This is archive 11. It's not archive 10.
Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. - brenneman (t) (c) 07:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear Geogre: I want to thank you very much for your support on my RfA - it is a great honour to be supported by one whom I respect so highly as yourself. I do hope I can live up to your kind words; I feel privileged to be thought of so highly by so many, including yourself. I promise to do my very best to ensure that I don't get burned out; I've learned to cope, I feel, much better than in times past, and I have found mediation as a niche for me to occupy to maintain working effectively on this project. It has been a pleasure conversing with you, and working with you on Wikipedia; I have always enjoyed your conversation on IRC, and consider it a great asset to count you amongst my many friends here on Wikipedia. Thank you again, and my very best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for informing you so late, but I've made the change you requested to the article. Could you have another look and decide if you want to change your vote before the FAC expires? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 13:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Huh? It's appropriate to threaten you, but not to write about Oliver's Army? That flatly contradicts what you said before. And what do you mean by the changes getting decency in music? I was under the impression that Cromwell was the one who created the New Model Army. Mary Whitehouse, a punk? Are you serious? Yeltensic42.618 20:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeltensic42.618 ( talk · contribs)
Do you have some information about this user (he left some messages on your talk page), I can't really figure out what that was about, I can't find any "threats". This user committed some pagemove vandalism, for which I blocked him, but it seems to have been provoked by a user who has now been banned himself. I have now reset his block to expire in 12 18 hours, but if you feel there's a valid reason you could unblock and reblock for longer. --
Curps 00:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
My initial block on him was indefinite, but I reduced it as mentioned above. He is claiming a friend of his was responsible for using his account. If you wish to block him longer, feel free to do so (but perhaps leave a message at his talk page about it, because I told him his block would last 18 more hours unless you or some other admin saw fit to extend it). -- Curps 01:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, what a lot to think about. In the unlikely event of my being elected to ArbCom, I would certainly want to address the whole question of what to do with admins who abuse their toolkit, and you've pushed me into trying to formulate more clearly to myself just how to do so. Why don't you run? You'd certainly get my vote. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Well both of you will/would have my vote. Re Geogre's not-a-candidate platform: wow2. Paul August ☎ 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
... needs attention. Doldrums 16:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on History of limerick. Check out the new section I wrote on the post war period in Limerick, I'd like to know your opinion. Seabhcán 13:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I read it every time I see you've changed it. I was trying to do something to mark your recent FAC activity, but all I've got is
Not great, can anyone do better? Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I could never resist a gauntlet.
Well I kinda strayed off topic there. Paul August ☎ 17:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't resist this stuff either.
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's one of mine
Aha. Well, if we don't have to stick to poetry (as poetry sticks to us), we have even more fun opportunities.
More to come. Geogre 13:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
How about this one:
On second thoughts, it'd never work. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Yu Gi Oh?" :-)
Ok, how about these:
Geogre 14:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I have another title, "He went side-away", something to do with lawmen and bandits, but I can't think what to do with it. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I know these aren't as good as yesterday's, but I was smarter yesterday than I am today. Geogre 09:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
How about
Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright! I like your "Hamlet" idea, so long as someone says "To be or not to be," because that's the important part of it. (Note: can we introduce some slings, arrows, and bare bodkins?) Geogre 09:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Let's see:
Geogre 09:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I think number two is too near to Mister Ed, in which a talking horse took it upon himself to bring all human knowledge to the world (deleting the bits he didn't like). It won a Tony award, as I recall.
Time to pick the project we want to pitch to the studios. My feeling is that our best bet would be an amalgam of "Eloisa or Abelard?" and "It went side-away" A castrated man goes on a series of dates with "hotties". He offers a single vellum sheet of poetry to the winners every week -- culminating in the presentation of a book with a ring in it. However, just as the winner is being chosen, it is revealed that the "castrated man" is actually a lesbian woman brought back from the dead by a special manchild and doomed to die again real soon. But the offended "hottie" is offered $1 million if she decides to go to Hades and marry her "Abelard" anyway. Theme music: "There's a fire down below". Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright, then, closer:
As for the personae who may or may not be implicated, my own barbs are intended for the public faces, not the private persons, as I regard my presence here to be an entire fiction and the presence of others to be the same. I am not here. I am only being traced in contour by the words that appear here, and the contour is only of the profile I choose to present. A spoof of it would, therefore, reflect it, and not me. I expect the same of others. Geogre 01:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
My pitch:
Paul August ☎ 04:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
These are poor, I know, but it is the weekend, and my brain wants to watch fooball all day. Geogre 13:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm in awe. That's another fully realized conceit. Two in a day is more than most metaphysical poets could hope for. How about,
Pathetic! I'm not cut out for this game, dammit. I know my Greek mythology very well, but my conceit machine isn't working in such detail. :-(
No.
No. dang!. Geogre 21:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm a relative wiki-virgin looking for a way to contact Geogre, who seems to have written most of the excellent Restoration Literature article. So I thought I'd give this page a shot.
I have a question about one very specific fact in the article: the Athenian Mercury article on "piss shiver." I like this enough that I want to look it up, but I can't find anywhere but Wikipedia that documents the "piss shiver" question. It's not mentioned in Gilbert McEwen's excellent book on the Mercury, for example. So where did this great tidbit come from, and do you have a citation for the original article?
Yes I, for one, do read Commonplace Book Ejecta, and there's a spelling mistake 'admiraction'. Greenleaf 01:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
There's been consensus for moving language families and languages to just language family for quite a while now (see talkpage), but no one has actually moved it yet. But I don't want to go through the unspeakably tedious hassle of requesting a move, because of all the pointless bureaucracy involved. Do you think you could do us the favor and move it?
Peter Isotalo 19:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Recently, in fact, I had to do a move like that with Charles Blount, which was a redirect to the Elizabethan figure. I needed to create a tiny article on the deist. Geogre 01:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
G'como and Fil and Geogre, and any others reading this (nudge, nudge), I'm sorry to be spamming, but I thought you might care to comment on this RfC. I wouldn't be bothering you if it wasn't for the skimpiness of the interest shown here. It's not a labyrinthine case, it's pretty much about one particular quarrel that went down yesterday, some of it on my talk page. I'm very much only suggesting you chip in if you've got the time and the interest, of course. NUDGE. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Is what this is. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't argue, please, just go look. That'll make you get well if anything can. Bishonen | talk 00:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
There's a very questionable recent edit by an anon at this page. I thought you'd be a good person to ascertain whether it's BS or not. - R. fiend 16:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
In this case, guess away, as I no longer recall writing that, and, unlike you, I haven't translated it. (I tried to do all of Troilus and Creseyde...required to, actually, and I wanted to gouge out my own eyes.... Can't understand why Bishonen likes it. It wasn't the ME that bothered me. It was the poem itself.) I need to look again and look back at whatever sources I used for the article to be sure. Change it at will. As for the Houhynhnms, I'm going to crack my own copy of GT to get the names right before going on to sketch out the "hard/soft" debate (are they ideals or horrors?). Geogre 01:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Bish, but that's just plain weird. Preferring it to Canterbury Tales? Wow. I'm speechless. I liked Shakespeare's T&C, but it took a year for anything to happen in Chaucer's. Even the jokes came in slow motion. Give me the bouncy bouncy of CT any day. (Better yet, leave me the Pearl Poet, and I'll shut up altogether.) (Oh, and see Haeleth's revision of Ormulum, below. It kicks ass.) Geogre 03:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I finally got round to looking at this properly. My aim was twofold: firstly to simplify the introduction radically, so people get an instant impression of what the thing's about, and secondly to remove various duplications of facts that had crept into your version.
But I'm afraid I got a bit carried away and ended up changing things round rather more than I'd intended to, and probably much more than you were expecting. So rather than make sweeping changes to what is, after all, already a rather good article, I've put my modified version up on User:Haeleth/Scratchpad. Comments welcome (and if you dislike the whole thing and would much rather I restricted myself to minor edits, just say so - I shan't be offended!) Haeleth 01:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
No, no, that was me! I was extrapolating from the B&S comment that it was "the first line of the Preface". And I've removed the claim not because I found it to be false, but because I can't confirm it (I won't be able to get my hands on a full edition for another two weeks, it turns out; I'm not sure it's worth waiting for such a minor detail). — Haeleth Talk 21:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Re readiness of Orm: nearly but not quite. I'm just going through fixing wikilinks (going straight to the correct St Paul and all that), and then I want to add that longer example of the "poetry" as well, but that will be everything. — Haeleth Talk 19:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I have been nominated for an adminship and I was wondering if I could get your vote. If you feel inclined, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alabamaboy and cast your "yes" or "not in a million years." Many thanks.-- Alabamaboy 02:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
True. I don't much care, if the purpose is to inform rather than lobby. After all, whether I vote for or against is up to me, and nothing could really pressure me, either way. Alabamaboy and I have had interactions in the past, so that's a good basis for contact, and I'm probably well known as one of those folks who checks RFA only sporadically. I hate to see contacting friendlies used as a reason to oppose, and, invariably, someone will do it. Geogre 02:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I was attempting a sort of wit there, I'm afraid. I was saying that he hasn't done much Wikipoliticking, which means he doesn't know not to contact folks about his RFA, but, on the other hand, it's good that he's not a politically-minded (read: squabbling, enemy and friend picking, policy-selectively-supporting) Wikipedian. Since I have been all over the political sides, I was sort of saying that it's a blessing as much as it's a drawback to have an RFA nominee who isn't coming to the process from some vicious debate or IRC chat session. Geogre 15:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
If you can get it through FAC, I shall hold a manic orgy on my page for the team. Giano | talk 13:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Geogre!
I see you registered your opinion that my restoration of Able and Baker was out of process. Before I made this choice, I read the instructions regarding WP:DRV, and in a box under the "Purpose"-section I read:
Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless:
The decision I made was based on the exception in the last point, it was not a spur of the moment decision or a use/abuse of WP:IAR. I can assure you that nobody, Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner or David Gerard, tried contacting or pressuring me in any way here either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Good lord, Romance (genre) spends most of its time talking about sagas, and then lists Roman de la Rose as a romance. I think I'm going to cry.
Articuli multi, uita breuis... is there a medieval literature Wikiproject somewhere?
There certainly are people to defend Havelok, believe it or not. Well, Sands compares it favourably with King Horn, anyway. I don't know if you'd count that as praising it! — Haeleth Talk 12:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in and doing the decent thing on my vote for speedy deletion on Atomic Cosmos. Just a note, the talk page is still active, with a charming racial slur on it. Could you pull the Wiki trigger on that as well please, or does it happen automatically in the course of time? Also, while I'm here, what do you make of Rise of the Reds? I'm sorely tempted to Vfd it, but I'm giving the users there a chance to justify themselves first. Am I being too kind? Cheers Coyote-37 08:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Mgm| (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've written a basic little article, just to get rid of the last red link from Ormulum; I was wondering if you'd be prepared to give it a glance over for sanity (and maybe see if you can think of anything else to say)? — Haeleth Talk 00:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Probably so, although it's also one of those titles that Joyce uses with such historical awareness that it's hard to know what to say about it. E.g. I've always been told that Joyce "imitates" Geoffrey of Monmouth at one point in Ulysses. I'm not sure that he does. However, these things all mean something very definite there (and a manual of conscience means a lot to Stephen). Geogre 10:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Mail! -- Bishonen | talk 18:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 01:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This is forged. What is being read here is not what is written. The moving finger moves on, and the fickled finger of fate points.
Yeah, I understand people put poetry on your page, or write it, or whatever. Anyway. Here's a little extract to cheer you up.
Salve, Geogre!
Just wanted you to know that you're not the only one with an article severly cut by
User:Iago Dali. See my
Dana Gioia and the discussion
here.
PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
How's tricks, are you teaching? You don't have time to come to IRC for a natter, I suppose? Bishonen | talk 20:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have done a rewrite to avoid copyvio issues. Please have a look. Thanks. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Yup, yup. OED definition: "The theory that matter is endowed with life, or that life is merely a property of matter." First use: Ralph Cudworth, The true intellectual system of the universe (1678). I. iii. §1. 105: "Hylozoism...makes all Body, as such, and therefore every smallest Atom of it, to have Life Essentially belonging to it."
I know I've been slow in saying this, but thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was an honor to be both nominated and approved as an admin. If there is ever any adminish (is that a word :-) things you need help with, please let me know. -- Alabamaboy 16:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
A particularly subjective and unresolvable question is whether William and Mary belongs.
It is the most venerable of the bunch, literally has ivy on its walls, and is academically very, very distinguished... but it is a public school, whereas the real Ivy League schools are private.
It seems to me that [insert region here] Ivy ought to imply, not merely academic excellence, but the possession of other Ivy League characteristics. An Ivy ought to be a couple of centuries old; private; have social prestige (which could be determined objectively by counting schools attended by people listed in The Social Register); have historical involvement in the U.S. power structure (did any U. S. Presidents attend Rutgers?); have historical origins as mens' schools; and, of course, be selective in admissions with regard to lineage as well as pure scholastic ability.
One would never refer to MIT as any kind of "ivy," although they tell me it's a pretty fair school and has ivy growing on the walls of its East Campus dormitories.
I personally don't think we should have any "XYZ Ivies" articles unless they can be referenced to an objective list, such as an athletic conference or a book like "Public Ivies," or to a famous speech like Jesuit Ivy. By the way, take a gander at the bletcherous long paragraph in Public Ivies, the one enumerating the ways in which they surpass the Ivy League. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Geogre! Regarding the way people like to refer to a particular page when voting on schools, it comes from following point 4 here. My contribution to that page was making the argument for merging section. It seems that is the view which has least support for some reason, but every time I have merged a school article, nobody has reverted it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
... if you get a chance could you please have a look at the last enormous sentence of this: Middle_English#Literary_and_Linguistic_Cultures -- I made an attempt to fix it, but I'm not sure what the original writer was trying to say, especially considering that the original prose has been turned into sausage by dozens of anonymous edits. It's a bit outside of my area of expertise. Cheers! Hope all is going well for you. Antandrus (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Geogre, I happened to notice your conversation with Filiocht about Arbcom, reminding me that elections are approaching. This got me thinking, do you know of anyone be particularly well-qualified who is running, or should be encouraged to run? Last time I just picked the 5 or 6 people I was pretty sure I didn't want to be on the committee, and voted for everyone else (textbook voting against rather than for). Of course, now there are some people on it who I really don't think should be, even though I technically voted for them. I'd really like to have at least one or two people who I feel I see eye to eye on. You seem to be uninterested, though I'm sure you'd have quite a bit of support. Anyone we could draft? I actually don't interact with people as much as perhaps I should (especially for someone who's been here nearly 20 months) so I'm lacking some of the interaction necessary to know many people well enough. Anyone you reccommend would certainly carry weight with me. Well, send any thoughts/ideas my way. - R. fiend 23:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The article Contact Consequences is being cleaned up, and it is'nt a hoax,etc. at all, or the clean-up task force would'nt mess w/ it. Will you reconsider your vote ? Martial Law 08:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Could you please revisit the discussion, read my comments there and consider changing your vote?
I think two reasons used to delete this are faulty:
Thanks for your attention. - Mgm| (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Geogre, face it buddy, you're a deletionist and there is nothing more to it.
Happy deleting!
(Even the guy above agrees.)
I was planning on putting an afd delete on this list, considering its just a replica of the List of Jewish publishers but with an even more obscure profession. I need some support before putting up the notice though. 72.144.136.150 03:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
We see eye to eye. I put it up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers 72.144.161.73 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you did not close out the speedy delete you performed on Harry Baughman's AfD. I did it for you this time, but please remember to in the future. Just a reminder! :-) WikiFanatic 03:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
To add insult to injury - this is closed out now, too. (By the way, my favorite days are the "fixing to be bold" ones.)
brenneman
(t)
(c) 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:POINT requires disruptive behavior. Functionally raising the bar on Comcat AFD nomiations is not disruptive. I welcome a user conduct RFC on the matter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The issue is much simpler than that. Any vote without reasoning pertaining to the article should be stricken. This would include "delete" and "keep" votes without rationale as well as votes that refer to some broad urge or personal issue. I don't mean just "the closer shouldn't consider them": I mean they should be struck through, just as nonce accounts should be. Geogre 00:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, well, I'm not going to be agreeing with Tony. All I'm saying is that a vote without rationale should have a strike-through. It would still be legible, therefore. As for "delete per nominator" and "delete per Geogre" or "keep per Kappa," that would be fine, if the nominator, I, or Kappa had actually delivered a rationale. If the nominator is doing what ComCat does, then probably not. If the nominator is saying, "Original research," then yes. My point is that each and every vote should have a rationale, but every rationale should pertain to the deletion guidelines eventually (e.g. I will do something like, "A rambling, incoherent, and pointless essay. Original research" -- despite the insults and general feelings, I do give a deletion guideline rationale). Geogre 10:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Even if he gets it right? I'm now going to explicitly praise/scorn participants who demonstrate thoughtfull/thoughtless AfD behavior... thanks for the food for thought. - brenneman (t) (c) 11:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, let me be clear that "poorly reasoned" is nothing I want to touch. Once we get to that, we have just more contention. As for which I would count, above, "vanity" and "fancruft" are both referential votes, which I urge folks not to do. "WP:NOT" could be a valid vote if, prior to that, there had been an explicit reference to the article violating NOT in one specific way or another, but it, too, is a referential vote. I have said on AfD and would say in neon letters, if possible, "don't vote in reference to some other web page on meta. Even if it means typing until our fingers fall off, state your reasoning." I would count those three and urge the voters to state their reasoning rather than refer to principles found elsewhere. ("Cruft" is a meaningless term. In votes, it means "too granular and not individually significant." My version of it is, "Topic is known only to those already involved in [Project], and therefore it will not be sought by others; information is stranded from the well-known search term by being split off like this.") However, "notable" is not a reason to keep -- especially if, as we are told quite often, "notability is not a reason to delete." Liking or disliking an article (incl. "crap") is not a reason to keep or delete, either. Finally, there is no presumption that all articles are admissable unless specifically proven to be inadmissable, so "I see no reason to get rid of this" may be the worst reasoning of them all (or its relative, "It does no harm"): the subject of Wikipedia is supposed to be "online encyclopedia," not "online democracy" or "online self-expression." In a sense, each article must meet a burden of proof in order to have the right to exist, to use up our server resources.
Anyway, I think it would be a bad idea to count those votes. The reason is that it validates non-voting. It validates vote floods from nonce accounts and "kiddie" voters (people who vote like kiddies, no matter their ages). More to the point, it passes onto our servers an article that hasn't established its case, hasn't established its bona fides. It might be wise to relist the vote, with strike-through code on the insufficient votes, and say, "Consensus impossible, as there were no fully formed votes." Let folks see that they need to do more to have their votes count, I guess. Best to do it at the end of the process than while the vote is underway. I guess. Geogre 10:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Geogre, this is in gratitude for all your work on Wikipedia. I was quite shocked when you said, some time ago, that Scimi's barnstar was the first one you'd ever received. That's a sin, really, considering your contribs. So I went and had a look at the charmingly-named BS page, trying to decide on a good one, and settled on this. I waited until I had a good pretext, and there is one now—Peterborough just made the front page :). So here you go, Geogre, a little something for so much. encephalon 10:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
For your selfless efforts on behalf of the encyclopedia, I award you this Merge And Redirect, or, Geogre On New Pages Patrol Award, in the form of a representation of Charlton Heston fixing to be bold. -- Bishonen| talk 23:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to dismiss the value of our maps, just to remind the gentle reader is that what is mapped pre-exists and has value. And to remind the less gentle author that they should beware of claiming too much for their own particular brand of cartography. Maybe the ideal poem would consist of multiple maps, multiple viewpoints. And it should say something about the state of the world rather than retreat into G. Hill verbiage for its own sake. That poetry is about something, and that there is something for it to be about summarises my position, with the caveat that the something may be more subtle than "pen is to me as gun is to terrorist" or "daddy bad, nazi bad, daddy = nazi".
The idea of you as a plainclothes Jesuit is interesting. You know the Thatcherite rewriting of the old SJ slogan, "Give me the boy at seven, and I'll give you a clean chimney at half past"? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Would you be able to take a look at Every Man in His Humour and Every Man out of His Humour? I created them a few months ago in hopes that someone who had actually read the play would come along and expand it into a proper article, but no one has. Can you help? Thanks, NatusRoma 21:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Did you notice that the anon at Talk:Aphra Behn has created an account, and posted another message, mostly for you? If you have the time, please go make nice! (She's new, and edits hesitantly (and deleted part of my message).) Bishonen | talk 20:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
This is archive 11. It's not archive 10.
Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. - brenneman (t) (c) 07:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Dear Geogre: I want to thank you very much for your support on my RfA - it is a great honour to be supported by one whom I respect so highly as yourself. I do hope I can live up to your kind words; I feel privileged to be thought of so highly by so many, including yourself. I promise to do my very best to ensure that I don't get burned out; I've learned to cope, I feel, much better than in times past, and I have found mediation as a niche for me to occupy to maintain working effectively on this project. It has been a pleasure conversing with you, and working with you on Wikipedia; I have always enjoyed your conversation on IRC, and consider it a great asset to count you amongst my many friends here on Wikipedia. Thank you again, and my very best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for informing you so late, but I've made the change you requested to the article. Could you have another look and decide if you want to change your vote before the FAC expires? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 13:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Huh? It's appropriate to threaten you, but not to write about Oliver's Army? That flatly contradicts what you said before. And what do you mean by the changes getting decency in music? I was under the impression that Cromwell was the one who created the New Model Army. Mary Whitehouse, a punk? Are you serious? Yeltensic42.618 20:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeltensic42.618 ( talk · contribs)
Do you have some information about this user (he left some messages on your talk page), I can't really figure out what that was about, I can't find any "threats". This user committed some pagemove vandalism, for which I blocked him, but it seems to have been provoked by a user who has now been banned himself. I have now reset his block to expire in 12 18 hours, but if you feel there's a valid reason you could unblock and reblock for longer. --
Curps 00:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
My initial block on him was indefinite, but I reduced it as mentioned above. He is claiming a friend of his was responsible for using his account. If you wish to block him longer, feel free to do so (but perhaps leave a message at his talk page about it, because I told him his block would last 18 more hours unless you or some other admin saw fit to extend it). -- Curps 01:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, what a lot to think about. In the unlikely event of my being elected to ArbCom, I would certainly want to address the whole question of what to do with admins who abuse their toolkit, and you've pushed me into trying to formulate more clearly to myself just how to do so. Why don't you run? You'd certainly get my vote. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Well both of you will/would have my vote. Re Geogre's not-a-candidate platform: wow2. Paul August ☎ 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
... needs attention. Doldrums 16:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on History of limerick. Check out the new section I wrote on the post war period in Limerick, I'd like to know your opinion. Seabhcán 13:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I read it every time I see you've changed it. I was trying to do something to mark your recent FAC activity, but all I've got is
Not great, can anyone do better? Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I could never resist a gauntlet.
Well I kinda strayed off topic there. Paul August ☎ 17:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't resist this stuff either.
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's one of mine
Aha. Well, if we don't have to stick to poetry (as poetry sticks to us), we have even more fun opportunities.
More to come. Geogre 13:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
How about this one:
On second thoughts, it'd never work. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Yu Gi Oh?" :-)
Ok, how about these:
Geogre 14:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I have another title, "He went side-away", something to do with lawmen and bandits, but I can't think what to do with it. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I know these aren't as good as yesterday's, but I was smarter yesterday than I am today. Geogre 09:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
How about
Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright! I like your "Hamlet" idea, so long as someone says "To be or not to be," because that's the important part of it. (Note: can we introduce some slings, arrows, and bare bodkins?) Geogre 09:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Let's see:
Geogre 09:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I think number two is too near to Mister Ed, in which a talking horse took it upon himself to bring all human knowledge to the world (deleting the bits he didn't like). It won a Tony award, as I recall.
Time to pick the project we want to pitch to the studios. My feeling is that our best bet would be an amalgam of "Eloisa or Abelard?" and "It went side-away" A castrated man goes on a series of dates with "hotties". He offers a single vellum sheet of poetry to the winners every week -- culminating in the presentation of a book with a ring in it. However, just as the winner is being chosen, it is revealed that the "castrated man" is actually a lesbian woman brought back from the dead by a special manchild and doomed to die again real soon. But the offended "hottie" is offered $1 million if she decides to go to Hades and marry her "Abelard" anyway. Theme music: "There's a fire down below". Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright, then, closer:
As for the personae who may or may not be implicated, my own barbs are intended for the public faces, not the private persons, as I regard my presence here to be an entire fiction and the presence of others to be the same. I am not here. I am only being traced in contour by the words that appear here, and the contour is only of the profile I choose to present. A spoof of it would, therefore, reflect it, and not me. I expect the same of others. Geogre 01:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
My pitch:
Paul August ☎ 04:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
These are poor, I know, but it is the weekend, and my brain wants to watch fooball all day. Geogre 13:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm in awe. That's another fully realized conceit. Two in a day is more than most metaphysical poets could hope for. How about,
Pathetic! I'm not cut out for this game, dammit. I know my Greek mythology very well, but my conceit machine isn't working in such detail. :-(
No.
No. dang!. Geogre 21:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm a relative wiki-virgin looking for a way to contact Geogre, who seems to have written most of the excellent Restoration Literature article. So I thought I'd give this page a shot.
I have a question about one very specific fact in the article: the Athenian Mercury article on "piss shiver." I like this enough that I want to look it up, but I can't find anywhere but Wikipedia that documents the "piss shiver" question. It's not mentioned in Gilbert McEwen's excellent book on the Mercury, for example. So where did this great tidbit come from, and do you have a citation for the original article?
Yes I, for one, do read Commonplace Book Ejecta, and there's a spelling mistake 'admiraction'. Greenleaf 01:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
There's been consensus for moving language families and languages to just language family for quite a while now (see talkpage), but no one has actually moved it yet. But I don't want to go through the unspeakably tedious hassle of requesting a move, because of all the pointless bureaucracy involved. Do you think you could do us the favor and move it?
Peter Isotalo 19:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Recently, in fact, I had to do a move like that with Charles Blount, which was a redirect to the Elizabethan figure. I needed to create a tiny article on the deist. Geogre 01:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
G'como and Fil and Geogre, and any others reading this (nudge, nudge), I'm sorry to be spamming, but I thought you might care to comment on this RfC. I wouldn't be bothering you if it wasn't for the skimpiness of the interest shown here. It's not a labyrinthine case, it's pretty much about one particular quarrel that went down yesterday, some of it on my talk page. I'm very much only suggesting you chip in if you've got the time and the interest, of course. NUDGE. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Is what this is. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't argue, please, just go look. That'll make you get well if anything can. Bishonen | talk 00:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
There's a very questionable recent edit by an anon at this page. I thought you'd be a good person to ascertain whether it's BS or not. - R. fiend 16:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
In this case, guess away, as I no longer recall writing that, and, unlike you, I haven't translated it. (I tried to do all of Troilus and Creseyde...required to, actually, and I wanted to gouge out my own eyes.... Can't understand why Bishonen likes it. It wasn't the ME that bothered me. It was the poem itself.) I need to look again and look back at whatever sources I used for the article to be sure. Change it at will. As for the Houhynhnms, I'm going to crack my own copy of GT to get the names right before going on to sketch out the "hard/soft" debate (are they ideals or horrors?). Geogre 01:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Bish, but that's just plain weird. Preferring it to Canterbury Tales? Wow. I'm speechless. I liked Shakespeare's T&C, but it took a year for anything to happen in Chaucer's. Even the jokes came in slow motion. Give me the bouncy bouncy of CT any day. (Better yet, leave me the Pearl Poet, and I'll shut up altogether.) (Oh, and see Haeleth's revision of Ormulum, below. It kicks ass.) Geogre 03:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I finally got round to looking at this properly. My aim was twofold: firstly to simplify the introduction radically, so people get an instant impression of what the thing's about, and secondly to remove various duplications of facts that had crept into your version.
But I'm afraid I got a bit carried away and ended up changing things round rather more than I'd intended to, and probably much more than you were expecting. So rather than make sweeping changes to what is, after all, already a rather good article, I've put my modified version up on User:Haeleth/Scratchpad. Comments welcome (and if you dislike the whole thing and would much rather I restricted myself to minor edits, just say so - I shan't be offended!) Haeleth 01:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
No, no, that was me! I was extrapolating from the B&S comment that it was "the first line of the Preface". And I've removed the claim not because I found it to be false, but because I can't confirm it (I won't be able to get my hands on a full edition for another two weeks, it turns out; I'm not sure it's worth waiting for such a minor detail). — Haeleth Talk 21:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Re readiness of Orm: nearly but not quite. I'm just going through fixing wikilinks (going straight to the correct St Paul and all that), and then I want to add that longer example of the "poetry" as well, but that will be everything. — Haeleth Talk 19:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I have been nominated for an adminship and I was wondering if I could get your vote. If you feel inclined, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alabamaboy and cast your "yes" or "not in a million years." Many thanks.-- Alabamaboy 02:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
True. I don't much care, if the purpose is to inform rather than lobby. After all, whether I vote for or against is up to me, and nothing could really pressure me, either way. Alabamaboy and I have had interactions in the past, so that's a good basis for contact, and I'm probably well known as one of those folks who checks RFA only sporadically. I hate to see contacting friendlies used as a reason to oppose, and, invariably, someone will do it. Geogre 02:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I was attempting a sort of wit there, I'm afraid. I was saying that he hasn't done much Wikipoliticking, which means he doesn't know not to contact folks about his RFA, but, on the other hand, it's good that he's not a politically-minded (read: squabbling, enemy and friend picking, policy-selectively-supporting) Wikipedian. Since I have been all over the political sides, I was sort of saying that it's a blessing as much as it's a drawback to have an RFA nominee who isn't coming to the process from some vicious debate or IRC chat session. Geogre 15:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
If you can get it through FAC, I shall hold a manic orgy on my page for the team. Giano | talk 13:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Geogre!
I see you registered your opinion that my restoration of Able and Baker was out of process. Before I made this choice, I read the instructions regarding WP:DRV, and in a box under the "Purpose"-section I read:
Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless:
The decision I made was based on the exception in the last point, it was not a spur of the moment decision or a use/abuse of WP:IAR. I can assure you that nobody, Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner or David Gerard, tried contacting or pressuring me in any way here either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Good lord, Romance (genre) spends most of its time talking about sagas, and then lists Roman de la Rose as a romance. I think I'm going to cry.
Articuli multi, uita breuis... is there a medieval literature Wikiproject somewhere?
There certainly are people to defend Havelok, believe it or not. Well, Sands compares it favourably with King Horn, anyway. I don't know if you'd count that as praising it! — Haeleth Talk 12:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in and doing the decent thing on my vote for speedy deletion on Atomic Cosmos. Just a note, the talk page is still active, with a charming racial slur on it. Could you pull the Wiki trigger on that as well please, or does it happen automatically in the course of time? Also, while I'm here, what do you make of Rise of the Reds? I'm sorely tempted to Vfd it, but I'm giving the users there a chance to justify themselves first. Am I being too kind? Cheers Coyote-37 08:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Mgm| (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've written a basic little article, just to get rid of the last red link from Ormulum; I was wondering if you'd be prepared to give it a glance over for sanity (and maybe see if you can think of anything else to say)? — Haeleth Talk 00:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Probably so, although it's also one of those titles that Joyce uses with such historical awareness that it's hard to know what to say about it. E.g. I've always been told that Joyce "imitates" Geoffrey of Monmouth at one point in Ulysses. I'm not sure that he does. However, these things all mean something very definite there (and a manual of conscience means a lot to Stephen). Geogre 10:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Mail! -- Bishonen | talk 18:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 01:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This is forged. What is being read here is not what is written. The moving finger moves on, and the fickled finger of fate points.
Yeah, I understand people put poetry on your page, or write it, or whatever. Anyway. Here's a little extract to cheer you up.
Salve, Geogre!
Just wanted you to know that you're not the only one with an article severly cut by
User:Iago Dali. See my
Dana Gioia and the discussion
here.
PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
How's tricks, are you teaching? You don't have time to come to IRC for a natter, I suppose? Bishonen | talk 20:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have done a rewrite to avoid copyvio issues. Please have a look. Thanks. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Yup, yup. OED definition: "The theory that matter is endowed with life, or that life is merely a property of matter." First use: Ralph Cudworth, The true intellectual system of the universe (1678). I. iii. §1. 105: "Hylozoism...makes all Body, as such, and therefore every smallest Atom of it, to have Life Essentially belonging to it."
I know I've been slow in saying this, but thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was an honor to be both nominated and approved as an admin. If there is ever any adminish (is that a word :-) things you need help with, please let me know. -- Alabamaboy 16:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
A particularly subjective and unresolvable question is whether William and Mary belongs.
It is the most venerable of the bunch, literally has ivy on its walls, and is academically very, very distinguished... but it is a public school, whereas the real Ivy League schools are private.
It seems to me that [insert region here] Ivy ought to imply, not merely academic excellence, but the possession of other Ivy League characteristics. An Ivy ought to be a couple of centuries old; private; have social prestige (which could be determined objectively by counting schools attended by people listed in The Social Register); have historical involvement in the U.S. power structure (did any U. S. Presidents attend Rutgers?); have historical origins as mens' schools; and, of course, be selective in admissions with regard to lineage as well as pure scholastic ability.
One would never refer to MIT as any kind of "ivy," although they tell me it's a pretty fair school and has ivy growing on the walls of its East Campus dormitories.
I personally don't think we should have any "XYZ Ivies" articles unless they can be referenced to an objective list, such as an athletic conference or a book like "Public Ivies," or to a famous speech like Jesuit Ivy. By the way, take a gander at the bletcherous long paragraph in Public Ivies, the one enumerating the ways in which they surpass the Ivy League. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Geogre! Regarding the way people like to refer to a particular page when voting on schools, it comes from following point 4 here. My contribution to that page was making the argument for merging section. It seems that is the view which has least support for some reason, but every time I have merged a school article, nobody has reverted it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
... if you get a chance could you please have a look at the last enormous sentence of this: Middle_English#Literary_and_Linguistic_Cultures -- I made an attempt to fix it, but I'm not sure what the original writer was trying to say, especially considering that the original prose has been turned into sausage by dozens of anonymous edits. It's a bit outside of my area of expertise. Cheers! Hope all is going well for you. Antandrus (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Geogre, I happened to notice your conversation with Filiocht about Arbcom, reminding me that elections are approaching. This got me thinking, do you know of anyone be particularly well-qualified who is running, or should be encouraged to run? Last time I just picked the 5 or 6 people I was pretty sure I didn't want to be on the committee, and voted for everyone else (textbook voting against rather than for). Of course, now there are some people on it who I really don't think should be, even though I technically voted for them. I'd really like to have at least one or two people who I feel I see eye to eye on. You seem to be uninterested, though I'm sure you'd have quite a bit of support. Anyone we could draft? I actually don't interact with people as much as perhaps I should (especially for someone who's been here nearly 20 months) so I'm lacking some of the interaction necessary to know many people well enough. Anyone you reccommend would certainly carry weight with me. Well, send any thoughts/ideas my way. - R. fiend 23:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The article Contact Consequences is being cleaned up, and it is'nt a hoax,etc. at all, or the clean-up task force would'nt mess w/ it. Will you reconsider your vote ? Martial Law 08:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Could you please revisit the discussion, read my comments there and consider changing your vote?
I think two reasons used to delete this are faulty:
Thanks for your attention. - Mgm| (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Geogre, face it buddy, you're a deletionist and there is nothing more to it.
Happy deleting!
(Even the guy above agrees.)
I was planning on putting an afd delete on this list, considering its just a replica of the List of Jewish publishers but with an even more obscure profession. I need some support before putting up the notice though. 72.144.136.150 03:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
We see eye to eye. I put it up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers 72.144.161.73 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you did not close out the speedy delete you performed on Harry Baughman's AfD. I did it for you this time, but please remember to in the future. Just a reminder! :-) WikiFanatic 03:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
To add insult to injury - this is closed out now, too. (By the way, my favorite days are the "fixing to be bold" ones.)
brenneman
(t)
(c) 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:POINT requires disruptive behavior. Functionally raising the bar on Comcat AFD nomiations is not disruptive. I welcome a user conduct RFC on the matter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The issue is much simpler than that. Any vote without reasoning pertaining to the article should be stricken. This would include "delete" and "keep" votes without rationale as well as votes that refer to some broad urge or personal issue. I don't mean just "the closer shouldn't consider them": I mean they should be struck through, just as nonce accounts should be. Geogre 00:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, well, I'm not going to be agreeing with Tony. All I'm saying is that a vote without rationale should have a strike-through. It would still be legible, therefore. As for "delete per nominator" and "delete per Geogre" or "keep per Kappa," that would be fine, if the nominator, I, or Kappa had actually delivered a rationale. If the nominator is doing what ComCat does, then probably not. If the nominator is saying, "Original research," then yes. My point is that each and every vote should have a rationale, but every rationale should pertain to the deletion guidelines eventually (e.g. I will do something like, "A rambling, incoherent, and pointless essay. Original research" -- despite the insults and general feelings, I do give a deletion guideline rationale). Geogre 10:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Even if he gets it right? I'm now going to explicitly praise/scorn participants who demonstrate thoughtfull/thoughtless AfD behavior... thanks for the food for thought. - brenneman (t) (c) 11:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, let me be clear that "poorly reasoned" is nothing I want to touch. Once we get to that, we have just more contention. As for which I would count, above, "vanity" and "fancruft" are both referential votes, which I urge folks not to do. "WP:NOT" could be a valid vote if, prior to that, there had been an explicit reference to the article violating NOT in one specific way or another, but it, too, is a referential vote. I have said on AfD and would say in neon letters, if possible, "don't vote in reference to some other web page on meta. Even if it means typing until our fingers fall off, state your reasoning." I would count those three and urge the voters to state their reasoning rather than refer to principles found elsewhere. ("Cruft" is a meaningless term. In votes, it means "too granular and not individually significant." My version of it is, "Topic is known only to those already involved in [Project], and therefore it will not be sought by others; information is stranded from the well-known search term by being split off like this.") However, "notable" is not a reason to keep -- especially if, as we are told quite often, "notability is not a reason to delete." Liking or disliking an article (incl. "crap") is not a reason to keep or delete, either. Finally, there is no presumption that all articles are admissable unless specifically proven to be inadmissable, so "I see no reason to get rid of this" may be the worst reasoning of them all (or its relative, "It does no harm"): the subject of Wikipedia is supposed to be "online encyclopedia," not "online democracy" or "online self-expression." In a sense, each article must meet a burden of proof in order to have the right to exist, to use up our server resources.
Anyway, I think it would be a bad idea to count those votes. The reason is that it validates non-voting. It validates vote floods from nonce accounts and "kiddie" voters (people who vote like kiddies, no matter their ages). More to the point, it passes onto our servers an article that hasn't established its case, hasn't established its bona fides. It might be wise to relist the vote, with strike-through code on the insufficient votes, and say, "Consensus impossible, as there were no fully formed votes." Let folks see that they need to do more to have their votes count, I guess. Best to do it at the end of the process than while the vote is underway. I guess. Geogre 10:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Geogre, this is in gratitude for all your work on Wikipedia. I was quite shocked when you said, some time ago, that Scimi's barnstar was the first one you'd ever received. That's a sin, really, considering your contribs. So I went and had a look at the charmingly-named BS page, trying to decide on a good one, and settled on this. I waited until I had a good pretext, and there is one now—Peterborough just made the front page :). So here you go, Geogre, a little something for so much. encephalon 10:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
For your selfless efforts on behalf of the encyclopedia, I award you this Merge And Redirect, or, Geogre On New Pages Patrol Award, in the form of a representation of Charlton Heston fixing to be bold. -- Bishonen| talk 23:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to dismiss the value of our maps, just to remind the gentle reader is that what is mapped pre-exists and has value. And to remind the less gentle author that they should beware of claiming too much for their own particular brand of cartography. Maybe the ideal poem would consist of multiple maps, multiple viewpoints. And it should say something about the state of the world rather than retreat into G. Hill verbiage for its own sake. That poetry is about something, and that there is something for it to be about summarises my position, with the caveat that the something may be more subtle than "pen is to me as gun is to terrorist" or "daddy bad, nazi bad, daddy = nazi".
The idea of you as a plainclothes Jesuit is interesting. You know the Thatcherite rewriting of the old SJ slogan, "Give me the boy at seven, and I'll give you a clean chimney at half past"? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Would you be able to take a look at Every Man in His Humour and Every Man out of His Humour? I created them a few months ago in hopes that someone who had actually read the play would come along and expand it into a proper article, but no one has. Can you help? Thanks, NatusRoma 21:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Did you notice that the anon at Talk:Aphra Behn has created an account, and posted another message, mostly for you? If you have the time, please go make nice! (She's new, and edits hesitantly (and deleted part of my message).) Bishonen | talk 20:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)