity. I don't know that intervention will be necessary in this case b/c he eventually backed down last time. F. Simon Grant 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something abt Bob and the black beats at some point -- the transition into Black Arts is something interesting to mention. Can you believe that dude didn't know who Bob Kaufman was. That's my cue that his totally off the deep end and should just be ignored F. Simon Grant 22:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant to also say thanks for all the hard work on the page. I've been meaning to work on that but just haven't had time. Two things I definitely had on my agenda were more citations and tightening up the language (that's why I brought up that one paragraph on the discussion page). Those discussion pages only really welcome negativity, so I wanted to try to balance that a little with some thanks.F. Simon Grant 14:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I just realized the discussion page comment I referenced above didn't actually stick (I hate when that happens -- sometimes when I click on preview the page I fail to click on save). I was referencing this paragraph:
 * "Kerouac's claim that he had identified (and embodied) a new trend analogous to the influential Lost Generation might have seemed grandiose at the time, but in retrospect it's clear that he was correct -- though possibly largely because the prophecy was self-fulfilling"

Did you write that one? Anyway, the comment that didn't stick was just that it seemed unnecessary and kind of made Kerouac seem like an ass. Just part of my quest to tighten up the flabby language throughout the page. I was going to open up the discussion but apparently failed to save it. Ain't that the way.F. Simon Grant 16:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, what's wrong with making Kerouac seem like an ass? Kerouac himself was an expert in that department... Seriously: try to project yourself back in time, say you're hanging out with this young drunk in a bar, and he's trying to tell you that he knows what's going on, what's happening today is that this is the "macroni generation"!  You see what I'm getting at?  I suggest that it's not actually neutral for us to look back and take Kerouac's side in retrospect.  We know the sequence of events: (1) the Kerouac/Holmes commentary and then (2) the beat/beatnik craze, but I submit that we do not know whether (1) was a prescient observation of (2) or if (1) was the cause of (2).  There is indeed a difficulty here though, but it's not lack of neutrality on my part, it may be that it's an original thought of my own that the label "the beat generation" might have created the reality.  So you might be inclined to say "well, let's just cut it then", but the trouble is then I'm left with crediting Kerouac with a prescient observation that I suspect was not so prescient -- or at least that I don't know was prescient.
 * Is it clear what I'm getting at here? Take a more extreme case: would the wikipedia prohibition on "original research" require that we repeat a lie simply because we know it's the consensus opinion?
 * Also, a smaller point: it's important to mention the "Lost Generation" somewhere. The Beat coinage is clearly a play off it. -- Doom 09:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose I shold clarify that my comment had as much to do with accuracy as neutrality. Kerouac was looking at what was happening around him at the time and what had been happening from the early 40's.  I don't think prophecy and embodiment really apply to what he was trying to say.  Check out the essays in Portable Kerouac -- he spends a lot of time trying to say, "Don't treat me like a prophet; this was happing all around me."  He was a huge ass when it came to his own writing (how dare Ginsberg get famous before me, and all that) but I've seen nowhere where he's a huge ass abt predicting the future or being, himself, the embodiment of it all.  Claiming Cassady was the emobodiment maybe, but he was relatively humble in that regard at least.
 * F. Simon Grant 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay -- now it was my turn to "Preview" and forget to save.


 * This may be a difference in persepctive that comes up between us now and then -- I think that taking the public statements of the big three as the final word has problems: what they say changes over time, and after they become public figures, anything they say might be corrupted by the perceived needs of movement politics or public relations, etc.


 * Yes, as far as I know, Kerouac claimed to be making an observation -- my guess, though, is that the observation changed the thing he was observing, and perhaps acted to amplify whatever trend he was looking at. What ever Kerouac might have said later on the subject, whatever he was trying to do, I think it would be a tricky business to tease out whether he was "reporter", "instigator", or "prophet".  Making it sound like it's a simple issue would be to do the reader a disservice.


 * It would be an interesting study to trace the history of the various public pronouncements on the meaning of Beat -- your recommendations are noted for those Kerouac's essays (haven't read them yet, I don't think), though I think the place to begin is with the John Clellon Holmes article in the New York Times. I sincerely doubt that it says anything about "beatitude": my guess would be that that was a later addition by Kerouac.


 * Anyway, I don't think the language here is so much "flabby" as it is slightly awkward because I'm trying to touch on a lot of different issues at once, without going too far off the wikipedia-rails:


 * Kerouac's claim that he had identified (and embodied) a new trend analogous to the influential Lost Generation might have seemed grandiose at the time, but in retrospect it's clear that he was correct -- though possibly largely because the prophecy was self-fulfilling.


 * (By the way I also think it's important to mention the "Lost Generation" some place early on: "Beat Generation" was clearly a play off of that phrase.)


 * -- Doom (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, "beatnik" did come along much later in the chronology. Pepso2 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Beat Generation
Hey, you forgot to sign your comment over there. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: F. Simon Grant and Tao2911
I'm sorry, but I don't take "sides". I extended Grant's block because he was evading it for the purposes of continuing his harassment. Regardless of whatever provoked it, conduct such as that is unacceptable. If he was willing to put as much effort into making a sincere unblock request as he seems to put into his constructive work, I may have considered things, but as it is, certainly not. I'm sorry if this seems "high-handed" to you, but that's how things work. If you're having difficultly with another user, there are appropriate channels to get that addressed; this is not one of them. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again: I did not say I couldn't see why you blocked Grant. I might object to your interpretation of his unblock request as lacking sincerity... it is true he was all over the map, but lack of sincerity was not the problem (I would suggest "excessive honesty").  The issue that I'm raising, however, is that I think that both you and Grant have been manipulated by someone who is having entirely too much fun gaming the system.  -- Doom (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)