Don't ask, because I'm not asking. It's just that I don't need it, and it doesn't need me. It isn't benefiting me, and whatever benefit I give is too little to overcome my distaste.
I have removed that vile banner, as I don't approve of strikes - smacks of Bolshevism and Arthur Scargill (revolting little man) - Geoge I am surprised at you, even making allowances for your "transatlantic" blood - this is dissapointing. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Paul August ☎ 13:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Come back Geogre, Bishonen's getting all schoolmistressy again! -- Joopercoopers 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Albeit with a grimace and scowl, I am returning. I can't promise a long fuse. Here is the question I have for people: Did you agree to work for ThatPerson or ThisPerson? I have a job already. If I'm volunteering my labor here, it's for the world at large, not a boss. Geogre 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright! Geogre is back! Welcome home, sir! --
SGT
Tex 21:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
;-) Paul August ☎ 01:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Suppose an editor with 100 edits in 6 months goes up for RFA and that editor says that his only desire is to get around autoblocks and see deleted content. Now, what would that suggest to you? Who needs to get around autoblocks? AOL users do, of course, if they have little choice in ISP (as once I did). Who else? Who needs to read deleted articles? What would be in them that would be worth knowing? These seem like rational questions we would ask ourselves, don't they? They seem like questions that the candidate would even anticipate and offer to answer. I search and search for a benevolent explanation, but I come up empty. Geogre 21:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
My question was not entirely innocent, of course, but neither was it a request for anyone who looks at deleted content to defend their actions. I look at deleted articles as well. As one component of an admin's work, it's perfectly normal. With no aspersions cast, I'm not sure that DRV is really a great reason for going to become an admin. It seems that we have something broken with that page (either its scope or its mechanisms) if only admins can participate. The critical thing in my question is the first part: a user with 100 edits in months. This seems to discount much of the rest, as it doesn't look like that hypothetical user would be participating in deliberative pages. It's the whole picture that looks very odd. Geogre 10:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, man, this is funny. Gives a whole new dimension to the term "vanity page." The only reason I didn't speedy it is the Sheik claims he wrote two (ahem) books (ahem). Going by the history, my PROD is likely to be contested. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC).
![]() | The current Anglicanism collaboration effort is St. Luke's Church (Smithfield, Virginia) Voting for the next collaboration is going on now. ( Vote here) |
Wassupwestcoast 02:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Just dropping by again, and glad to see you are back (should the strike notice still be there?). I was wondering if I could ask for advice on two articles I've picked out from those I've got most involved in, as they are the ones I would like to try and improve still further: Serge Voronoff (though most of this was by others) and Astronomische Nachrichten (the other ones, Ptolemy (name), La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial and Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture have less potential for expansion, and two of those are oddballs anyway). I guess my question comes down to whether effort is best expended on working further on those two articles I initially named, or on expanding and improving stubs and start articles. It might seem a bit of a strange question, but any general advice, or advice on the specific articles, or pointers as to where to get good advice, would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth 10:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. To address some of the issues you raised - I think looking back it was perhaps unhelpful that I reminded that user of the civility policy on the talk page. It was a mistake. However, I dispute your claim that because of that one edit I am "overtly interested in mandatory "civility" on talk pages" - as the edit has not been repeated. I do agree with you, however, that I should not have made as many comments in edit histories as I have in the past. I think my most recent edits show that I have completely stopped doing so, however I can easily see the rationale behind the argument that it has not been long enough that I have stopped. And, lastly, as to the private conversations comment - two users raised the issue of private conversations about the GA article. I am sorry to say that I do not see why the private conversation I had with Piotrus was somehow detrimental to the GA review, and I also am not aware of any policy that dictates that any private conversation is detrimental, however I will try and avoid these discussion per your bringing the issue up, as in no way do I intend to disgruntle any user and if that means I have to change my communication ways then so be it. Again, thank you for the feedback and hopefully if I ever decide to run again I will have improved enough to gain your support! Thanks again!-- daniel folsom 22:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, I am choosing to contact you since you sometimes write in most complex and beautiful English of all Wikipedians that I know. Could you please do me a favor and decode this message I received from one fellow? I am lost as to what he could possibly mean and he did not elaborate upon my request. Cheers, -- Irpen 03:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Bah. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
Losing badly, of course. Haukur 23:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Lord, yes! If it hadn't been for your giving me that link, I might have formed an unfavorable opinion of Betacommand! Thank you for spreading sweetness and light and making everything better. I now see that he hasn't been sanctioned by ArbCom! I now see that his -bot hasn't been reported repeatedly on AN and AN/I! I now see that he doesn't rely on IRC to form opinions! Yes, yes, it's all terribly clear now, and I was simply not being civil for thinking him one of the shabbier folks around. Now, since I was on my own talk page, talking to someone, and expressing a considered opinion after much experience and not going to his talk page to provoke any conversation with him at all, I can't fairly see how any part of that cited policy applies... but, then again, I've only read the stinking thing. That, I'm sure, isn't anything as good as citing it. Oh, and do come along again any time to instruct me on policies that I had a hand in. I'm looking forward to more correction, but not for a few days. I still have to be sure to understand the profundity of that last one. (I don't suppose you've heard of not throwing alphabet soup at experienced users?) Now, this is all I'm planning to say to you. You weren't part of the conversation and won't be part of the future conversation, so you actually have no rationale for hectoring. Geogre 02:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of something I've said elsewhere. Jonathan Swift reminds us that the ancient Greeks would allow a satirist to name any particular bad actor, as it was a public service to do so, but they expressly forbade generalized attacks on cities or classes of person or, worst of all, mankind itself, as that could never do any good and could only provoke rancor. The facile and amazingly pompous accusation of "incivility" is precisely the sort of thing that cannot do any good. First, it tries to say that another person being "incivil" (the word should be "uncivil") is an excuse for its own finger wagging. Second, it throws "civility" around as if it were the paramount crime, when, in fact, there are times for drawing a hard line against specific individuals who are doing things that specifically harm the site, and "civility" must never, ever be understood as "politeness" or "niceness." Third, "civility" is an action of cooperation or lack of cooperation in action, not a comment that is either appropriate for the drawing room or the toilet. Saying, "cocksucker" is not uncivil. It is indecorous. Saying, "Jimmy is a cocksucker" is not uncivil. It is insulting. Now, refusing to work with people, showing oneself to be antisocial in editing, pushing a monomania on others, or insisting on a homogeneous form is uncivil, because each of those is an action in respect to social action. It is, in other quite literal words, failing to behave within the civitas, the citizenship. I regard it as both proper and useful to single out the people who are being uncivil by the use of -bots, by selective deafness, by pushing their visions over the rest of the community. I regard it as uncivil to try to suppress the manner of expression of people for being merely impolite. Geogre 02:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen |
talk 00:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC).
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
Small collection here. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC).
There should be a total ban on any user rebuking another for being incivil to himself. It is always counterproductive.-- Docg 13:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're both right. The more you do, the more likely you are to get accused of something, and the more likely you are to actually be brusque, rude, hostile, or the dreaded "incivil" to some person by someone's standards. The more article edits you have, the more they get monkeyed with. Now, half of the edits are indifferent. A quarter are obvious reverts. A quarter are idiotic or malicious or based on some asshatted project. One needs to know the subject to write the article, and then one needs to care to bother to do it, and then you are supposed to be flaccid and indifferent? No. If you were worth the bytes in the first place, you're going to have to say something. That is inevitably not cooperative, and the facile and nefarious will no doubt, very soon, call it "incivil." The more you write, the more exposed, and the more you have to watch out for and the more likely you are that some dork will holler and some over zealous "vandal hunter" will fly to AN/I. It's about worthless. Geogre 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi George! Thanks for peeking in over at Purgatory-- we could use all the eyeballs can get.
The question of the days is-- New Version an improvement on the Old Version, or would it be best to roll back to the old version? I like the new, but of course, I'm biased. :)
And then, how can we improve the article even more? Any advice greatly appreciated. -- Alecmconroy 13:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I believe your deletion of the article Joe Thompson is unjustified. The article passes WP:BIO as the subject has played in a fully professional league. Thanks, Mattythewhite ( talk) 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The rationale for both was A1. The articles had no content. "X played sports" is not an article. Articles should be biographies or at least career biographies. Stating merely, "This guy played a season" is neither of those. I stand by my decision, and, had there been content at either location, I certainly wouldn't have deleted. At this point, however, we have armies of little sporting substubs that would never stand were there not a community dedicated to the sports. Imagine painter articles that said, "Bob Roberts was a painter for a year." It's practically unthinkable, and yet, "Bob Roberts played cricket in two matches" is an article? Again, no objections to recreation with content, but article space should not be used for single lines that could be held in simple tables. Geogre ( talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If you have to ask why: it is per private e-mail request from the user. I trust no one will challenge that. Geogre ( talk) 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you deleted the article for William Again. I understand that it had neither context (A1) nor an indication of importance (A7); however I'd like to ask for its reinstatement because:
If you'd undelete the article, I would gladly add in this information so that it shows both context and notability. (Theoretically I could recreate the article myself, but as I'll use the deleted text as the foundation for my edits, I feel it would be useful to preserve the edit history.)
-- KittyRainbow ( talk) 15:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
PS: I suspect that some of the other Just William articles might also need a similar bit of expansion. I'll fix these up too quite happily.
"It's really, really, really, really obvious. There isn't a controversy. Administrators are not special people. We do not rule. We do not get to cite Franz Kafka as our founder. I don't care what they do elsewhere: it is the death of democracy and the death of the project and the whole demotic mess that is Wikipedia to have Star Chamber prosecutions and executions."
You have my highest regards. Sorry it doesn't mean more. If you weren't such a noble abberation, this would be a far finer place. sNkrSnee | t.p. 04:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The archivebot at ANI will put away the section that contains the subpage link if you add a comment with a timestamp. I am assuming you don't want to archive that discussion yet. :-) If you want to comment in that section, please use three tildes instead of four. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 18:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you'd find time to look over Hubert-François Gravelot for any egregious gaffes and lacunae. -- Wetman ( talk) 03:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I just couldn't seem to help myself. sNkrSnee | t.p. 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I got your message (via edit summary) re the changes I made to Prance's article. I think there is one thing you are taking for granted, which is the New Advent (Catholic Encyclopaedia) site's neutrality. That site is clearly not a neutral site and fact tagging questionable or removing inflammatory items is allowed and, should be encouraged, on Wikipedia. I did delete the (fl 1678) on the first line b/c I don;t know what it means. Sorry, I should have checked it first. Bearing in mind the above, with a mind to not make wholesale reversions to prior edits when by your own admission "some of the changes are fine", I am going to re-edit. Please peruse and let me know what you think.
Thanks, Chow mein, hold the MSG ( talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Geogre. Not sure if you noticed, but this edit was to an archived page, so I'm not sure how many people will see it. I saw it on my watchlist, so maybe others did as well. Carcharoth ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Your edit summary here: [11]. How is this not to be taken as bullying? There's no, zero, nada, zip requirement at Wikipedia I register before I edit. 64.237.4.140 ( talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This edit summary and this "warning" are out of line. It isn't ok to make threats to IPs that would not be acceptable to logged-in editors...especially since the material you re-inserted has stuff in it that clearly is inappropraite for Wikipedia. Guettarda ( talk) 21:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
why did you remove the wikify template from Hylozoism? the article direly needs style editing — Kymacpherson ( talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm speechless. Which in my case is saying something. This currently has five of the required six rubber-stamps, I presume you are aware. Is there no recourse?
CygnetSaIad (
talk) 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, will you share your "strike" banner from the top of your page? I have a feeling if this passes, quite a few of us would like to borrow it...-- SGT Tex 02:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
...and just to make sure !! stays down...[ [12]] and [ [13]]. Class. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm posting this now because I could be banned when I return later today and here because I expect they will delight in blanking my page so you may not see it. At 1 am this morning I looked into Wikipedia and saw Tony Sidaway and others manically posting rubbishing and vilifying me at every thread and response and thought "Giacomo what are you doing with this lot?" I have just looked in and seen !! being attacked and thought "FGS what the fuck are they doing to this project?" I had a flying lesson at 9 this morning in a helicopter, its something I've always wanted to do and decided if I don't do it now it will be too late in a few years time ( I recommend it to everyone) hovering above the fields of Dorset I thought what a beautiful world, I'm so lucky and it really put Wikipedia into perspective. If I am banned, which looks likely, don't all cut off your noses to spite your faces by leaving, or causing massive disruption. You enjoy being here (some of the time anyway!) but don't ever get so wrapped up in it that you need it. The world is a beautiful place. Anyway, let's look on the bright side - I shall never have to wear one of Durova's peculiar crown awards. Now, don't all go and get yourselves into trouble. Please. Giano ( talk) 12:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think striking is the way to go. Whilst I disagree with the way arbcom are handling this, and frustration is quite understandable, we really can't have a situation where arbcom remedies are influenced by the number of FAs someone has written or, worse, how influential their friends are as writers. Threats cannot be appeased in any meaningful community. That way lies elitism, double-standards, and the stranglehold of vested contributors. Anyway, talk of people leaving is always hollow. Good editors are content-addicts and fortunately will always come back: bad ones are drama-addicts and will unfortunately always come back. Wiki-meltdowns, and large exoduses, are like the apocalypse - perennially prophesied but with no actual eschaton arriving. Anyone remember badlydrawnjeff, userboxes, pedophile cases, or Daniel bloody Brandt? Armageddon came and went, and we are still here.
As for arbcom, I'm not without some sympathy. They are in another damn wiki-box, and this one of their own making. My suspicion is a feeling (growing over a number of cases) that "something must be done" has erupted into a desire to do "something", even when that "something" will not produce any useful result. Hearts are ruling heads. My remedy is for arbcom to sit in a circle, hold hands, and sing my favourite didactic nursery verse.-- Docg 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My point was not who came back - my point is that, in the larger scale of things, it didn't matter. The wiki is so big now. - Doc
See this at the top of every page "Put your money where your mind is, not where we tell you to" - wonderful, you can put your money there just not your mouth! Giano 13:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I just posted this at user talk:WJBscribe, and I don't want to volunteer anyone else's page for threaded thoughts, if any of you have any.
I'm a strong adherent to the idea of many of our mistakes have occurred because we never address the issue of quorum. I can branch out with this criticism a number of ways, but I think one place it is clear is with RFA. Having just been too involved in one of the great knock down shouting matches in recent memory ("Durovagate"), and consequently not following your RfB properly, I'll first congratulate you and then explain what I meant.
The "RFA is broken" phenomenon occurs because 1) "bad" people get promoted, 2) "good" people don't. These are separate matters, as some folks complain because of disappointment, others outrage. No one can fix that, because we will never agree on the bad or the good. However, what I find more common, as an old timer now in the midst of a giant project, is that more and more people are blundering about with their bits. They may be nice, not nice, well intentioned, or shadowy agents of dark powers, for all I know, but when I look at their RFA's, I see that, aside from being recent, they seem to always be sparsely voted.
Badlydrawnjeff and I probably never agreed on a single article. He wanted all of them revived and preserved, and I think all but the most highly polished are wastes of space. I'm an extreme elitist in that regard, and he was an extreme inclusionist. Because he was passionate, he argued his position, generally well, always consistently. He also had nearly a year, it seemed, of demonstrating calm and, when not calm, of staying within the lines proscribed by policy. He always favored more discussion, less bullying. I was surprised at how well he managed to be as passionate as possible and yet stay clear of policy violations. I voted against his first RFA and voted for his second. If you know my deletionism and his inclusionism, you'll see that that really is saying something about how well he impressed me with his character and his restraint. I knew that I was voting for an admin who would oppose me at nearly every turn but agree with me that we work by open rules. However, he had had a year of vociferous argument.
His RFA #2 generated hundreds and hundreds of votes, incredible amounts of pettiness, and lots of threatening.
On the other hand, I can look over at some recent RFA's that have passed, and they have a total of 34 votes. Such was user:ChrisTheDude. I have no opinion of said dude. He may be the finest admin since Wile E. Heresiarch or Secret London, or he may be as troublesome as Everyking. I don't know. Apparently, no one else did, either. I know he's newish. Because he is new, and because he has done nothing substantial, he has had few views. In other words, he has not, almost de facto, demonstrated sufficient experience with the project due to having done so little to draw comment. RFA as it is now, with no quorum, promotes milquetoasts and the newbie over the passionate, involved, and experienced.
We've all heard the "if I had to go through RFA today, I'd fail" sentiment (or "if you had to go through..."). In fact, ArbCom tacitly acknowledged that when it moved the goalposts on Carnildo. If being active, engaged, and experienced means giant vote totals and being passive, particular, and new means low ones, then the only way to be sure that the same standard is at work throughout is to have some form of quorum.
I feel very uncertain about any admin with 40 votes, total. Such a person may turn out to be fine, but I rather suspect it's easier for the shadowy BADPEOPLE that Durova and others worry about to get themselves to such a position by bland gnomery with low vote counts than it would be if we had quorum.
When I passed, it was 35:1:2, and it was one of the busiest RFA's in ages. If we had a requisite 100 total votes (neutral is not a vote), we might at least be sure to filter out the new users and those who are doing so little as to have gotten no notice.
Anyway, such are my Thoughts upon this matter. Geogre 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (Another one of "The Fifteen Thoughts of Chairman Geogre")
Hey, Geogre, I need help with a question, and you're more of an expert on poetry than I am. I'm trying to find the right poet named Jones, who wrote a poem about a retired soldier feeling useless, getting drunk, that sort of thing. It was translated into Slovenian and made into a song by Lačni Franz, called "Stari Vojak"="Old Soldier". I've seen one place claim that his initial was "J", but I'm not really sure. Any idea who I might be talking about? Zocky | picture popups 14:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hooray! The virtues of Wikipedia assert themselves again. Thank you Hal (middle initial wouldn't be I., would it? no relation to Respi Peridol?); this is why Wikipedia is still worth doing. Geogre 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
For both of you, if Hal Peridol is still looking in, or for you, Zocky, here is a link to the poem/lyric. And here is a link to the song in the movie via YouTube. You're right that the original is a 16-bar blues structure, so the adaptation is interesting. Geogre 10:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant and wise, you are; with a hint and a pinch of humor thrown in to help the most youthful of readers to ascertain what in the world is being discussed herein at any one time. You help to make Wikipedia a beacon of light, rather than a cesspool of “social norms.” ( Mind you, social norms are not right or good, they are just norms.) To default to a mean or mediocre is really quite sad, don't you know? Indeed, thank you for your wisdom and for being… Nice 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't ask, because I'm not asking. It's just that I don't need it, and it doesn't need me. It isn't benefiting me, and whatever benefit I give is too little to overcome my distaste.
I have removed that vile banner, as I don't approve of strikes - smacks of Bolshevism and Arthur Scargill (revolting little man) - Geoge I am surprised at you, even making allowances for your "transatlantic" blood - this is dissapointing. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Paul August ☎ 13:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Come back Geogre, Bishonen's getting all schoolmistressy again! -- Joopercoopers 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Albeit with a grimace and scowl, I am returning. I can't promise a long fuse. Here is the question I have for people: Did you agree to work for ThatPerson or ThisPerson? I have a job already. If I'm volunteering my labor here, it's for the world at large, not a boss. Geogre 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright! Geogre is back! Welcome home, sir! --
SGT
Tex 21:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
;-) Paul August ☎ 01:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Suppose an editor with 100 edits in 6 months goes up for RFA and that editor says that his only desire is to get around autoblocks and see deleted content. Now, what would that suggest to you? Who needs to get around autoblocks? AOL users do, of course, if they have little choice in ISP (as once I did). Who else? Who needs to read deleted articles? What would be in them that would be worth knowing? These seem like rational questions we would ask ourselves, don't they? They seem like questions that the candidate would even anticipate and offer to answer. I search and search for a benevolent explanation, but I come up empty. Geogre 21:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
My question was not entirely innocent, of course, but neither was it a request for anyone who looks at deleted content to defend their actions. I look at deleted articles as well. As one component of an admin's work, it's perfectly normal. With no aspersions cast, I'm not sure that DRV is really a great reason for going to become an admin. It seems that we have something broken with that page (either its scope or its mechanisms) if only admins can participate. The critical thing in my question is the first part: a user with 100 edits in months. This seems to discount much of the rest, as it doesn't look like that hypothetical user would be participating in deliberative pages. It's the whole picture that looks very odd. Geogre 10:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, man, this is funny. Gives a whole new dimension to the term "vanity page." The only reason I didn't speedy it is the Sheik claims he wrote two (ahem) books (ahem). Going by the history, my PROD is likely to be contested. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC).
![]() | The current Anglicanism collaboration effort is St. Luke's Church (Smithfield, Virginia) Voting for the next collaboration is going on now. ( Vote here) |
Wassupwestcoast 02:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Just dropping by again, and glad to see you are back (should the strike notice still be there?). I was wondering if I could ask for advice on two articles I've picked out from those I've got most involved in, as they are the ones I would like to try and improve still further: Serge Voronoff (though most of this was by others) and Astronomische Nachrichten (the other ones, Ptolemy (name), La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial and Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture have less potential for expansion, and two of those are oddballs anyway). I guess my question comes down to whether effort is best expended on working further on those two articles I initially named, or on expanding and improving stubs and start articles. It might seem a bit of a strange question, but any general advice, or advice on the specific articles, or pointers as to where to get good advice, would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth 10:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. To address some of the issues you raised - I think looking back it was perhaps unhelpful that I reminded that user of the civility policy on the talk page. It was a mistake. However, I dispute your claim that because of that one edit I am "overtly interested in mandatory "civility" on talk pages" - as the edit has not been repeated. I do agree with you, however, that I should not have made as many comments in edit histories as I have in the past. I think my most recent edits show that I have completely stopped doing so, however I can easily see the rationale behind the argument that it has not been long enough that I have stopped. And, lastly, as to the private conversations comment - two users raised the issue of private conversations about the GA article. I am sorry to say that I do not see why the private conversation I had with Piotrus was somehow detrimental to the GA review, and I also am not aware of any policy that dictates that any private conversation is detrimental, however I will try and avoid these discussion per your bringing the issue up, as in no way do I intend to disgruntle any user and if that means I have to change my communication ways then so be it. Again, thank you for the feedback and hopefully if I ever decide to run again I will have improved enough to gain your support! Thanks again!-- daniel folsom 22:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, I am choosing to contact you since you sometimes write in most complex and beautiful English of all Wikipedians that I know. Could you please do me a favor and decode this message I received from one fellow? I am lost as to what he could possibly mean and he did not elaborate upon my request. Cheers, -- Irpen 03:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Bah. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
Losing badly, of course. Haukur 23:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Lord, yes! If it hadn't been for your giving me that link, I might have formed an unfavorable opinion of Betacommand! Thank you for spreading sweetness and light and making everything better. I now see that he hasn't been sanctioned by ArbCom! I now see that his -bot hasn't been reported repeatedly on AN and AN/I! I now see that he doesn't rely on IRC to form opinions! Yes, yes, it's all terribly clear now, and I was simply not being civil for thinking him one of the shabbier folks around. Now, since I was on my own talk page, talking to someone, and expressing a considered opinion after much experience and not going to his talk page to provoke any conversation with him at all, I can't fairly see how any part of that cited policy applies... but, then again, I've only read the stinking thing. That, I'm sure, isn't anything as good as citing it. Oh, and do come along again any time to instruct me on policies that I had a hand in. I'm looking forward to more correction, but not for a few days. I still have to be sure to understand the profundity of that last one. (I don't suppose you've heard of not throwing alphabet soup at experienced users?) Now, this is all I'm planning to say to you. You weren't part of the conversation and won't be part of the future conversation, so you actually have no rationale for hectoring. Geogre 02:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of something I've said elsewhere. Jonathan Swift reminds us that the ancient Greeks would allow a satirist to name any particular bad actor, as it was a public service to do so, but they expressly forbade generalized attacks on cities or classes of person or, worst of all, mankind itself, as that could never do any good and could only provoke rancor. The facile and amazingly pompous accusation of "incivility" is precisely the sort of thing that cannot do any good. First, it tries to say that another person being "incivil" (the word should be "uncivil") is an excuse for its own finger wagging. Second, it throws "civility" around as if it were the paramount crime, when, in fact, there are times for drawing a hard line against specific individuals who are doing things that specifically harm the site, and "civility" must never, ever be understood as "politeness" or "niceness." Third, "civility" is an action of cooperation or lack of cooperation in action, not a comment that is either appropriate for the drawing room or the toilet. Saying, "cocksucker" is not uncivil. It is indecorous. Saying, "Jimmy is a cocksucker" is not uncivil. It is insulting. Now, refusing to work with people, showing oneself to be antisocial in editing, pushing a monomania on others, or insisting on a homogeneous form is uncivil, because each of those is an action in respect to social action. It is, in other quite literal words, failing to behave within the civitas, the citizenship. I regard it as both proper and useful to single out the people who are being uncivil by the use of -bots, by selective deafness, by pushing their visions over the rest of the community. I regard it as uncivil to try to suppress the manner of expression of people for being merely impolite. Geogre 02:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen |
talk 00:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC).
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
Small collection here. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC).
There should be a total ban on any user rebuking another for being incivil to himself. It is always counterproductive.-- Docg 13:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're both right. The more you do, the more likely you are to get accused of something, and the more likely you are to actually be brusque, rude, hostile, or the dreaded "incivil" to some person by someone's standards. The more article edits you have, the more they get monkeyed with. Now, half of the edits are indifferent. A quarter are obvious reverts. A quarter are idiotic or malicious or based on some asshatted project. One needs to know the subject to write the article, and then one needs to care to bother to do it, and then you are supposed to be flaccid and indifferent? No. If you were worth the bytes in the first place, you're going to have to say something. That is inevitably not cooperative, and the facile and nefarious will no doubt, very soon, call it "incivil." The more you write, the more exposed, and the more you have to watch out for and the more likely you are that some dork will holler and some over zealous "vandal hunter" will fly to AN/I. It's about worthless. Geogre 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi George! Thanks for peeking in over at Purgatory-- we could use all the eyeballs can get.
The question of the days is-- New Version an improvement on the Old Version, or would it be best to roll back to the old version? I like the new, but of course, I'm biased. :)
And then, how can we improve the article even more? Any advice greatly appreciated. -- Alecmconroy 13:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I believe your deletion of the article Joe Thompson is unjustified. The article passes WP:BIO as the subject has played in a fully professional league. Thanks, Mattythewhite ( talk) 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The rationale for both was A1. The articles had no content. "X played sports" is not an article. Articles should be biographies or at least career biographies. Stating merely, "This guy played a season" is neither of those. I stand by my decision, and, had there been content at either location, I certainly wouldn't have deleted. At this point, however, we have armies of little sporting substubs that would never stand were there not a community dedicated to the sports. Imagine painter articles that said, "Bob Roberts was a painter for a year." It's practically unthinkable, and yet, "Bob Roberts played cricket in two matches" is an article? Again, no objections to recreation with content, but article space should not be used for single lines that could be held in simple tables. Geogre ( talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If you have to ask why: it is per private e-mail request from the user. I trust no one will challenge that. Geogre ( talk) 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you deleted the article for William Again. I understand that it had neither context (A1) nor an indication of importance (A7); however I'd like to ask for its reinstatement because:
If you'd undelete the article, I would gladly add in this information so that it shows both context and notability. (Theoretically I could recreate the article myself, but as I'll use the deleted text as the foundation for my edits, I feel it would be useful to preserve the edit history.)
-- KittyRainbow ( talk) 15:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
PS: I suspect that some of the other Just William articles might also need a similar bit of expansion. I'll fix these up too quite happily.
"It's really, really, really, really obvious. There isn't a controversy. Administrators are not special people. We do not rule. We do not get to cite Franz Kafka as our founder. I don't care what they do elsewhere: it is the death of democracy and the death of the project and the whole demotic mess that is Wikipedia to have Star Chamber prosecutions and executions."
You have my highest regards. Sorry it doesn't mean more. If you weren't such a noble abberation, this would be a far finer place. sNkrSnee | t.p. 04:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The archivebot at ANI will put away the section that contains the subpage link if you add a comment with a timestamp. I am assuming you don't want to archive that discussion yet. :-) If you want to comment in that section, please use three tildes instead of four. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 18:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you'd find time to look over Hubert-François Gravelot for any egregious gaffes and lacunae. -- Wetman ( talk) 03:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I just couldn't seem to help myself. sNkrSnee | t.p. 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I got your message (via edit summary) re the changes I made to Prance's article. I think there is one thing you are taking for granted, which is the New Advent (Catholic Encyclopaedia) site's neutrality. That site is clearly not a neutral site and fact tagging questionable or removing inflammatory items is allowed and, should be encouraged, on Wikipedia. I did delete the (fl 1678) on the first line b/c I don;t know what it means. Sorry, I should have checked it first. Bearing in mind the above, with a mind to not make wholesale reversions to prior edits when by your own admission "some of the changes are fine", I am going to re-edit. Please peruse and let me know what you think.
Thanks, Chow mein, hold the MSG ( talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Geogre. Not sure if you noticed, but this edit was to an archived page, so I'm not sure how many people will see it. I saw it on my watchlist, so maybe others did as well. Carcharoth ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Your edit summary here: [11]. How is this not to be taken as bullying? There's no, zero, nada, zip requirement at Wikipedia I register before I edit. 64.237.4.140 ( talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This edit summary and this "warning" are out of line. It isn't ok to make threats to IPs that would not be acceptable to logged-in editors...especially since the material you re-inserted has stuff in it that clearly is inappropraite for Wikipedia. Guettarda ( talk) 21:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
why did you remove the wikify template from Hylozoism? the article direly needs style editing — Kymacpherson ( talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm speechless. Which in my case is saying something. This currently has five of the required six rubber-stamps, I presume you are aware. Is there no recourse?
CygnetSaIad (
talk) 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, will you share your "strike" banner from the top of your page? I have a feeling if this passes, quite a few of us would like to borrow it...-- SGT Tex 02:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
...and just to make sure !! stays down...[ [12]] and [ [13]]. Class. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm posting this now because I could be banned when I return later today and here because I expect they will delight in blanking my page so you may not see it. At 1 am this morning I looked into Wikipedia and saw Tony Sidaway and others manically posting rubbishing and vilifying me at every thread and response and thought "Giacomo what are you doing with this lot?" I have just looked in and seen !! being attacked and thought "FGS what the fuck are they doing to this project?" I had a flying lesson at 9 this morning in a helicopter, its something I've always wanted to do and decided if I don't do it now it will be too late in a few years time ( I recommend it to everyone) hovering above the fields of Dorset I thought what a beautiful world, I'm so lucky and it really put Wikipedia into perspective. If I am banned, which looks likely, don't all cut off your noses to spite your faces by leaving, or causing massive disruption. You enjoy being here (some of the time anyway!) but don't ever get so wrapped up in it that you need it. The world is a beautiful place. Anyway, let's look on the bright side - I shall never have to wear one of Durova's peculiar crown awards. Now, don't all go and get yourselves into trouble. Please. Giano ( talk) 12:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think striking is the way to go. Whilst I disagree with the way arbcom are handling this, and frustration is quite understandable, we really can't have a situation where arbcom remedies are influenced by the number of FAs someone has written or, worse, how influential their friends are as writers. Threats cannot be appeased in any meaningful community. That way lies elitism, double-standards, and the stranglehold of vested contributors. Anyway, talk of people leaving is always hollow. Good editors are content-addicts and fortunately will always come back: bad ones are drama-addicts and will unfortunately always come back. Wiki-meltdowns, and large exoduses, are like the apocalypse - perennially prophesied but with no actual eschaton arriving. Anyone remember badlydrawnjeff, userboxes, pedophile cases, or Daniel bloody Brandt? Armageddon came and went, and we are still here.
As for arbcom, I'm not without some sympathy. They are in another damn wiki-box, and this one of their own making. My suspicion is a feeling (growing over a number of cases) that "something must be done" has erupted into a desire to do "something", even when that "something" will not produce any useful result. Hearts are ruling heads. My remedy is for arbcom to sit in a circle, hold hands, and sing my favourite didactic nursery verse.-- Docg 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My point was not who came back - my point is that, in the larger scale of things, it didn't matter. The wiki is so big now. - Doc
See this at the top of every page "Put your money where your mind is, not where we tell you to" - wonderful, you can put your money there just not your mouth! Giano 13:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I just posted this at user talk:WJBscribe, and I don't want to volunteer anyone else's page for threaded thoughts, if any of you have any.
I'm a strong adherent to the idea of many of our mistakes have occurred because we never address the issue of quorum. I can branch out with this criticism a number of ways, but I think one place it is clear is with RFA. Having just been too involved in one of the great knock down shouting matches in recent memory ("Durovagate"), and consequently not following your RfB properly, I'll first congratulate you and then explain what I meant.
The "RFA is broken" phenomenon occurs because 1) "bad" people get promoted, 2) "good" people don't. These are separate matters, as some folks complain because of disappointment, others outrage. No one can fix that, because we will never agree on the bad or the good. However, what I find more common, as an old timer now in the midst of a giant project, is that more and more people are blundering about with their bits. They may be nice, not nice, well intentioned, or shadowy agents of dark powers, for all I know, but when I look at their RFA's, I see that, aside from being recent, they seem to always be sparsely voted.
Badlydrawnjeff and I probably never agreed on a single article. He wanted all of them revived and preserved, and I think all but the most highly polished are wastes of space. I'm an extreme elitist in that regard, and he was an extreme inclusionist. Because he was passionate, he argued his position, generally well, always consistently. He also had nearly a year, it seemed, of demonstrating calm and, when not calm, of staying within the lines proscribed by policy. He always favored more discussion, less bullying. I was surprised at how well he managed to be as passionate as possible and yet stay clear of policy violations. I voted against his first RFA and voted for his second. If you know my deletionism and his inclusionism, you'll see that that really is saying something about how well he impressed me with his character and his restraint. I knew that I was voting for an admin who would oppose me at nearly every turn but agree with me that we work by open rules. However, he had had a year of vociferous argument.
His RFA #2 generated hundreds and hundreds of votes, incredible amounts of pettiness, and lots of threatening.
On the other hand, I can look over at some recent RFA's that have passed, and they have a total of 34 votes. Such was user:ChrisTheDude. I have no opinion of said dude. He may be the finest admin since Wile E. Heresiarch or Secret London, or he may be as troublesome as Everyking. I don't know. Apparently, no one else did, either. I know he's newish. Because he is new, and because he has done nothing substantial, he has had few views. In other words, he has not, almost de facto, demonstrated sufficient experience with the project due to having done so little to draw comment. RFA as it is now, with no quorum, promotes milquetoasts and the newbie over the passionate, involved, and experienced.
We've all heard the "if I had to go through RFA today, I'd fail" sentiment (or "if you had to go through..."). In fact, ArbCom tacitly acknowledged that when it moved the goalposts on Carnildo. If being active, engaged, and experienced means giant vote totals and being passive, particular, and new means low ones, then the only way to be sure that the same standard is at work throughout is to have some form of quorum.
I feel very uncertain about any admin with 40 votes, total. Such a person may turn out to be fine, but I rather suspect it's easier for the shadowy BADPEOPLE that Durova and others worry about to get themselves to such a position by bland gnomery with low vote counts than it would be if we had quorum.
When I passed, it was 35:1:2, and it was one of the busiest RFA's in ages. If we had a requisite 100 total votes (neutral is not a vote), we might at least be sure to filter out the new users and those who are doing so little as to have gotten no notice.
Anyway, such are my Thoughts upon this matter. Geogre 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (Another one of "The Fifteen Thoughts of Chairman Geogre")
Hey, Geogre, I need help with a question, and you're more of an expert on poetry than I am. I'm trying to find the right poet named Jones, who wrote a poem about a retired soldier feeling useless, getting drunk, that sort of thing. It was translated into Slovenian and made into a song by Lačni Franz, called "Stari Vojak"="Old Soldier". I've seen one place claim that his initial was "J", but I'm not really sure. Any idea who I might be talking about? Zocky | picture popups 14:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hooray! The virtues of Wikipedia assert themselves again. Thank you Hal (middle initial wouldn't be I., would it? no relation to Respi Peridol?); this is why Wikipedia is still worth doing. Geogre 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
For both of you, if Hal Peridol is still looking in, or for you, Zocky, here is a link to the poem/lyric. And here is a link to the song in the movie via YouTube. You're right that the original is a 16-bar blues structure, so the adaptation is interesting. Geogre 10:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant and wise, you are; with a hint and a pinch of humor thrown in to help the most youthful of readers to ascertain what in the world is being discussed herein at any one time. You help to make Wikipedia a beacon of light, rather than a cesspool of “social norms.” ( Mind you, social norms are not right or good, they are just norms.) To default to a mean or mediocre is really quite sad, don't you know? Indeed, thank you for your wisdom and for being… Nice 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)