User:Geogre/Talk archive 2

Voting policy VfD, plus should this recreated article be speedied or VfD'd?

Geogre, I think you mentioned somewhere on VfD, to Anthony if I remember right, that it was against policy to simply go down the list and add Keep or Delete (well, generally just Keep) to the discussions — that you're supposed to give reasons. Do you know where I can find this policy? I'd like to point another user to it, Dittaeva, who goes on major monosyllabic keep sprees from time to time.

Also, sorry to bother you with this, but is there any reasonable way of accessing a VfD debate that is as old as Jan 2004? Anthony talked in the current Hubert Dreyfus debate about this being "worse than when Sidney Morgenbesser was listed here and deleted." For a deleted article, Sidney Morgenbesser was surprisingly bluelinked, I thought, so I went look. Oh, my, what a terrible article. Consists of unpleasant anecdotes and fake references. The subject is a professor with writer's block. Anyway, the point is, it was put up for deletion 23 Jan 2004, subsequently deleted, and then recreated in August 2004 (as a stub, by Gzornenplatz.) Anthony added material to it on 15 August. So I wanted to put it up for speedy, but the relevant criterion says that "reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy" can be speedied, and how can I tell what the content was? The recreated article probably doesn't in fact technically speaking have the same content, since everybody called the old one "vanity" (there's a maybe incomplete record of the January voting on this subpage of Anthony's), and the new one is much weirder than that. (Oh, look, a learned cunt joke by Christopher Hitchens, how delightful.)

Anyway. I wanted to see the Jan voting for myself — Anthony doesn't claim that the copy of it on his page is complete — so I tried to burrow back through the huge VfD archive that was created in May, but it broke when I was about halfway. So that was a wasted half-hour. :-( There's got to be an easier way. Or maybe not?

I didn't indeed want to bother you with this stuff. I asked yesterday on the Speedy deletion Talk page about how one was supposed to know whether or not the content of a recreated article reproduced deleted content — whether or not to tag for speedy on the basis of the same title, when the content was inaccessible — but nobody replied, so I'm stumped.

Anyway, good morning George. I shouldn't be doing this, I (despairingly) have other things to do. Urgent things. OK, today I'll list Anthony's baby Sidney Morgenbesser for either speedy or VfD (yes, I will, if it's at all possible, i. e. if you have any answers for my questions above), and cleanup Reverse sexism and read that urgent dissertation chapter. Yep, those are the things I'll do. I just hope I don't get any more long screeds about vandalism and IP's and schools and stuff from sv.wiki, I can't afford to be everlastingly typing to those guys. Bishonen 10:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Morning. As you probably know, I'm kind of in the middle of unpleasantness all of a sudden. Anyway, I actually don't know how to dig deeper in the VfD archives. I know there is a 3 month archive. I don't know how much older than that it goes.

Also notice that Anthony has found a winning issue for his shady politics. The VfD page is getting hit from all sides by people who don't agree with each other but who have been rallied by the banner of "the deletionists have won," etc. Everyone always has something to dislike about VfD, either the process or the contents, and now some folks are gathering up the malcontented to act without consensus. Not only has Anthony's blind "keep" vote reproduced into 2-3 other people, but now we have jackasses breaking the page.

I'll see if I can find out more about old VfD's, probably on IRC. I don't mind wasting a bit of today, but none of tomorrow. The tide of anxiety is very high. Geogre 14:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Geogre, I've got all the info I need about Sidney now. I just wanted to know if it was a case for speedy delete, which it's not. Isn't it unnececessarily secretive of Wikipedia to only make the deletion log accessible to sysops, though? I mean, I think my interest in this re-appearing article was legit and even laudable, so why would I have to go bug a sysop about it? You guys wouldn't have so much to do if other users could do this much for themselves. I don't know if I'll bother with listing it, but the subject really is totally not encyclopedic: I'm sure he was a good teacher and witty and all (though those links on the page are all obituaries, what are they gonna say? Mediocre teacher, average conversationalist?). And at a famous university. But he didn't publish a thing. He was, like, co-editor of anthologies and learned journals. That's it. Notable? Mind you, it was more the general awfulness of the page, and the way it had been recreated, and the way A. referred to it in another discussion, that got me so steamed. Everywhere you looked, it was like a joke. Guess what the link under the big fat References headline is to, for instance? A copy of the article for which it is the reference, conspicuously labeled as such, at a Wikipedia mirror site.

Sorry about the unpleasantness, but I've had a hard time being other than cynical about VfD altogether since the European Union Medals debacle. All those people taking all that trouble typing and voting and carrying on, and nothing. I'd RfC the sysop in question myself, if I had the time — I mean, the time for all the typing and wikistress it would carry with it over the next week, two weeks, three weeks, sheesh — but I don't. (Looks like nobody does. :-() And I won't join you as a fan of R., either, because to me he's just a really smooth operator. (Who has ignored all my messages and concerns.)

Speaking of taking trouble for nothing, I'm sorry I bothered with rewriting Reverse sexism today, like I said I would. Somebody had already redirected it to Reverse discrimination, plus I bet nobody's going to go back to look at the discussion (where I posted a note about the new version), ever again, because A. wears people out. And it's about to roll off, too.

I guess you didn't know the answer about the policy against unexplained Keep votes. Never mind, then.

Don't drown in all that stuff, Geogre. Walk away. Bishonen 17:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FYI, to find old delete discussions, go to Wikipedia:Archived delete debates for links to those that were listed in the current month. Past month and year discussions also exist under the heading "Delete Debates"..."Old Debates". Those that are really old, especially from before May 2004, may be pretty badly linked.

Speaking of which, I have been going through and identifying delete requests that does not exist in any archive. For those with an existing delete talk page, but no link in the archives, should I relist them? (see the discussion we had on Differences in meaning and usage between "Spanish" and "Castilian".) The ones that have no talk page listed is pretty obvious, but the ones that have talk pages but no (apparent) action, what should be done? See Screamer. for another example. You had voted when it was listed on Aug 19th, but nothing seems to have been done, and it just got "lost". It most definitely is not in the archives. -Vina 04:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right to re-list them, Vina. In fact, I think you're doing a major good deed for the project by doing so, and it's great to see anyone interested in doing things right when the VfD page itself is under such histrionic attack. Geogre 13:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copy from Netoholic's page

VfD Vandalism

I have tried to be nice, and I will try again. DO NOT remove VfD nominations. It is neither your place nor your ability to decide for others whether the nominations are valid. You removed three nominations that I made tonight, perhaps out of pique. That is absolutely out of bounds. Consider this an official warning that I consider your actions to be vandalism, and not boldness. If you repeat it, I will seek ArbCom action. Geogre 03:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I second this. Please do not remove unilaterally remove nominations, nor redirect the article and call the discussion over. Ambi 07:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Geogre - You submitted three articles (Eckvic Culture, Demish, Eckvic), not for deletion but as a request for cleanup. I am correcting your poor choice. If I see any more misplaced "nominations", I will remove them and place them on the more appropriate cleanup listing. That is not "vandalism", but an attempt to keep silliness out of VfD. Rather than threaten me with silly actions, why don't you reevaluate your misuse of the VfD page? -- Netoholic @ 14:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, you are confirming that you will continue this in the future, that my attempts to achieve peace are being turned away? The three VfD entries were, as you will see now, an attempt at unearthing a Wikipedia vandal, and if you could not understand the language of my nominations, that is sad, but not germane. If you remove other nominations and demonstrate lack of willingness to abide with community standards, we will have to proceed from there. Geogre 14:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism and trolling

I don't understand what "user RK" means. But, as long as you're letting people know about A., you may want to let them know this. I did start out trying to assume good faith, but if you look at A's own comments about "the truth" of the January deletion here, and then look at his contributions on 15 August to the recreated article, it's obvious that he was in August deliberately recreating the very same deleted copyvio: putting in long quotes (theoretically I don't know whether they're the very same quotes, but what's the difference?) from the same magazine article by Hitchens. What's the matter with the guy? It looks like complete malice. He wants the encyclopedia to be as bad as possible? He wants Hitchens to sue? What does he want? Bishonen 20:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

May I vandalize you?

Messing around here, trying to get out of troll war mode ... I just created me a cool Talk archive for messages from July-August and got the Talk page nice and short. :-) Uh, apologies for busybodying, Geogre, but, as long as you've got more important things to attend to than that fiddly stuff, would you like me to do the same for you? (Just to get people off your back about the warning messages. :-)) Or for any other dates, of course. You vandalized my userpage (created it, I mean), I'll vandalize your Talk page, if you say the word. Say it soon, because I really seriously do have a half-past-midnight wiki deadline tonight. (Sigh.) --Bishonen 21:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Sure. I'd be happy to let you do that. I think I'm past your deadline, but I'm feeling more than half past dead, myself, so I'm completely worn out. Geogre 21:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, so now the warning message appears on your archive instead. :-) See link at top of page. It's not half past midnight quite yet, ten minutes to go; when that time is up, please beam telepathic message must-read-dissertation-chapter must-read-dissertation-chapter must-read-dissertation-chapter must-read-dissertation-chapter in this direction. Bishonen 22:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• If you're awake right now, you shouldn't be: I'm going to telepathically beam some of my morphine your direction. (We should talk. I'm discovering more all the time about the med swap I did, things that are so perfectly historical and unpleasant that it's nearly amusing.) You must read that dissertation chapter. Geogre 00:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic

What are we going to do about Netoholic? He's verging on trolling -- he first started moving all of the TV show articles based on his own ideas of what titles they should have, without any justification. Now he's actively subverting VfD. RickK 08:14, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Deleting user subpages

There's a vote in progress at Wikipedia talk:Deletion of user subpages. Please consider voting. I have also requested that the proposal be frozen for the period of the vote, but this has met with opposition. Your participation in the process would be greatly appreciated. Andrewa 10:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mary Momerath Brain

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mary Monnett Bain

Geogre, you know I love ya, man, but removing something from VfD prematurely likely isn't good. You're essentially unilaterally bringing a vote to an early close. This means people who (like me) don't read through VfD every day don't even have a chance to see it, and it undermines the process even if no other votes to delete might be given. Indeed, others might vote to keep, votes that would be reflected in the permanent record regardless of the vote's outcome and serve to forestall future listings of the article at VfD.

I'm not arguing that you're incorrect that this page should be kept, or that you were being sneaky to remove it -- I note you left it for a day after noting you would remove it, in case anyone objected. So what you did is not nearly as egregious as what Netoholic did in immediately removing votes from VfD. Still, I think it can't hurt to follow process, and indeed probably helps a lot. In Wikilove, -- orthogonal 13:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Actually, I left the note, and policy is that nominators can do early removals. In this case, it was 2 days on, with all "keep" votes, so I gave it another day with an announcement of intent. That was my intent, anyway. I wanted to also show that Netoholic's rage is unwarranted, that people do remove votes early when it's clear that the vote is all "keep." I'm considering a more formal sanction on Netoholic, and I want to be sure that my hands are clean, so that's part of it. Anyway, sorry about the drag. The article in question seems to have been confirmed multiple places, and the author really worked hard on it. Turns out "mother's wife" was a typo for "mother's life." Geogre 13:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Oh, my bad if it's policy. Even having been here nearly a year, it's hard to figure out what's policy and what's not, in part because it seems it's scattered all over the place. -- orthogonal 13:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Not just that, but everyone quotes it without knowing it. I see tons of folks making a proposal one day and then acting upon it the next. Netoholic is just one of the more annoying in that regard. You know the others. Geogre 13:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • I propose you start using colons to indent rather than asterisks. What Netoholic did was completely at odds with the idea of community consensus, and that needs to be addressed. By the way, I learned some interesting things today; hope to share them with you soon. -- orthogonal 13:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Harrassment by Anthony :-(

I can not believe it. I literally couldn't believe my eyes. One minute after Anthony wrote on VfD that my draft for a new Reverse sexism was POV and original research (which I'm quite happy for him to say, no problem there), he reverted my version to his own "disambiguation" stub. Many, many hours ago. I don't know if anybody's been look, the way he knew I'd asked people to (well, except you, Geogre, thanks for your comment, and, uh, how did you not see what he'd done?), but if they have, they didn't see my article, they saw his stub. This is just harrassment. Bishonen 19:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Writing about anything connected with feminism was a maximum waste of time anyway. Call me clueless, but the subject isn't particularly close to my heart, and I'd never realized what a wasp's nest it is. Bishonen 23:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am offended by your anti-wasp prejudice and consider it a personal attack! -- orthogonal 23:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LOL, ortho. Bishonen 23:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anywhere there are young men, there there will also be an anti-feminist bias. Anywhere you find extreme right wingers in their tender years, there you will also find feminism article mangling. Wherever you find adolescents, you will find misunderstandings of feminism. Wherever you let the kiddies vote, there you will lose reportage on feminism. "Kinders kinders!" Geogre 13:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Boys will be boys? If you say so, Geogre. I wasn't thinking about adolescents, though. Bishonen 16:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RfC's

I'm through with the entire appeals process. It's perverted at every stretch and nothing gets accomplished. I encourage you to do RfC's on both Anthony and Netoholic, which I would be willing to sign in agreement with, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to write it all up. Did you see that anon last night who went running to Netoholic saying, "Oh, look, that troublemaker RickK is conspiring against you on Geogre's page!"? RickK 23:19, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

I did. I was amused to be in the cabala. I've never been in it before. In fact, Blankfaze voted against my RfA because he thought I was a "subversive." Now I'm a secret power user? Wow. Netoholic is begging for an RfC, especially since he's now trying to get into an edit war with me over that stupid diphallia article (where he keeps merging in a sentence from the soon to be deleted duo penis. My question about Anthony is whether reverting people was one of the things he was forbidden from doing under his probationary agreement. If so, he has violated it, and any admin can ban him for 24 hours with not another word. Netoholic is another matter. Right now, the list of people he has pissed off is pretty long. Geogre 00:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic deleted the vfd header off the 50th Academy Awards article again, so I've blocked him and have reported it on the mailing list. I'm sure somebody will run to delete him as quickly as they can, but he's out of control. RickK 05:10, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I have been "attacking" him by characterizing his motives is his words here (scroll to the bottom), as well as the proposal he has of ending VfD altogether. It wasn't a guess. From what I've seen on Wikipedia, the greatest problems come not from people disagreeing, but from people who decide that they have to "be bold" and disagree with their actions, rather than their words. I don't know what made Netoholic go from a valuable, intelligent, well spoken Wikipedian to someone who is on a campaign to disrupt VfD, but something seems to have done that. Geogre 02:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disruption was never my goal. I think you two (particularly) are too deeply involved and emotional about VfD. Passion is great, but you challenge any editor that disagrees with you. I believe you are noble and want to improve Wikipedia, but grandstanding and making attacks is not the way to go. If you believe I am so wrong, why be so actively adamant and challenge me at every turn. You've even gone so far as to bring up my name in VfD discussion I had not yet responded to. You are just trying to bait me. -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By being the first voter and by performing terminal judicial actions before others could even express their desires, and in particular by endlessly reverting, while the vote was pending, to ensure that your view, and only yours, was adhered to sure seemed disruptive. The fact that I was not the only one to find it so is some evidence that I was not so far off base. As for my feelings about VfD, they are pretty shallow. What I care about is the process of deliberation. That I am quite passionate about. I do not trust myself, you, or anyone else to make final decisions about articles, and that's why, instead, I trust everybody else. It is only when we deliberate that we have some assurance of arriving at a proper dispensation of articles, and that's why I reacted, and continue to react, so strongly to your pre-emption. As for bringing in your name other places, that was an "Oh, brother!" joke to relieve the tension, and not baiting. I am sorry that you saw it any other way. You will have noticed that I do not wish to go to a page of debating VfD itself. I do not appreciate your efforts to drag discussions away, either. Discussions within the votes, so far, have been germane to the votes themselves, since they have been about whether or not a voter has an agenda. Geogre 02:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For example, Anthony has an agenda, which he is not shy about announcing. That's fine. People factor that into his votes. Since you have consistently said that voters must go elsewhere and read through a messy page to find your thoughts, you leave folks guessing. What you have enunciated seems to be that there simply should be no more deletion for anything but speedy delete candidates. That's not the consensus. It's not even a significant minority. Abide by the community decisions and do not make final dispensatory moves until after discussion has proceded for at least two days, please. Let the rest of us have a say. Geogre 02:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He had been in an edit war with me over the diphallia article. Since he had decided that the "remedy" was to merge and redirect, he not only ignored the rest of the voting underway and did a merge, but he would get into an edit war over it. Then there was the entering of ginormous into Wiktionary long before the end of voting and consequently giving Wiktionary incorrect information. Then there is the procedural nightmare of creating hydrogen peroxide therapy after it had been speedy deleted so that he could have his way. Each of these is trivial, but all of them mean a one man show. It's not just that he isn't waiting for the community to speak, but that he's actually going to revert and overrule the community. That's strong trollish behavior. Geogre 11:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It has long been practice to try and improve a page, even while its being voted on, so that deletion can be avoided. What I'm doing is no different. I suggest that you both re-evaluate what value you are adding to the process by improperly listing "bad" pages on VfD in the first place. I think if you spent some time doing some clean-up first, you'd get a lot more oute of the editing experience. Keep VfD only for those articles which have no hope or are pure vanity/spam. Please remember, there any many people here with various backgrounds and interests, and they should have a chance to look at articles first. -- Netoholic @ 13:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, from my long time both working on and nominating to the Clean Up page, I suppose I would have as good a vantage point as any on its virtues. That does not change the fact that you have announced that you believe VfD itself should be ended, that you believe there should be no deletes, only redirects, unless something qualifies as a speedy deletion, and that you have vandalized the VfD page to try to antagonize me, have recreated deleted articles without process, have created redirects (without helping the article, I might add, since making a page into a redirect not only kills the content but prevents recreation) only an hour after a VfD listing, and have gone into an edit war to get your way on a foolish bit of confessed vandalism. I don't see a desire to improve Wikipedia at all. I see a desire to have your way, childish behavior, and intolerance. So, please, do spare me a sermon on the true spirit of Wikipedia. My work on Clean Up is beyond reproach, my article creation habits are solid, and my practice of improving articles is simply not something that can be questioned. Please learn to respect the community of Wikipedia. Do not think that you are the only voice that needs hearing, and do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Geogre 14:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection of diphallia

Your protection of diphallia is against the Protection policy. It has not been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and, being involved in the "edit war" (not really), you yourself should not have protected it. It is seen as a direct abuse of admin powers. -- Netoholic @ 01:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Because you wanted to revert it? I see. Well, if you do wish to be litigious, I suppose I'll take the advice of three other admins and start up an RfC on you. I really don't want to, though. If you will let anyone else, or everyone else, decide on whether the material should be merged, then I will quickly unprotect it. If, however, we are merely going to go round and round on the 3 revert rule, I will wait for the community to tell me to remove the protection. Your choice. You will either listen to the community, or you will have to turn to the community to get your way. Geogre 01:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Your message was by far one of the best. "Yes." Classic. :-) Thanks for the support, man. Mike H 03:56, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, Pinochet, Noriega, ...

Nixon and Clinton, anyone? Anyway, I know you say you like to check up on your VfD votes, but in case you miss my answer to the question from you and Jmabel about the "Saddam Hussein Defense", the principle is called sovereign immunity. --Michael Snow 22:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I did see that, and, as soon as it did, I said, "D'oh!" It was the term that kept escaping my grasp as I typed. Sovereign immunity not just, though, a matter of rights of sovereigns, but also the expansion of international law. Noriega is a good example: he was indicted in the US for violating US drug laws, when he was the head of his own nation. The US "arrest" (via invasion) was extraterritorial law. On the other hand, a war crimes trial, such as the proposed one for Kissinger, is about signatories to a treaty. Crimes against humanity is yet another standard, where, arguably, treaty signature means not that you honor the law, but that you agree to help enforce a law that is supposed to extend over the whole earth. Anyway, the "Saddam Hussein" defense is just a bull article, so we were right in wanting it dead (until Netoholic decides that it should be a merge and delete and insists on slapping the whole thing into the International law article because he has decided by himself that no article must be deleted). Geogre 22:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, sovereign immunity is at root a domestic legal principle, although I believe it's fairly common, so in the international arena this approach is an attempt to expand the law. After all, if you go back in history far enough, international law says what you do when you capture the other king is you execute him, preferably in some brutal fashion that makes for titillating stories in the history books. But even in the domestic sphere the principle has eroded somewhat, though it generally helps when you're dealing with a sovereign who has since been forced out of power. Anyway, I would guess that the diplomatic flak taken by the US over Noriega played into the decision to have Saddam Hussein tried in the Iraqi judicial system (in addition to US mistrust of how the international judicial system handles such cases). --Michael Snow 23:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An idea

I was thinking about our "deletionism/inclusionism" debates and it strikes me that we mostly agree on what deserves a mention in Wikipedia, but tend to disagree on what deserves its own article.

You seem to think that since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, we should strive for coherent, informative articles on notable subjects and that things that are notable only within the scope of a notable subject shouldn't have their own articles, but should rather be merged into appropriate articles.

I, on the other hand, think that since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (so the reader can easily follow link to a more general article) and diskspace is not a problem, there's no hurt in having lots of small articles, if they're well linked and categorized. I think that it's even good in many ways: if a thing is likely to be linked from more than one article, it's IMO better for it to have its own page than to redirect to a long article, where the reader has to search for it. OTOH, I do like to read coherent informative articles on notable subjects :)

So, I've been playing with this idea for a new feature for a while, and I finally wrote a draft. See meta:Improving categories, especially the "Major features" part.

I think you'll appreciate the potential that the defs and leads formats would have for improving overview articles in general, but I would like to ask you something else. Would the ability to view series of small articles both as a single merged article and as individual articles clearly marked as a part of a more general subject, affect your feelings on their inclusion in any way? Zocky 18:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Zocky. I'll take a look and get back to you. One of the things about my taxonomical rage is also a matter simply of "like with like until unlike" and "never proliferate without cause." If I go to read up on "Star Trek," I expect to see the characters mentioned. I probably even want detail sufficient to my curiosity. Therefore, I don't want to have to jump around to an article on each character. So that's a reason not to break out. (I.e. "Why you shouldn't stop writing the master topic to make new articles.") However, once things are out there by themselves, like Spot (Star Trek), the question is whether it does any good.

Here's how I think about that. Ok: Can it be searched? Will it be searched? Suppose that someone is vitally curious about Data's invisible cat. Is that person going to search for Spot (Star Trek)? Well, if so, he or she already knows the name of the character. A category system with more features can help there.

Secondly, is the information contributory outside of its master context? Is there anything in the article that is meaningful except in the context of the tv show? Is anyone going to encounter a reference to Data's cat on another TV show, a book, a poem, casual conversation, and need to do the search? If not, it seems to me that the thing is not notable on its own. If we say that it's notable enough because, secretly, what we're doing is saying that Star Trek is notable and this is just a way of completing it, then I think we logically have to say that boyfriends and girlfriends of the rich and famous shouldn't be deleted, either. We end up saying that every song by The Roling Stones is deserving because The Stones are. I just think that borrowed notability leaves us essentially with a subpage idea.

Anyhow, that's my general sentiment. I object to granularity because I think a lot of times people are just being lazy or want to say they wrote an article, or because their enthusiasm leads them to a mistaken idea of the importance of the subject, but I also think we have some logical bars to cross. None of this has to do with your proposal, though. I'll take a look at that and get back to you soon. Thanks for calling me in and for continuing to think about the ways we can reach consensus. I wish more people did that. Geogre 18:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Credenda/Agenda

Huddinge Puddinge. Geogre, I think the slash in the title "Credenda/Agenda" is making the link from the article to its VfD listing not work. Something is, anyway. Bishonen 19:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right. I worried about that when I listed it. Geogre 19:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

Geogre-

Thanks so much for your note. Being new at this I wanted to do well but have had a great deal of difficulty figuring out the way about. Again, your note was very kind and I thank you taking the time and helping me with you insights.

[[User:Stude62|"[[user:<stude62>|" and "]]".]] 20:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

re: Bradley Amendment

Good evening, Geogre. On 26 Aug, you voted to delete the article about the Bradley Amendment because it was a POV rant. Even though the discussion period has run out, no one's acted on that thread yet. I've completely rewritten the article. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a read through and see if it's now worthy of a keep. Rossami 01:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One question, and it's really important: Are you going to watchlist this article? I'm serious in asking, because we have activists on the warpath over this. If you are willing to patrol this page, then I have no problem with it. You rewrote it well anyway, but the personal factor for me is that I think there are certain things that just attract polemicists, and this is one of the hot ones for the "men's movement" spinoffs. Geogre 01:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have. I just hope I won't be the only one defending it. Rossami 18:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If I see POV warriors hitting it, I'll step in, too. Count on me. It's just that I'm probably not going to watchlist it. Geogre 04:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest

Regarding the ACORN article, I'd like to solicit your input (is it input or imput?). There's a ridiculously large amount of documentation and argument on the talk page, but on that page is covered some specific problems with recent edits.

Here's a summary:

• One user deleted over 2/3rds of the article
• This user is president of libertarian something or another
• This user has made no other edits to any other article since mid July
• While a criticisms section, particularly from someone informed, would be most useful, the criticisms section he has added is quite bad, not so much in the force of its allegations as in their accuracy and tone. Trilobite has commented on this.

Your contribution would be most appreciated.

LegCircus 16:02, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

ACORN

Unfortunately your call fro calm was not heeded, my revert was undone and then he went and deleted even more. I've started a survey to address it. Thanks for the try to play peacemaker though. --Wgfinley 08:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tønnå

Oh, surely this is nothing to do with the Famous Unknown Swedes. Whole other part of the world, no medieval philosophers nor porn stars, and two IP's that have never been seen on Wikipedia before. (Don't quite know what to do with two, I was assuming there would be only one). It all seems very harmless. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tønnå for more on this fascinating story as it unfolds. What kind of job is it? Bish 14:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• There is only one IP. The first one is the contributor. The second one is that Evil Saltine.

• • What makes you say that ...? You think I got bad info? Both the IP's that ES supplied have different, earlier, timestamps than ES' own version. I don't want to go on about it on VfD, but I can't say I understand what happened. It's as if the article had been speedied, then recreated. Anyway, I'll leave upbeat messages for both the anons. Bish 14:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, the job is clerical, but I've got to answer "yes" to "Are you born again?" being asked by several people. Exactly how that relates to filling out financial aid forms, I don't know. I'm not sure that financial aid offices are exactly Christ-like, since Jesus forbade charging interest. Geogre 14:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • There's a born-again-only policy at the financial aid office? Sheesh. Bish 14:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• PS: Aha, the article had indeed been speedied, then recreated, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tønnå again. Talk about unfolding. :-) Bish 14:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yep: Lend money in a Christ-like manner, I guess...or...well, in keeping with America's heritage. (shudder) So, our Tonna either didn't figure out that there was a speedy delete & thought it didn't save last time or did and decided that the world must know about Tona even more than Wolfy. BTW, I didn't talk to the woman today, when I called from the mall, so I'm going to try again at 3:00 PM (2100). I'll give you a call after that. Geogre 18:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep me updated, please. Tønnå (what's the matter with your keyboard? It seems to have large portions missing ;-)) who wears his leather jacket in gym is quite innocent of recreating anything, it was a button-pushing coincidence or super edit conflict. Andy hit the Speedy delete button within seconds of Evil saltine hitting Save for adding the VfD tag. Bishonen 23:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Football bandit?

I just saw your note on the VFD page for Gareth Owen about there being "two Football bandits" going around adding substubs. What's the deal with them, and how've you been handling them so far? Ambi (current member of the anti-B-Movie Bandit lynch mob) 05:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Geogre and Ambi, Gareth Owen is not the work of a bandit dropping substubs, so your posse needn't bother with that one. It just happens to look the same. The entry has a long history, all of it legitimate-looking and some of it to do with User:Gary Owen who is not the football player, and who posted the original entry, apparently by mistake in the article namespace, in 2001 (!). Happy hunting! Bishonen 08:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Dear Ogre, I've voted somewhat argumentatively on Gareth Owen, just in case you want to review. Bish 08:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So it seems that this was an inclusionist thing, where the VfD folks couldn't

bring themselves to delete it, and then someone decided to do a quick fix, which has stayed exactly like that. To me, this is some evidence of the bad that happens when people do sloppy "fixes" on VfD. Geogre 13:26, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Gee, Ogre, I can't follow you, sorry. The entry's only been VfD'd once in its three-year lifespan. That was yesterday, and nobody's tried to edit it since. No sloppy or unsloppy fix, no inclusionist agenda. Actually, the article History tab is amazingly short for a three-year-old title. It's not important. How are you? Bishonen 14:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it seems like a quick fix to avoid a deletion for inappropriate autobiography, and that's why it's junk. Anyway, I'm about to call my ma to tell her that I don't feel like going down there for an obvious no. (Last night, I was flipping about in the Bible (Bibliomancy) and hit Hebrews 13:1-6: Respect the persons in authority, for those who have authority are in place by God. If you do ill, fear them. Well, I thought that was interesting info to use against the Christian right who want to break with the government, etc., and then I realized that this was also a reference to cops and fearing cops when you break the law. That's as close to a sign as I need.) Geogre 14:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • (Yes, I did see what you were saying, feel free to not read what I was saying about nobody having edited the entry.) I think you're wise not to go down at this point. I hope your ma will have some other, better options to suggest when you call. Cheer up, love. Bishonen 14:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, on New Pages patrol, I was watching for any articles written by an IP and of short count. A few days ago, I was seeing a US IP dropping every US pro football player on the Ravens (Baltimore's team) and then on the Titans, etc. Since we haven't gotten a ruling to speedy delete the BMB, I wasn't going to speedy these, but they looked very much like, this: Name, plays position for, attended university. They were like information taken from a table straight down a page and entirely useless. The British football bandit is a fellow who seems to like his league play, and so it has been "is a player for X" with pretty much nothing else (not position or goals scored, etc.). These are IP's in each case. At the time the two showed up, I was watching and prosecuting the Neopet author, so that makes it about 9/5/04.

Now that I know there are others interested, if I can find the guy again, I'll note the IP and start a new case. Geogre 13:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It'd be good if you could do that. There's a borderline case for deletion/blocking in the respective policies, but it'd be nice if we could turn the tide on substubs (and particularly *these* substubs) permanently. Ambi 09:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spire

Suggest you have a look at the new inro to Spire is 'architectonic' a word in the English language. You are an administrator - suggest you delete it or whatever it is you do to unpleasant things like that.Regards Giano 20:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. Someone wanted to pump his Spire of Dublin article and couldn't be bothered to really read our article and see that we did, indeed, discuss spires as solo structures. So, instead of putting a reference into the body, where it would make sense, he decided to divert readers at the top. Fine. I clarified the language and figure that, instead of boosting readership, he'll lose readers by having an acontextual reference. In a few days, I'll probably edit out his content and simply put Spire of Dublin into one of the examples 3 par down. "Architectonic" is a valid word, but he was misusing it. Geogre 02:17, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou. That is exactly what I was going to suggest we did. I've always thought spire was a great article, and yes, I know one should not become territorial about a page, but that one's a little different. Incidentally, in what context would one use "Architectonic" as opposed to 'architectural' I don't think the former has crossed the Atlantic yet, or if it has it has not reached me yet. So long Giano 06:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You know what's funny? The new Merriam Webster gives the definitions in exactly the opposite order of how things used to be (should be). It says, 1. related to architecture, architectural; 2. organized in such a way as to suggest an architecture. The word arose as meaning #2, so far as I know, but I guess people have been misusing it so much that the most common meaning is now the bad one. BTW, def. #2 means something like, "In If Upon a Winter's Night a Traveler, Italo Calvino's references to the 2nd person occur decreasingly through the text, and the secondary world of the reader's fiction is built by architectonic appeals to the reader." I.e. something with an organization that suggests a building, house, series of load bearing and then ornamental structures. I agree with you about Spire. I have pretty much from the beginning. I think it was good work done well, and it is annoying with someone 'improves' it by dropping tinsel on the top. :-) Geogre 12:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Than you for that Geogre! I don't think its a word I shall ever have the courage to employ Giano 12:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

I just wanted to say thanks for the advice on vfd. I am still getting my wiki-feet wet on this and I have commented/voted recently on just a couple. But your advice was very good and helpful. I appreciate older, wiser wikipedians helping us new folk along....--Jpittman 15:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm always happy to help, with the keeping of articles, too, when it comes to that. The two sins authors commit most often (other than copyright violation) are lack of notability and original research/essay, with lack of notability far and away the most common. It can make VfD sound like a broken record, but the stuck record is really that of novice authors rather than embittered VfD voters. Geogre 18:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Glumdalclitch, and did we disconnect?

Glumdalclitch is very cool! You did see that I was asking if the comment on my userpage was OK? Above. Only, you e-mail- -spoke about my comments on Managed delete as if you thought I'd asked about them, which I hadn't. Did we lose the connection? In Uppsala, going home, I can't believe how much I have to do right now. :-( Bishonen 15:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your comment on your user page is fine. I've been trying to think of a way I could reciprocate but haven't been able to, just because my user page looks the way it does. I mentioned the managed delete stuff only to indicate that I wasn't going to debate it on the MD page, as I'm going to try not to debate anything more than once a day. I want the discussion to be open, and not an author-to-commentators. I also mentioned it because I think it's an important test page. I've made the nicest, sweetest-tempered suggestion I can, and if the usual wars are fought over it, I'll know that there just isn't much point in trying to propose policy and that the 19 year olds will have their way and buddy-war each other to death. Anyway, the e-mail disconnect was just my attempting to think this morning and not succeeding very well. I'm glad you like the Glumdalclitch. Had you heard the Stella/Glumdalclitch connection before? I know I'm right, but I don't want to be novel. I can't believe I am. It's too obvious. Geogre 17:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reciprocate? Puhleeze, you weren't even supposed to see that. Or just to stumble on it accidentally some time. No, I'd never heard of the Stella connection, but I'm not a big Swiftian. I mean, I am a big fan, but not well-informed. Hey, just punch my contribs button right now and you'll see a picture of a hissy fit. :-) Removing nonsense. Taking out nonsense link. Removing rubbish. I don't mean it's worth your while going to look at the individual outtakes, it's all one thing over and over. All old stuff, the user isn't around any more, or not under the same name. Oh, boy, I'm grading essays and writing to you simultaneously here. G'night, Geogre. (Hey, did you see somebody spelling you Georgre on the Managed delete Talk? Maybe you need to create a redirect for that. :-))Bishonen 21:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome

Hi Geogre! I appreciate your comments in the discussion of my article about Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome, but I notice you haven't voted yourself. I hope you will reread the article in its latest state and vote to keep; I have greatly overhauled it, eliminated a lot of the web site quotes, and anchored it more firmly in published research. I read where you prefer to keep rather than delete. I am willing to take into account the preferences of Wikipedians in order to preserve the article. Thanks. Doug22123

Managed Deletion

Georgrge, you wrote yesterday to Triskaideka that you "absolutely agree that recreation should go directly to VfD, and not back to Managed Delete nor Speedy Delete." And you made this addition to your proposal:

"Recreation of Managed Deleted Content: If an article is recreated, it may not be subject to Managed Delete a second time. It must then be either kept or sent to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion."

Well, that looks to me like you might be proposing a rather anomalous situation in relation to the existing two delete categories. See, today, "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy", from either of these two categories, is one of the Speedy delete critera. I think there are good reasons for this policy, myself. Triskaideka and I had a chat about it on his/her Talk page, if you want to look. Never mind about that, though, the point is that you want Wikipedia to have three classes of deletes, in falling order of admin-driven directness, from Speedy to MD to VfD, right? Well, don't you think it would be, uh, unsymmetrical to have recreations from both the more extreme categories go straight to Speedy, while those from the middle category go to VfD? Unless you're planning on extending your proposal to suggest that all recreated articles, from all three categories, should go to VfD? (Something I think would end up burdening VfD more, not less, than now.)

Just wondering if you're planning to put some more explanation out there for people to look at. And feel free to call me a pest. I hope you know I'm trying to help the little Dutch boy, though. Bishononen 10:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware of the anomaly -- our own Mint -- but I felt that, well, as I said, a recreated article was either from an author who needed the ego-bashing that takes place on VfD or from someone who improved the article and therefore warranted a VfD (or keep). In truth, people reading the recreated articles will be able to distinguish, but this was an attempt at saving articles and authors from vindictive admins. Say that Crimes of Israel gets manage deleted for overt campaigning. Ok. Now, there are admins who are always on patrol for POV wars. It gets recreated after MD, and these weary souls only glance at the title, remember or see the tag, and then speedy delete it. What if the new article was, instead of a POV war, an article on the nature of the charge, or, worse yet, an article about the criminal code in Israel?

That said, I suppose if I trust admins on the one count, I ought to trust them again.

I'll think about it and either be intentionally vague/silent or change position. Geogre 11:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But you know how ego-bashing just doesn't do anything for some people. It makes them more obstinate. Just think of ... never mind. (Think of EU medals, for instance.) These people would never stop reposting. I understand the example of Crimes of Israel, but what about the exact same thing happening after a long and harrowing VfD debate instead of after a quick MD? If the recreated article was then about the nature of the charge or about the criminal code, it would have the same need to go to VfD instead of being Speedied, wouldn't it? It seems the same. And think what a snarly and subtle set of rules it would be, especially for newbies to get their heads round. To retain one tolerably simple rule for all "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy" would be of value in itself, I think. Bishy 12:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, what the hell, I'll be pompous, why not. Democracy isn't about trust, it's about checks and balances. Trust is what aristocracies are about. Bishy 12:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking it over. I really don't know. It is possible to just set up this loophole without changing the general policy on recreated deleted material. However, it's also possible to leave it with a speedy delete if recreated. I mean, someone would need to nominate it again for it to go back to MD. Whether someone would speedy delete it upon recreation, I suppose I have to trust, since we already trust. When a deleted article is recreated, no one knows it was previously deleted without doing investigation, and they only do the investigation if it looks bad/deletion. Geogre 12:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Flores and Blancheflour

Hi, Geogre, I like your de novo article. In honor of your "Flores and Blancheflour", I am planning to create an article about Oskar Levertin's "Flores och Blanzeflor" (1891), so we can have all the unfortunate Flowers and Whiteflowers frolicking together on a disambiguation page. :-) Well, not really, I thought more that I'd disambiguate my page by linking to it on yours, if you're agreeable, the way Boccaccio's linked there. Is there a French source for the poem, btw? Maybe a postulated lost one? Boccaccio's later than the Middle English romance, I presume. I'm asking because I'm having difficulty imagining Levertin poring over a Middle English manuscript. I think all the kewl Swedish poets then travelled to Berlin and Paris, if they could afford it, never to England. Bishonen 14:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah. In fact, Flores and Blancheflour has a French analog (source is harder to say), and, believe it or not, it may even be a middle eastern source. I'll check it out in my ME book and let you know. However, the source for the Swedish version was probably Boccaccio, since he's been read by pretty nearly everybody. He is later than the Romance, though, of course. The Romance is, um, somewhere in the early 13th c. Most of these romances, and in particular the, uh, florid ones, were all over all at once. Let me get back to you with particulars on the sourcing of this particular ME romance. Geogre 14:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Haha! You don't say. Boccaccio's not specially likely in this case, I think. Levertin was a big, big Middle Eastern buff. If there was such a possible source, I bet he used it. Hmm, I need to know about existant translations, and check which languages he could himself read (a shitpile of 'em, I'm guessing, he was that kind of guy). If you've got somewhere to check for medieval sources/parallels, that's great, that's exactly the one thing I can't find for myself, sweetheart. (Better delete that. :-) ) I've got a whole shelf of the public domain 1912 ed. of Nordisk Familjebok, big-ass Swedish encyclopedia. If I had any conscience, which I don't, I'd be doing articlets on these kinds of guys from it all day long.Bishonen 15:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to check that out. My Garbatty ("The Big Book of Medieval Stuff") book is either out in the car or under strata of stuff in the bedroom, but I think it's in there that I read it, and not in my Ox. eME verse book. I'm already linking to your future article in the present Flores & Blancheflour article. Why on earth were people attracted to this story? It's stupid. The ring that turns colors? Ick. Is that like Psychoanalytic Critic's entrance exam? What I remember of the story most of all was that it was really girly. I'm thoroughly unconvinced that women were not a large part of the medieval readership. Just because we can't prove literacy doesn't mean there wasn't any. Geogre 15:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stupid? Tell me about it. I guess I can't manage any article about the poem itself, sorry about the redlink there. No material. But you put Oscar right in there, that's so cool. Thanks a bunch, Geogre. Oscar Levertin will definitely exist, though it doesn't yet, because I'm wondering about the title: Oscar, Oskar, Oskar Evert Levertin, and so on. I don't need to create yet another article, like I did a few days ago, that I'm going to have to ask an admin to delete. That was embarrassing. Wait, though ... the suckers can be moved. Oh, well, I've written to ask Mic about the spelling etc. He patrols a lot of Swedish stuff, and he thinks about stuff like names and spellings, I might as well wait till he replies. Meanwhile, I've got the text safe in a text editor, and I've translated it into Swedish and put it into the Swedish Wikipedia. Wanna see? I literally can not believe how stupid that was. That's a manner of speaking, but I mean it, I just amazed myself there. To first write an English article, condensed from a Swedish source — great big unmanageable source article in tiny print, because Levertin was huge in 1912 — and only then have the idea of translating the condensation into Swedish. Out comes the tiny print and the magnifying glass again. :-( Anyway, if you want to see, there's a cute Public Domain pic of an oil painting of Levertin in the Swedish article (which already existed, as a substub with a pic), so it's probably my confounded duty to learn about using pictures, and put (link to?) it here, too. The copyright is fine, because the painting is so old (I asked Bybrunnen and got a quick reply), but unfortunately I have no understanding whatever of what those techs say when they "explain" how to "upload" (or, again, link to?) a picture, let alone how to put it in a good position. Anyway, that was fun. Now I should stop fiddling with wiki stuff, even if I am officially/legitimately taking a day off to recover after working round the clock for two days. How are you? Bishonen 19:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)

You know what, Geogre? I think you're sitting in the least frequented corner of Wikipedia, waiting to be flooded. :-( Who the \}{¶‡\{˜Ü˘¬ˆ goes to Village pump (policy)? (Oh, look at that, the stupid name doesn't even link. It wants that "Wikipedia:" in front of it, although the regular Village pump doesn't. That's idiocy.) If you hadn't told me about it, and I hadn't used your contribs button, I never would have found it. If I were you, I'd post a pointer, or the whole thing, pronto, on Village pump. I think it's the only one anybody reads. Bishonen 21:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I listed it on the main Village Pump space as well, now. It seems like it's getting some close scrutiny now, too. There was a great deal to comment upon today. BTW, the Aphra Behn article is just plain sad. I wrote up one of her plays, but all her others need entries. For that matter, all the other Restoration plays need to be in. :-( Geogre 14:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Middle English literature

Hey, I see that the category Middle English literature now has a population of five. Wow, look at that, one of 'em was actually not created by Geogre the typing battalion, the man of a thousand fingers! What's that about? Maybe somebody snuck it in while you were away for a few minutes practising your language skills at sv.wikipedia. Bishonen 18:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, they were all typed by me. I just didn't want to list the Man of Law's Tale on my user page, because I thought I did such a crappy job of it. :-( Canterbury Tales did come first, and that's categorization (and the template) are the work of User:danny. Other than that, yeah, they're all me. I suppose I could put the Ormulum in that category, only it's half way to Old English and half way to Middle English. Geogre 23:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

more comments on Managed Delete

Good evening, Geogre. I've been following the Managed Delete discussion rather closely. It seems that we are trying to accomodate all parties and ending up with a design by committee. The instructions, distinctions and complexities are starting to escape even me and I've been following the discussion since the beginning. And that's before trying to figure out how to implement this jury pool suggestion.

Is it time to step back and ask everyone to brainstorm on radically different approaches to the core problems that you described so well at the start of this exercise?

For example, could we solve most of the same problems by 1) expanding the cases for speedy deletion and 2) tightening the oversight of speedies by making it a two-person activity? I have been noodling with the advantages and disadvantages of a process where one person nominates (and specifies the specific case for speedy in the nomination) but that person may not actually speedy it - the speedy must be carried out by a second person (who is a sysop) who must agree that it is a speedy under that case. If not, go directly to VfD. (I hesitate to propose it too openly yet because I think a lot of current admins would object loudly to the perceived loss of control.)

I guess that's a long-winded way of saying that I'm becoming concerned that the instruction creep will mire down a well-intentioned proposal. Rossami 00:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rossami, I hope that my attempt at what Bishonen called "maidenly modesty" on the discussion isn't mistaken for a real attempt to change the proposal. All that's going on right now with the jury thing is that I'm allowing people who really want to have that to work out their own version. When the vote comes, and I think it won't be long, it will appear as it is now. There will be an alternative mechanism offered for a vote, so people will get to vote on A) the proposal or B) the proposal with this mechanism. Quorum will hit either one. I think most people are actually happy with the proposal as it stands, and I think there has been a ton of silent assent. Anyway, the only thing keeping me from going to vote tomorrow is that we have one HUGE headache ahead, and that's the exact language of the criteria. I want to use the sample pages you've made as a place for the language to get refined. If this policy fails, I'll be happy to work with either the widening of CSD language or a new method, but I really believe in this proposal, and it seems to have a lot of support (that I'm going to waste, if I don't move to vote pretty soon). Geogre 01:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Images

Hi Geogre - Do you know how to send an image from the Italian Wikipedia to the English, or do I just download it to my computer and then reupload it and take all the credit myself, which seems a little unfair. Also, if I wanted to translate a page complete with images from the Italian, how can I do this without losing all the credits to pevious editors on the Italian site. Giano 13:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Errr. Ok. No, I don't know. That's the short answer. Now, want the sheer guessing? The guess is that there is a way to do a soft redirect between pedias. However, if you translate an article, I think you do get credit. You did the translation, after all. Who would know the procedures? Well, Angela certainly would. Drop a note on her about it, and she'll know how it's done. She does a lot of work between the different languages. Geogre 14:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Horza

"Horza" is most prominently a cheat for the game Theme Park. If you use Horza as your nick in the game, you get extra resources. There are many hits for this sense on Swedish Google, but on English Google they tend to drown amongst all the even more feeble hits for someone with username Horza on some forum. There's no folk singer/child molester. Speedy that sunny ole Swedish sense of humor. --Bishonen 14:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! I killed it. Thanks for that. Seems our Swedish bored kids are back. I'd expect this in the 6 months of darkness, but while it's still daylight out? ;-) Geogre 14:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stop Press: Manage that Deletion!

Did you know that Managed Deletion is on the front page as the "Hot Discussion" of the moment? (Under "Get involved".) --Bishonen 19:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ago Gratias

Thanks for your kind words but since there is great opposition to my nomination for administratorship, I've asked for it to be withdrawn. I've posted an explanation of frequent edits on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. You note your interest in the Restoration period. Perhaps you would be interested in my article on Montague Summers, who was an expert on Restoration drama. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:16, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

• I want you to be renominated soon, man. I meant that. I absolutely am interested in Montague Summers. Additionally, Bishonen, whose name you see dotted across this page, is a Restoration scholar, and I know that Bishonen has knowledge. I was ashamed to see that we have, basically, no Aphra Behn, so I've been doing that a bit at a time. There is no William D'Avenant. There is no Congreve. There is no Wycherly. There is no Etheridge. There is no Steele. There is no Beaumont and Fletcher. There is no Jacobean drama of any sort. It's a gap 8 miles wide, and it's shameful. It's also daunting to try to plug it up one article at a time. Geogre 23:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Date management

Date management was jsut a typo of Data management. the article should be just deleted. It was already redirected, but that puts an entry on the Category:Data management page). So, the best way I could figure to remove the spurious entry on Category:Data management was to just have Date management deleted. KeyStroke 20:51, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't get that. If that's so, though, wouldn't Redirects for Deletion be the spot to go? I don't say that as a scold, just as an explanation for my confusion and why I re-did the redirect. I agree with you, btw, that "Date management" is a useless thing, except that it's possible that it keeps out people who have funny ideas and want to write under that heading. Anyway, the redirect can be deleted, of course. Sorry for the confusion. Geogre 23:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Not everyone is familiar with all the obscure meta-articles within Wikipedia. I hadn't heard about "Redirects for Deletion" before. This site just has to start doing a better job of organizing and introducing all the (now obscure) meta-articles to people. We are suffering from what is called "the tragedy of the commons". [by the way, I fixed it so that your user page no longer shows up in the Category:Data management KeyStroke 06:26, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Ambiguity on creation numbers for Thomas Coke

Thanks for your comment. I've replied on Talk:Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester of Holkham. -- Chris j wood 09:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not quite as bad as that

Geogre, excuse me for interfering in your conversation with PedanticallySpeaking, but there are actually William Wycherley and William Congreve (playwright) and Geogre Etherege — sorry, George Etherege :-) — and maybe more, but there should be some redirects to them, at least. I should make some redirects. What a modest proposal — I know I should do more real Restoration stuff, it's hardly fair on PedanticallySpeaking to have to carry the whole burden there. About the "Hot Discussions: Should there be an intermediate process between speedy deletion and votes for deletion?" on the Main Page, it's still there, how do you not see it? --Bishonen 17:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I thought I meant nothing on their works, not nothing on them as authors. I meant they were in the same place as Behn: perfunctory or antique article on the author, and no coverage of the works, or too little. I haven't looked, but I wonder if Incognita has an article and if it's really about the novel. I still don't see the bit about the Managed Delete. BTW, I'm going to rename it, in accord with community wishes, but I'll have to leave the page where it is. I've been trying to think of good acronymns. MD was nice. I think maybe Accelerated Delete? That way it's AD and the candidates are CAD's. I wanted to get CUD, but I couldn't figure out a U. Anyway, when I look on the main page, I don't see any mention at all. Perhaps there is a different main page? Geogre 20:25, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Sorry, Geogre. I could have sworn it was the Main Page, but you're quite right, it's the Community Portal. Anyway, Incognita, no, of course not. I don't think that's any kind of scandal. There's no article on The Way of the World, that's a scandal. And you're indeed right, the Wycherley and Etherege entries are from the 1911 Britannica. I refuse to add all that stuff to my guilt list, though. I'm busy enough feeling guilty about going to Wikipedia at all. What about Cabal Delete? :-) But I'm trying to figure something that will give the acronym CRUD. Bishonen 21:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Language?

Bishonen's language? Huh? Same language, different substance, I thought. Not that it matters, people will figger out what you're referring to if they care. Early Delete ... mmm ... not sure. That does make its function in relation to VfD instantly clear, but do you think it does in relation to Speedy Delete? Not sure there at all. I quite like Wile E's "Semi-Speedy". It doesn't look as good, but it's actually easy to say and think: "Just SSD it". "It's an SSD case". Whazzat? Yes, you're right that I am deliberately avoiding saying "It's a Candidate for Semi-Speedy Deletion", "It's a CSSD", because I admit those don't so much roll off the tongue.

How's it going with the ebullience? Got any left? (P. S., I just got it: the subproposal will be in Swedish!) (P.P.S., I worry Pgreenfinch might run down, maybe I should jump in and poke him a little. ;-) Sorry, I really mean to say that I admire how dignified you're being there, Geogre. I hope you're not letting it get to you.) --Bishonen 21:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Well, I meant your wording, smart aleck. You'll see. I was just coming onto the project to prep the proposal for voting, which is supposed to open in a few hours (00:00 GMT). I haven't done that yet. I don't like "semi-speedy." I guess "early" is not as fast as "speedy," but, frankly, "managed" has a nice precision about it, and "juried" trips over what VfD does. I don't know. If people want to bid on names, I'm open to it, but I don't like the semi- thing so much. Geogre 23:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oh, and no, I feel like death on a cracker, actually. Pretty ill today, but so it goes with this long disease, my life. (Actually, I've been so healthy, it's sick. Just rotten today.) Geogre 23:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• VOTING OPEN: In fact you can vote here, and you can see for yourself. Geogre 00:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Field name in biology

Hi! On the VfD discussion on field name, you said something about the term having a common meaning in the field of biology. I have used all my google skills, without finding any pages on the Internet using it clearly in a biology context...Could you update field name with what you know? — David Remahl 22:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Oh, sure. What I meant was "scientific vs. field name" in more zoology than biology per se. E.g. "homo sapiens sapiens, field name man." Just that. I'll go over and update, though. Geogre 23:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Done. Geogre 23:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia:Managed Deletion

I would suggest that this page should be unprotected, because there isn't a policy under which it's protected and AFAIK there haven't been any problems which would require protection. — Kate Turner | Talk 04:40, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

• I'd rather not, only because there have been problems in the past. Again, if there is a reason to edit the page, I'll be happy to lift the protect, but I really hate to see the language of the proposal get changed while people are voting on it. I kind of think that all policy pages should be protected during their votes. Geogre 12:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I understand the reason, and I don't object enough to actually unprotect it, but in future I'd suggest maybe listing similar things on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and letting someone else do it, at least to conform to the letter of policy, i.e. not protecting a page you're interested in. (I know that isn't exactly meant for situations like this, but it's probably a good idea anyway - just in case). — Kate Turner | Talk 12:57, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

You're right, of course, Kate. Basically, the problem was that I thought of the need late, after someone mentioned Andrewa with a policy before. Andrewa had said, "The page should not be edited as voting is in progress" and there was a storm of people saying that it's a wiki, and they should be able to edit the policy just as they wished. (Sheesh.) So I thought it should be protected during the votes. Also, there were hot debates over a previous policy where the author edited the policy during voting. I wanted to be entirely aboveboard and just say, "Stand or fall, it is what it is." I thought of it too late for the Requests thing to go through, but that is what I should have done. Geogre 13:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Help with VfD listing

Aghh! I'm doing something wrong and can't figure out what. This is the first time I've tried to list something on VfD since the format changed. I've tried adding Princeton Project 55 but it keeps showing up under the heading for the next-to-last entry. If you could figure out what I'm doing wrong I would greatly appreciate it. SWAdair | Talk 07:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Wow, I must have been in a hurry -- I didn't even finish the four tildes on the last edit. I just wanted to let you know that the problem has been fixed. Rednblu added the listing back to the page and it worked. 'Still stumped about what caused the problem, but... SWAdair | Talk 07:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You know, there are other things going on with the new change. Several listings have disappeared and gone back to "[[Discource on Method - Outline]]," on the VfD page. What the heck is that? I don't want to get into the arguments that must be going right now, but that kind of thing didn't happen before, and I don't see that much of an improvement in page loads. Geogre 12:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uh? How's anybody gonna vote?

You protected the voting page itself? How's anybody gonna vote, when the page can't be edited? --Bishonen 07:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The voting page (Wikipedia:Managed_Deletion/Voting) isn't protected. — Kate Turner | Talk 07:23, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks, Kate. I thought the headline-size Vote here link on the Managed Deletion page was just a headline, to be voted below. Hard to believe Geogre called me a smart aleck just a few sections up this page. --Dumb aleck 07:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• You know what's killing me? On the votes, despite the fact that I took exceptional pains to explain that this gives no additional power to admins, the same old "Admins! Power grab!" stuff is in there in the voting again. For the love of Mike! Doesn't anyone read any more? Well. I won't say a word. I've done all the explaining I'm going to do. I did the policy as carefully and politely as possible. If the Wiki community shows itself incapable of understanding what the policy is and yet votes anyway, it's just proof that policy can't be proposed in public with openness. Geogre 13:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aphra Behn

Infuriating, the above, I know. :-( Geogre, hon, better not rosicrucianism me at this time of night. It's absolutely not a well-known old scandal, never heard of it. I only came over to post Blended-learning, note orthography, on Cleanup — do you remember the sad stub Blended learning, that all us educators started to vote to delete, actually to vote about, on Cleanup? That was just a stub double of this. It's a pest, in that it does need some explanation, and Cleanup entries are supposed to be really short. Why do we bother, anyway? G'night.--Bishonen 02:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pandarus (you didn't!)

! You buggered up my perfect stub?? I'll get you for this. Didn't know you even read the categories pages. Actually, it was sort of an intentional protest when I wrote that to pander (you're meant to italicize a word discussed as a word) was from Chaucer and Shakespeare. I meant, sort of, that "I know it's 100% from Shakespeare, but it wouldn't have killed it to have been a bit from Chaucer, too." I'm very fond of Troilus and Criseyde, very, and Troilus and Cressida is pretty feeble Shakespeare. If it's not apocryphal Shakespeare, even. --Bishonen 02:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Well, when it comes to that, I loathe the Chaucer because I tried to read it. That was my mistake. Frankly, by line 1,000 or something I went looking for a "translation." It was horrible, I thought. As for Shakespeare's, I agree that it's substandard Shakespeare -- churned it out, no doubt, to make a pound -- and not bad enough to be one of the bad plays -- no Titus Andronichus or Timon of Athens -- but I like his Pandarus. He's a complete lecher, the creepy impotent uncle, a very nasty character, potentially. Geogre 04:50, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changing room

Anyway, you think that's hilarious, look at the shambles your Changing room has turned into since I changed it from a redirect to a disambig. I apologize, I had no idea it would inspire anybody to that extent. :-) Cripes, it's wild. Oh, look, "change room" suffers from non-uniqueness because "the phrase 'change room' can also mean for a person to move from one room to another room, or to change a room booking". :-D

It would be very wrong of me to try to "own" Pandarus, and you're a beautiful writer, Geogre, so your additions are beautiful in and of themselves, but, uh, did you look at all at the, well, coherence of the paragraphs there? (Of my... sob... pretty babies...?) --Bishonen 03:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• You know, I did, and I did consider that I was breaking a paragraph. I know that I didn't integrate well, but I thought that the Shakespeare kind of deserved a different paragraph from the Chaucer because there was a turn of the conversation from "Classical to Romance" to "Moderns pervert the word and turn a hero into a villain and a pimp because of Shakespeare." That was the logic of the intrusive paragraph, anyway. I assume that's what you think was jarring?

Of course it isn't. If I'd had anything more than a simple sentence on Shakespeare I would have started a new paragraph in that spot from the first. Sheesh. It was a coupla other things, like putting "Pandarus is an antagonistic figure in Chaucer's poem" as the punchline of the paragraph about Homer+Virgil and the medieval "Matter of Troy" being different. As if that was the clinching argument, or the best example of characters being different. Like, well, you know I don't mean to sound the way I probably do sound here, but I thought the logic of the paragraph got to be that antagonistic is the opposite of being a famous archer.

(I don't even think he is an antagonistic figure. In plot function he's agonistic, pushing a dubious Troilus into Criseyde's bed, and in personal character he's quite appealing.)

On a related topic, I guess it's obscure why I even wanted to have the stuff in there about the medieval characters being different from Homer except in name. It's not intrinsically interesting, obviously, and I don't take it anywhere. But I was thinking it's exactly what I would need to be told about if I was looking up the story in an encyclopedia. Say that I know from my bedtime Iliad-reading that Troilus is the name of the youngest son of King Priam of Troy. And now this obviouosly vandalized web encyclopedia is telling me Troilus is a warrior in the Greek army, climbing the walls of Troy like some misplaced Romeo? Wikipedia is nonsense. See?

Anyway. Sorry to be so possessive. I don't know if you even want to check out what I've done any more, but I moved some sentences around.

• Feel free to heal the article altogether. The only bit that I thought was necessary was the legal charge of pandering being specifically managing a prostitute, since I didn't think that the criminal code stuff was in the article before, and people might well hear of it in real life. Geogre 04:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure. That whole etymology thing was what made the article worth having, IMO. That's why I wrote it (well, I call it "wrote", since there wasn't anything to speak of there before), so thanks for making that part fuller and more specific. You know what else I'd like to add right there? If I could find some big mother of a French etymological dictionary, to see if they've got to pander in French, too, I would put it in. (I think it would be relevant, this being the wikipedia in English, not the English Wikipedia.) I bet they do have it. The medieval "Matter of Troy" is French. I've even got the name of the 12th-century French troubadour who invented the romance of Troilus and Criseyde for coming generations. (Nordisk familjebok is outstanding.) Grrr, why doesn't the University library have a big online French dictionary? --Bishonen 13:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Your changes are better. Honestly, you were right to take all the smut out of Chaucer. Chaucer's Panarus is, you're right, more the best-buddy than the bawd. In fact, the blame in that poem is entirely on Cupid, as I recall. I also like the sentence combining you did with the pejorative paragraph. It looks much better. Geogre 15:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• In case it's not obvious yet, I've pretty much decided to just write articles when I feel like it and care about little else. (sigh) Maybe footabll will start soon. Geogre 15:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's been fun

Geogre, I'd hoped to get a chance to say good-bye to you "in person' before heading out to the swing states, but since that won't be possible, I'll do it in public here. My "email this user" link will still work, although what chance I'll have to access email when in the field, I don't know. But if you can, please keep me apprised of major events in your own life. -- orthogonal 04:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Wow, you know, I may well follow you out. I'm at least going to take a bit of a break from the project. It's too wearying, and I think it's on the point of collapsing under its own weight. Did you really get assigned swinging states? Hopefully, you'll get one of the interesting ones. Go for New Mexico. It's far away, and there are some neat places there (aside from Yucky Mountain). Geogre 04:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, my assignment is more Rust/Bible-Belts, so -- damn, I wish it were New Mexico. Damn. :) Keep in touch. -- orthogonal 05:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, yes, regarding the saints. We have been taking out the titles. Danny 05:30, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Managed deletion

Hey, I just wanted to say, if you'd support adding an option to open managed deletion to non-sysops, I'd back the proposal, and I suspect some others would as well. Could be wrong - just wanted to make the suggestion. Snowspinner 05:34, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

• I think you're right, but this is supposed to be a type of speedy delete, and that's why it's admin-only. I.e. this is an "expansion of speedy delete" that people have been saying they favor as they vote "no." (sigh) Anyway, I will consider it and possibly put in an alternative. The problem, as I discussed on the project page's discussion, is that the author will immediately go over and vote "keep." If that happens, the thing automatically goes to VfD. If it's open to any voter, then the author will always, always vote "keep" and the page will be useless. Geogre 12:36, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • You could always discount page author votes. I tend to think that's reasonable, and its not unprecedented. (After all, people being nominated for adminship don't get to cast votes for their nomination.) Snowspinner 17:41, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
• That's possible, but there are 250 administrators, and any dissent in a vote means VfD, so this is not really supposed to replace VfD. It's just a way of having a consensual expansion of the speedy system. Several of us had talked about this at length before, and, frankly, I don't know what people are voting on here. They honestly seem not to have read the proposal. If something as delicate and non-revolutionary as this is going to be seen as an anti-democratic appropriation of power, then there is never going to be any policy that isn't top-down or done with quick votes in an unpublicized manner. Geogre 17:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I suspect that there is, in fact, never going to be any policy that isn't top-down or done with quick votes in an unpublicized manner, but that's neither here nor there. :( Snowspinner 20:00, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hrosvit

Hey Geogre, just wanted to let you know that there was already a Hroswitha article, it's a little stubby though so I'm not sure which one should be kept. I guess you'll have to merge one with the other. Adam Bishop 15:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I killed the existing articles and redirected them to mine, solely because mine had a lot more information, and I know where I got the name and don't know where the others got theirs. Anyway, I'm glad you told me. Geogre 15:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cure for glumness

Poor Geogre, I don't blame you for sounding glum, now all the people are popping up with alternative proposals — they couldn't do it during the ample discussion time? And, as you say, the "alternatives" are mostly the same thing as your proposal only less democratic, since the proposal is an extension of Speedy Delete, only with a safeguard against the one-man show. Oh, well. I guess you never thought Wikipedia was the perfect Athenian democracy of the enlightened, huh? Anyway, here's how to cure glumness, I hope: go look at the evolved version of Changing room (you saw I mentioned it above, right?), the wildest, baddest disambiguation page in the West, and look at Kim Bruning's edit line in the history. :-) I wrote a message to Kim's talk page when I saw it, I couldn't help myself. I keep feeling it's all my fault. --Bishonen 18:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not looking at the Managed Deletion thing. People can't be bothered to read the policy, much less the discussion, so they deserve what they get. As for alternatives, they can say what kind of alternatives they favor, but let them actually propose them and see what happens. There is one way policy can happen on Wikipedia: restricted voting. Have it happen in the middle of the night with only buddies called up. Short discussion times. Short voting periods. Announce that it won. Exactly, in other words, what I oppose. Since I won't act in such an undemocratic way, the sheer numbers of people mean that there's no hope of any moderate policy going past, at least from me, so I don't need to be involved with policy at all. Perhaps the best way is to just act on my own version of what the rules ought to be and ignore the fact that the rules don't support that. I wanted to make it possible for speedy deletes to happen wisely, but people don't know what speedy deletes are or don't like the fact that they exist, so perhaps I should just go back to looking at New Pages and deleting the ones I think should qualify -- which is exactly what has been going on for months.

Anyway, that's not it. I just feel rotten in real life. I was before this nonsense, and playing with the children here takes more patience than I have right now. Might as well write articles when I feel like it and not worry about whether I know enough or not. Hell, no one else does. They write single lines on important subjects and then demand that they stay because "someone else" will fix them. That's the spirit! Someone else will fix it! If I misremember The Man of Feeling, I should still write about it because I thought of doing it. Why not? Someone will fix it.

I'm not glum about the policy thing. Last I saw, it was 50/50, with a lot of votes by names I've never seen before. I hope lots and lots of nonce accounts vote, too, and users who keep three or four accounts as well. Let's let every abuse of Wikipedia show up in one place. That's what I get for making sure that the proposal was public. Geogre 20:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S., I forgot

Yeah, I did. The thing is this. I attribute lucus a non lucendo to Quintilian, following Nordisk familjebok, but PedanticallySpeaking looked it up in Brewer, who says it's from a 4th-century grammarian called Honoratus Maurus. That would make good sense, since etymologies aren't really any of Quintilian's business, so I should probably change it in the article. But, if you've got the time and the inclination, would you maybe like to look it up in Lemprière first, if that's the kind of thing Lemprière does? For a third opinion? --Bishonen 18:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Lempriere doesn't do that kind of thing. It is more of a Brewer thing. However, I checked out the Lewis & Short Ox. Lat. Dict., and they also don't do phrases (unless they're idiom). Under lucus they have a single quotation from Quintillian, but it's not a propos: "Ennium sicut sacros vetustate lucos adoremus." Somewhere in this apartment, and it's anyone's guess where, I have the Ox. Class. Encycl. That would be a good choice, but I can't find it. In the absence of refutation, I'd trust Brewer. Geogre 20:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Geogre, but I should have trusted trusty old Google from the start, see message I just posted to PedanticallySpeaking. :-) I'll change the article tomorrow, I really, really will leave the computer just slightly earlier today/this morning (2:30 AM here). G'night, be well, feel better. --Bishonen 00:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• You should step away sooner. You were almost keeping my hours. Then again, I wish I kept better hours. A big part of my problem is not sleeping hardly at all. I'm really run down. I just wrote hylozoism because it's a meaty philosophy/theology thing, and I dig theology. I then checked to see what linked to it, and I saw it was linked by user:mporch. I wondered why he was linking to an article that didn't exist, so I went to his user page. After that, I figured I'd better watchlist the article right away. I can barely emote. Geogre 02:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Busybodying

Nice work with the Christian bios there, Geogre. I busybodied: I slapped a {{WaceBio}} reference template on Hrosvit. Is that OK? Go look see what you think. You used the Dictionary of Christian Biography for the article, right? I don't know if I was supposed to create a "References" section for the template reference or not (so I did). The Manual of Style isn't any too clear on layout. Anyway. I don't have any underhand plans for vandalising your other Christian bio articles the same way, that was just a sample, in case you want to do it yourself. I'm going to try to phone you right ... now.--Bishonen 17:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• No, I used the Ox. Dict. of Christian Church. However, I rewrote to the point where it's not derived, just a bibliographic entry. Anyway, that's why I don't attribute. Yeah, I'll get off line. Right.... now. Geogre 17:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Right... well, if you don't mind my saying so, honey, you're supposed to cite sources anyway. I mean, I realize nobody does, but you are. (I do.) Here it is: Wikipedia:Cite sources.--Bishonen 02:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Yes, but I don't care. I see no evidence that anyone cares. Go to New Pages some time. Watch the professional wrestler stubs roll in. Watch the hare brained conspiracy theories fly. Someone can fix it, I'm sure. When I do use my memory (e.g. "Trivia"), it's no better, since my memory is of reference works. I don't mind including a list of recommended reading titles, of course. Geogre 02:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• See, I went to write about the poem. Well, Trivia was taken by silly stuff. Fine, who cares? So I went to Trivia (goddess), and it was a redirect to Hecate. Hecate?! What the hell? I have never in my life heard anyone even make the mistake of confusing Trivia with Hecate. I recalled her as a minor deity, nearly one of those laertia, that just ran amock through Rome. I checked Lempriere, and it seems she's a spur of Artemis. So, I had to knock out the redirect to write the Trivia (goddess) article. Imagine how confused someone would be to type in "Trivia" and end up at Hecate. Fine. So then I have to write Trivia (poem). A reference book told me the year of publication. Found an e-text (although not a full one). I used to have an edition of Trivia by itself, but I sold it years ago, to my chagrin, because it's a great, great, great poem. Wrote it, but full of generalities. Meanwhile, band substubs have come chugging in on New Pages, followed by private jokes, etc. By the way, for what THE PLAIN PEOPLE OF THE NET think, look at that shitty Hecate article. Guess what it's about? Look and see. Geogre 02:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oscar Levertin

Hey, get a load of Oscar as painted by his buddy Carl! Neato! Now that would have taken me days to do. Weeks. What am I talking about, I could never have done it. I went read the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, and it made my hair stand on end. So I asked the Swedish Canard Enchainé, and he just, well, put the picture there. A copout, or should I just regard it as good practice in not "owning" Oscar? Yes, that's it. So, now to find a portrait of Elizabeth Barry... How about you? Got any cool woodcut or cave painting of Hrosvit there? --Bishonen 23:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Michael M. Krop High School

• Since you posted your DELETE vote in Dr. Michael M. Krop High School, I have improved the article substantially. Still working on it, but for now I would like you to check it out and hopefully change your vote to KEEP. Your help will be greatly appreciated.--AAAAA 01:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hecate

(The Plain People of Ireland, right?) It's enough to make cynics of us all. I remember with sadness how enthusiastic you were about the wiki encyclopedia idea when you first started editing here. Not that you didn't see the drawbacks then, I'm sure you did, but one wants to be optimistic about an idea like that, because if it did work well that would imply so many good and life-enhancing things. Ah well. :-( Wasn't Hecate involved in Macbeth, somehow? I think the witches invoke her, or whatever. --Bishonen 13:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Yeah, a Myles ref. So I looked at the History on that article, figuring that it all went horribly wrong somewhere, that there would be someone I could challenge for a source of "Trivia is Hecate," if nothing else. Well, the History is very long, and it is overladen with tweaks and tweaks and tweaks and tweaks, and pretty boxes, and categories. I.e. the nonsense started at the creation and was never checked or cleaned, despite the fact that there are people knowledgeable about Greek mythology around the joint, and they can't all be Wiccans. Yes, if there were any hierarchies at all here, it might be possible to make it work. As long as the whole body needs to approve of any hierarchies, the lumpen proletariat will vote "no." So it can't work. I knew this from the beginning, but I thought there was a top-down structure somewhere. There is, sort of. All it takes is abusing one's power and speedy deleting things that don't technically qualify. Geogre 13:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Hey, I tagged 1976 in politics for speedy, and somebody actually did speedy it! (Was that you?) I went look just now, when I saw your remark about abusing one's power, to recommend you to practise on that one, but it was already red. See Cleanup listing here. Cool! I didn't expect it, I didn't in fact think it did technically qualify, just that it would be terrible to waste VfD time and space on it. Hey, I just had this great idea: wouldn't it be cool to have an intermediate delete category for that kind of stuff? Sigh. --Bishonen 15:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Obviously not, Bishonen. Unless, of course, EVERYBODY GETS TO VOTE. Then it would be fair. Gee, you don't think the authors would vote to keep, do you? Well, nevermind. Nothing should be deleted anyway. No matter how awful, somebody else will fix it! Yee-haw! Write shit! Write the worst crap you can think of! Waste time and server space! Someone will fix it. Damn right, though, I plan to delete the deletable whether it is technically within bounds or not. After all, that's what the community wants when it rejects an attempt to have people delete things with due consideration. It wasn't me on that one, but I did a prank article earlier that someone else had missed. It was about a musician who performed at a club with all naked ex-NFL players. Someone Mike H missed that it was a joke and listed it on cleanup. Geogre 17:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)