User talk:F. Simon Grant

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theatre_of_the_Absurd&diff=179192235&oldid=179065067

thumb|left|260px|[[Max Ernst, Europe After the Rain II, (1940-1942)]]left|thumb|300px|[[Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (1944). Tate Gallery, London]]thumb|left|300px|La Leçon de Ski Promontory Palace, 1931thumb|left|200px|Insomnias, oil on canvas, 207cm x 146cm, 1957 by Dorothea Tanning. right|thumb|170px|Man in a Cap (c.1943) right|thumb|170px|Head VI (1948) ([[Arts Council of England)]]right|thumb|150px|Abstraction from the Human Form (c.1936) (Destroyed)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

September 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Erosion, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Earlier vandalism, which went unwarned  ACBest Dog and Bone  20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please DO NOT Delete your warnings.  ACBest Dog and Bone  18:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, geez, that wasn't even me who did that erosion thing. No need to be testy. Why no defense option for minor warnings? Something to think about, oh Uber-Wiki-Gods. F. Simon Grant 18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It was you : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erosion&diff=156940517&oldid=156938313  ACBest Dog and Bone  20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It may have been my screen name, dude, but it wasn't ME me. Screenname does not equal personhood. No need to insult my autonomous personhood. Am I one with my computer? Are all who use my screenname me? Don't be so presumptive with your "It was you" when the "it" and the "was" and the "you" are all suspect at best. Such rude treatment gives me a mind not to volunteer my time to give MUCH needed help to this poor excuse for an encyclopedia full of so many rude, presumptive people, thank you very much. F. Simon Grant 20:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Beat Generation page
About what you were saying on the Talk page for the Beat Generation: "I definitely think we should drop this nonsense since we keep saying the same thing over and over again" You have a point of course, but if I understand the wikipedia dynamic right, it could be a good thing to accumulate evidence that a certain user has a few screws loose. If we get into an edit war and have to ask for intervention or whatever, it might smooth the way quite a bit. -- Doom 18:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention, if you're sincerely looking for an excuse to talk about Bob Kaufman more, it can easily be done by playing the identity politics card, and adding a section about "black beats" or some such. -- Doom 02:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a reply to your last remark over in my page: User_talk:Doom might as well keep it in one place. -- Doom 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Working on chart citations
 _________________________________________________________________________________________

notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &mdash; RHaworth 22:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ashley Austin Morris is an actress who has played Francine Carruthers on the PBS revival of The Electric Company since its debut in 2009. According to her website, she graduated from The University of North Carolina Scool of the Arts and has been featured in several Off Broadway productions including Die Mommie Die, Paper Dolls, Isabel and Bees, and Love Loss and What I Wore. Her television acting includes appearances on Ugly Betty and Gravity. She also appeared in the music video for "K.I.A" by Jet and the film Be Good Daniel.

Category:Surrealist films
As an editor who has worked on Surrealist-related articles, I would like your input in this discussion, if you would not mind. Thanks. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 17:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ginsberg
While we have a good faith, if not heated dispute, you should be careful about stuff like this. Someone not aware of our history might not realize how much we admire one another ;-)  Lionel (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha ha.

Tao2911
If he were just a philosophical extremist, I'd be interested in arguing with him, but I'm starting to get a "crazy" vibe off of him. It could be he's an intentional troll: using inflammatory language and then accusing the other guy of making personal attacks. In any case, I'd recommend avoiding taking the bait, he's not worth wasting time on.

As I'm sure is obvious to you, the problem is not finding stuff people have said about the beats, the problem is identifying what commentary should be considered the mainstream critical opinion (slightly problematic, when the central subject was and to some extent still is outside of the mainstream). I myself am inclined to use my impression of what's actually true and reasonable as one of my guidelines when evaluating a source, and I suspect that most of us do. -- Doom (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, engaging crazy people just feeds them, but I'm a sucker for an argument like that since bad argument just annoys the hell out of me, and he's making a bad argument. At the end of the day, this is only Wikipedia which means the crazies and the people who care about truth cancel each other out -- but then again, what does it really matter? If we were arguing for content in the Encyclopedia Britannica, we might just kick him out, but this is sport more than science, so I'll engage him until it stops being fun. Then I'll ignore him which is the easiest way to depower the crazies.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Boy, that was a fun rant. Very cathartic. Let's see if he can outcrazy crazy. (Two ways to deprive a fire of oxygen -- lets see if this works).F. Simon Grant (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of Beat vs. No such thing as a "Beat" artist, Round 2: The Formal Argument Edition! (rough draft)
Now let's get down to some actual business. Formal argument is necessary because this argument has degenerated so far (by me, mostly, just for fun). I'll break it down piece by piece so it's easier to digest for people unwilling to read what others are saying:

Purpose of this argument: To fix a very serious problem with structure, clarity, and reader friendliness inherent in this page and in the topic as a whole. The problem is that the term "Beat Generation" is used in multiple ways to the degree that it becomes confusing for the general reader and leads to arguments about who "is" and "isn't" a "beat."

Proposal: We should fix the structure of the page in order to clear up the confusion in an accurate but reader-friendly way.

First claim from opposition: The term "Beat Generation" is only accurately used for a small group of writers. Sub-claim: The term "Beat Generation" cannot be used for writers and artists outside of this small group. Example: Bruce Conner is not a "beat." (I'm working backward here.) Support: Bruce Conner claims he is not a beat.

Counterclaim: The oppositions argument is weakened by two fallacies. Fallacy 1: cherry picking. With a broader analysis of evidence, we can perhaps come to a more accurate understanding of how it is used; if we accept the claim that the term is used multiple ways, choosing only one source without broader context is highly problematic research methodology. Fallacy 2: the fallacy of identity. An author is not the final word on how he or she is defined.

Support for my claim: I have presented evidence from Jack Kerouac that goes agains the opposition's first claim (that the term is used solely for a literary movement). I present below another piece of evidence from one of the core members of the movement, Allen Ginsberg. He gives a thorough explanation of the different ways the term "beat generation" is used. This is meant to counteract the first fallacy in the opposition's argument, the cherrypicking. To fully counteract it, we need more evidence, but this is a positive step, the right kind of step to make. Admittedly, it contains the second fallacy the opposition's argument suffers from, but compared side by side, the Ginsberg quote has significant advantages in two areas: 1) authority on the subject matter; 2) thoroughness. To address the opposition's original argument: this does little to prove that Bruce Conner was truly a "beat". However, this does much to counteract the more significant claim, that "beat generation" can only be used one way. Notice Ginsberg includes Frank O'Hara and Kenneth Koch, from the New York School, and many others not within what the opposition claims to be a small literary group. Notice also Ginsberg mentions visual artists. We can parse out some ambiguous phrasing -- that's a valid approach and a conversation worth having. However, what's hard to argue against in that way is that "Beat Generation" is used in at least two ways: to refer to a group of friends and to refer to a genuine "generation".

Allen Ginsberg, "Definition of the Beat Generation", Deliberate Prose: "The phrase 'beat generation' rose out of a specific conversation with Jack Kerouac and John Clellon Holmes around '50-51 when, discussing the nature of generations recollecting the glamour of the lost generation, Kerouac said, Ah, this is nothing but a beat generation ... not meaning to name the generation but to un-name it."

He discusses the origin of the term "beat" in "hip language" froom Huncke and then discusses how it became associated with "beatific" in 1959 (and on a side note, that reinforces Doom's side of a previous disagreement, though Ginsberg says "articulated" which could mean it was conceived of earlier).

"A fourth meaning accumulated, that of the 'beat generation literary movement.' This was a group of friends who had worked together on peotry, prose and cultural conscience from the mid-forties until the term became popular natuionally in the late fifties. The group consisting of Kerouac ... Neal Cassady, William Burroughs ... Herbert Huncke, John Clellon Homes ... Allen Ginsberg, myself; we met Carl Solomon and Philip Lamantia in '48; encountered Gregory Corso in 1950, and we first saw Peter Orlovsky in 1954.

"By the mid-fifties this smaller circle, through natural affinity of modes of thought or literary style or planetary perspective was augmented in friendship and literary endeavor by a number of writers in San Francisco, including Michael McClure, Gary Snyder, Philip Whalen and a number of other powerful but lesser-known poets such as Jack Micheline, Ray Bremser, and ... LeRoi Jones -- all of whom accepted the term at one time or another, humorously or seriously, but sympathetically, and were included in a survey of bet general manners, morals, and literature by Life magazine in a lead article in the late '50s by one Paul O'Neill, and by the journalist Alfred Aronowitz in a large series on the Beat Generation in the New York Post.

"By the mid-fifties a sense of some mutual trust and interest was developed with Frank O'Hara and Kenneth Koch, as well as with Robert Creeley and other alumni of Black Mountain ...

"The fifth meaning of the phrase 'Beat Generation' is the influence of the literary and artistic activities of poets, filmmakers, painters, writers and novelists who were working in concert in anthologies, publishing houses, independent filmmaking, and other media. Some effects of the aforementioned groups refreshed the bohemian culture which was already a long tradition (in film and still photography, Robert Frank and Alfred Leslie; in music, david Amram; in painting, Larry Rivers; in poetry publishing, Don Allen, Barney Rosset, and Lawrence Ferlinghetti) extended to fellow artists such as Susan Sontag and Norman Mailer." etc.

Proposal based on this support: More thoroughly flesh out this notion, using Ginsberg's article as support. This will not solve the problem of reader-friendliness, but it will go toward the problem of accuaracy.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Broad search simply for the definition
Here's another approach. To make sure my research isn't tainted by cherrypicking, I typed a neutral term into google: "Definition Beat Generation". Here are the defnitions that I found going through four google pages, only excluding repition and irrelevant sites. These are hardly formal sources, but the purpose of this exercise is to show that confusion about this term and how it is to be used is a genuine issue. Simply saying the one definition is the "majority" without putting effort into supporting the claim is not a valid way to prove a point.

Sources that place subculture/generation first and group of writers second: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/the-Beat-Generation

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861685998/Beat_Generation.html

Sources that place group of writers first, subculture/generation second, and also mention "artists": http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Beat+Generation

http://www.directhit.com/ansres/Beat-Generation-Definition.html

Sources that only mention the group of writers, not the subculture/generation: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/beat+generation

Sources that only mention the group of writers, not the subculture/generation, but also mention "artists": http://www.answers.com/topic/beat-generation

Sources that only mention the subculture/generation, not the group of writers: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=beat%20generation

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/beat_generation.htm

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/the-beat-generation

http://www.bluesforpeace.com/beat.htm

http://www.mnemonicdictionary.com/word/beat

[If this method genuinely points to a "majority" opinion, then clearly this would be it]

Iffy: http://www.gradesaver.com/dharma-bums/study-guide/section8/

http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/beat-generation

Now for serious sources I encountered when typing the same term into Google Book search: Lawlor here identifies the exact problem I identified as being the major problem with this page. A page like this which strives for accuracy should acknowledge that there is no set definition (no "majority", no consus) on how the term should be used:

"Several key questions are central to the study of the Beat Generation. The first is whether a Beat Generation actually exists. If the Beat Generation consists of Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs, and a few others, then the Beat Generation does not exist because a generation cannot be based on just a few people. On the other hand, if the Beat Generation includes dozens and dozens of artists, including not only writers but also dancers, painters, sculptors, musicians, then the Beat Generation does not exist because the concept is too loose, too vague."

William Lawlor. Beat culture: lifestyles, icons, and impact. ABC-CLIO, 2005 ISBN 1851094008, 9781851094004. pg. 78.

For this one, there may be some confusion by what Kerouac means by “people who had been beaten down” since that could apply to either the small group or the broader subculture. However, Morgan provides the same definition I presented earlier in which Kerouac identifies it as “certain members of the generation that came of age after World War II who affected detachment,” etc. It’s conceivable that one might argue Kerouac meant his group of friends by “certain people, but from many other sources, he meant the broader subculture (open for debate, but let’s have that debate instead of blindly dismissing without evidence to support counterclaims). Here’s the quote from Morgan:

“Once the press began to identify those writers collectively as ‘the Beat Generation,’ some within the group began to struggle with a definition for the word beat. Since it was Jack Kerouac who had originally coined the phrase, he was asked repeatedly what he meant by it. Initially he said that the Beat Generation was composed of people who had been beaten down, worn out, and exhausted. As time passed, he refined his definition to emphasize the beatific, blessed, or sympathetic qualities of his generation.”

Bill Morgan, William Morgan. The Typewriter Is Holy: The Complete, Uncensored History of the Beat Generation. Simon and Schuster, 2010. ISBN 1416592423, 9781416592426.

There's more, but I'm out of time.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have blocked your account for 48 hours due to personal attacks at Talk:Beat Generation, including "you dumb bastard" and "you're an idiot" among others. As a suggestion for when you return to editing, you are likely to gain more traction in discussions if you can find a way to make your points more succinctly. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Block extended
I have extended your block to 1 week due to block evasion with another account and an IP address. Your block will now end 1 week from now. You are reminded that any further block evasion will result in your block being extended to indefinite. You really should not call yourself an "idiot" or a "dumb bastard". Regards, –MuZemike 18:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Block conflict - the block is still of indefinite length, as my change went in after MuZemike's. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I will defer to Hersfold's judgment here, as he seems to have more knowledge of the situation than I do. –MuZemike 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't, really; I didn't do a check as you did, but personally, if someone is going to take part in good hand/bad hand vandalism and does it so badly their "good hand" gets blocked, then we definitely don't need them here. I'll fix the block reason, but the indefinite block holds. I am willing to be talked down to an expiry time, however you'd better be really careful about what you say from here out. I take a very dim view of dishonesty, particularly when you know full well that we know you're being dishonest. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, now that I've done a check myself I see I misunderstood something; there is no GHBH vandalism going on that I see, just another account made specifically for the purposes of block evasion and continued harassment. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please actually read what I'm saying. You are suffering from the same problem as Tao. You are not actually reading what I am saying. I plan to constructively contribute to the page. My sockpuppet was not meant to evade a ban. I was very honest that it was a sock puppet. There is no dishonesty there. Please read very carefully what I said as a sock puppet. I am not wasting your time because there is a basic, intrinsic problem with Wikipedia as represented by this process: people do not read, people do not listen, people do not consider actual intention. I have only positive intentions for the Beat Generation page. Tao has negative intentions for the Beat Generation page. Therefore, i have negative intetions for Tao. I promise from here on out that I will be kind and gentle and what have you, mostly because I simply did it for fun and it is no longer fun. Tao, being as lazy as he is, is a very uninteresting person to argue with. But my ultimate intention is to positively contribute to the page. Please look at my record. Please look at what I have contributed to Wikipedia in the past. Look at the Theatre of the Absurd page. I essentially wrote the whole page. Look at the Howl page. I wrote most of that page as well. Look at the Beat Generation page. I wrote very large portions of that page. The indefinite block should be very short because my intentions are very positive. Please read the first part of the post I did in which I very honestly identified myself as a sock puppet. I begged -- and I would have been on my knees, if that was possible -- for Tao to actually do the work necessary to positively change the page. And what did he do? He blocked me further. Why? What does that contribute positively? It's just a power game. That is the cancer of wikipedia. And as you have demonstrated from your comments, you are functioning only to continue that cancerous effect. Please, please actually read what I'm actually saying. Why is nobody actually reading what I'm actually saying? Add up all the things I said on that talk page. My swear-filled rant was short. My genuine attempt to engage Tao in a positively focused debate was much, much, much longer. Please just, one of you for once in your life actually read. Look at the post entitled "Cite Off: Formal Argument edition." I say nothing in there insulting. That represents my true intention. I want to say this again because I'm afraid none of you are actually reading what I'm actually saying: Please, actually read what I'm actually saying. I don't know how much plainer I can make it. Please do not be lazy with the sort of laziness that destroys Wikipedia as a source. Read the section with "formal argument edition" on it and tell me if that in any way represents a "diatribe" as Tao claims. Then look at the way Tao says he's not going to read it because he assumes it's a "diatribe". That section represents my genuine inention for the page, as does the "let's get down to business" section. Ban me based on my rant, sure, but you can not seriously think that I'm the sort of poster it would be worthwhile to ban. I'm willing to follow your rules and to be cordial for the sake of the page. I am contrite to the degree that I recognized I broke rules and promise I will abide by the rules from here on forward, but I seriously want to urge you on a larger level to recognize the faulty bizarro world catch-22 of this system, where someone with only good intentions for the content of the page stands up for himself and for what is right and he's the one who gets punished, yet someone who undermines the value of Wikipedia as whole with laziness and stupidity is rewarded. Thank you.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC) {{unblock|reason=Your reason here Okay, here's what you need to do to prove a point on Wikipedia and to request a positive change. Look back at the history of revisions on the Beat Generation page back to between the summer of 2006 and the fall of 2008. I literally created the entire section of the page called "cultural context" and wrote most of it. I wrote the section now called "writers" -- which I don't believe is accurately named, but that's another issue -- as a section called "usage". Look at the Allen Ginsberg page. My intentions are positive; up until my antagonization of Tao, I have been cordial and have worked in a postive direction for over four years. What I want is the truth. What I want is accuracy on pages. That's what drives me in situations like this. Blocking me is not working toward the end of improving Wikipedia. Please actually listen to me -- and I mean actually listen to me. Don't scan. Read carefully. I urge you once again, read the "Formal argument edition" entry and the "get down to business entry". Please actually read it. If I'm wasting your time, you are not doing your actual job and your blocking becomes meaningless -- what if a police officer threw someone in jail and then claimed he didn't have the time to do the investigation? That would completely invalidate the judgement, especially when so much of the evidence in this case has been completely ignored. You claim I was dishonest in creating my sockpuppet; I was nothing but honest. Your claims demonstrate a lack of concern to find the actual truth in this situation, so I urge you, please, consider the actual truth carefully. This is a genuine appeal because at this point I think the blocking represents a total absence of justice. I promise to not attack Tao or anyone else ever again and comply by the rules. Being blocked was fun but it got boring quickly. Now that that motivation is gone, I have no motivation to try to get blocked again. I swear to you. If you do your job, actually read what I'm saying, and consider this very seriously, I believe you'll find there is no good reason to block me beyond the original punitive length. Thank you for your time.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed a claim at WP:WQA that you have been editing Beat Generation since 2006. I have not looked, but presumably those edits have been helpful so perhaps you may want to hear my thoughts. It is not acceptable to violate WP:CIVIL (not to mention WP:NPA). If an editor does break that hard rule, they have two choices: (1) point out that they were well intentioned or correct; or (2) accept situation gracefully and acknowledge the necessity of WP:CIVIL in maintaining a collaborative atmosphere, and offer an apology and undertake to not repeat. Admins will respond negatively to (1) and positively to (2) because that is what the community requires. When faced with what you think is an editor who is causing a problem, you must find some other way of reacting. For example, you could ask for other opinions on a suitable noticeboard or wikiproject (using very neutral language), or follow WP:DR. Re the sockpuppetry: That was a bad idea, and you can use strategies (1) or (2) to proceed. In order to continue developing the articles you are interested in, you need to show that you have read the relevant policies, accept their value, and undertake to respect them. It is best to not talk about extraneous issues until this is resolved (much of your above comments are extraneous because they do not concern the fact that two serious problems have occurred (civil/sockpuppet); explanations for why they occurred are not relevant. A final suggestion would be to start with reading the policies and the links in the block notice, then write a short comment here. After that, consider making another unblock request. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|reason=Your reason here F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)|decline=I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
 * the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
 * the block is no longer necessary because you
 * understand what you have been blocked for,
 * will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
 * will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)}} I am aware of wikipedia policy and don't need to reread it. I broke policy knowingly. I apologize for doing so. It was for the sake of whimsy. That impulse has left me, and I make the promise that it will not return. I do not retract anything that I said. The bigger issue which I have been addressing is the flaw within the system itself. After repeated requests to actually read what I'm saying here and what I actually said on the Beat Generation page, you clearly have mistunderstood me. Your claim that you have ignored evidence in the prosecution of my punishment is one among many disturbing signs of the flaws within the Wikipedia system. What you call extraneous issues are indeed central issues. You have done little to convince me otherwise. For example, the sockpuppetry was a bad idea when considering rules of civility, and I won't let it happen again. It was a good idea in that it was funny, but like I said, that's out of my system. The bigger issue -- a central issue, not extraneous -- is that admins claimed I was being dishonest. This is evidence of laziness and lack of real concern for the real job you are meant to do. If the real problem is that I was uncivil, then I apologize and make an honest promise that I will never do it again. I don't believe that really is a central issue. I'm not blaming anyone else for me being uncivil; I chose to do it and have never claimed otherwise. The problem is Wikipedia is a toilet. Why is it a toilet? Wikipedia is a punchline. Why is it a punchline? Because people who passionately care about truth get angry (even if it was pretend) on occassion? No. I realize uncivil behavior can be a contributing factor in that it can fail to lead to a positive change; I was practically begging for a positive change on the Beat Generation page, and nothing was happening. Certain other editors were relying on Wikipedia rules to stymie progress. Block me or don't block me, I don't care (and judging from the history of this process and my history with Tao -- I fear you'll scan this for trigger words, see "I don't care" and say, "If you don't care, why are you wasting my time?" totally missing the point of what I'm actually saying) -- but please look in the mirror and think about the real problem here. If you skip the first part where I genuinely apologize for the actual infraction and said I would never do it again (just as I genuinely apologized for the infraction last time and said I would never do it again -- and I can keep saying this over and over again) and if you once again just look at this part and claim I'm focusing on extraneous issues and incorrectly claim that I'm blaming others -- blaming others for my rant? no, please actually see: my rant is my responsibility, and once again I apologize for it -- whatever you do, despite my lack of faith in anyone's ability to genuinely take some time and think about these things, please just consider what's right and what's wrong here on a larger level while in the short term focusing on my genuine heart-felt apology. (Not short, sorry, but I do have a soul and genuinely care about truth.)F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: user Grant blocked for multiple offenses
Beyond insulting other users, Grant used a sockpuppet to avoid a ban. Sock's name was an insult to another user, and has been excised from record. User Grant then used an anonymous IP to avoid that block. That IP was then blocked. THEN he used ANOTHER IP to avoid that block in order to harass me on my talk page. That IP was then also blocked. This is just to make very clear (as if comments above didn't make the case) that the indefinite block of this editor should remain in effect for quite some time. Like, forever.Tao2911 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)