January 6 - Feb. 7, 2006
As a nation I don't think it wise for yours (in the form of you!) to discuss the "velour track suit", here [1] I will just say to you Roma and Milano, should you wish me to be to be more precise Versace, Gucci and Prada. I'm sure there are some very clever people indeed in North America designing some very "colourful" garments, (does anyone wear them?) and I wonder why they haven't exported them here - Oh : "Levi you say?" - well think Armani. I look forward to you correction very soon and govelling, yes very grovelling - puddle drinkingly apology on the talk page. Oh yes I forgot - Happy Christmas - I assume you do celebrate the holy season in those unfashionably nothern parts? Furious of Palermo
Ok not only can't Geogre count, apparently he has a hard time reading as well (perhaps its a Southren thang). Any way just to set the record straight, "dilly" is the only kind of "dallying" this Paul has done recently. Paul August ☎ 18:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what you people are talking about, but it do sounds like you're not being productive. I'm going to have to step in and demand you all go back to editing. This is what you are here for. We have assigned time-wasting as a separate task to more qualified people. Let's trim our talk pages in accordance with the Wikipedian lifestyle. JRM · Talk 08:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Me, that is. Is it perhaps a doubleplusungood idea to dare ArbCom to raise the level of sanction? But seriously, I just cannot give a flying fig anymore. I tried to be patiant, I tried to maintain a sense of homour. I took a little break and came back feeling nice, did some actual article space work. But this is a joke, and this is obscene. - brenneman (t) (c) 23:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Not sure if you want the Christmas Eve Featured article promotional message I've crafted (the red one) here on your talkpage; do you? Shall I put it on? Merry Christmas, honey! Bishonen | talk 01:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course he want's it - he loves it, I've decided to award Geogre one of my personal limited edition Christmas cards.
Cool! I wanted a bicycle for Christmas. Now I'm Geogre on Wheels! Geogre 12:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Holiday greetings to my favorite "reactionary foamer" Paul August ☎ 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
'Oh! MY Goodness! I am flabbergasted. I'm glad that he came to the conclusion that I'm not a reactionary foamer (one wonders...right or left wing? I didn't know socialists were "reactionaries"), but I am left puzzled at what I had said that led him to make the assumption in the first place. Well, at any rate, it turned into a nice left-handed compliment. I don't know why, though, folks think that somehow we're against web comics or for them or anything else. I think most of us are just quite upset at going straight from "I'm ticked" to RFar, with none of the procedurally mandated steps between, and then ArbCom doing the inexplicable and accepting the case. Geogre 18:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You may not be a reactionary, but admit it, you can foam with the best of them. Oh and has Foamer eaten Giano's little doggie? Paul August ☎ 22:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok I stand corrected, "thundered" is more apt. (A new epithet, "Zeus Ogre?") By the way, as I look back and forth between Foamer and doggie, I'm noticing a striking resemblance. Is it possible that Foamer is really some kind of an Ovidian Metamorphosis of Little Doggie? Am I just imagining the beginnings of a rabid gleam in Doggie's eyes? and the first frothings of foam on Doggie's tongue? And now I see of course, those are Foamer's actual ears not just red earflaps on the Santa's hat. Now I'm convinced, Foamer is Little Doggie" (I wonder if Giano knows). Now the chainsaw makes sense. Paul August ☎ 17:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Have you made your New Years revolution yet? Paul August ☎ 06:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed that Hollow Wilerding has been nominated for adminship. Bishonen | talk 04:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I do plan on running at RfA again someday. If you want the full details on why I never revealed why User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario are friends of mine, please access the following link:
This link. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 15:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on my talk page! =) And again, I want to say I'm sorry for how I treated the Wild article. It was not at all deserved. Jon Harald Søby 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You probably have, but I thought I'd point it out in case you hadn't. William Connolley,fights for two years to get Global Warming to an appropriate state... this quote is particularly cogent "It takes a long time to deal with troublemakers," admits Jimmy Wales, the encyclopaedia's co-founder. "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense." Global warming is, in the grand scheme of things, a bit more important than webcomics. (I watch talk pages I post to, feel free to reply here, I'll see it)++ Lar: t/ c 16:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Geogre, no, Everyking's dispproval of the HW block isn't recent. It was posted on User talk:Hollow Wilerding, early on, because Everyking is banned from commenting at the admin noticeboard pages (I'm pretty sure he is). You prolly want to delete/strike out that comment. I hope he doesn't think you're getting at him if he sees it (I know you're not). Thanks for commenting on the RFC, though I expect none of us should have, really, considering it was created (not "filed"—it's not listed on the main RFC page) by a blocked user. Blocked does mean that you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 06:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That's like expecting Ken Starr to apologize to Bill Clinton for prosecuting him.
Exactly. Let's see: Ken Starr exceeded his mandate, concluded his investigation into the matter he was charged with in a year but kept going onto three matters he was not charged with investigating, employed evidence from illegal phone records, and produced no evidence of criminal wrong doing. Hmmm. A perfect example of a person who was righteously prosecuting and who should never apologize? Uh, not really. He could have said "asking the Neuremberg prosecutors to apologize for prosecuting Albrecht Spier" or something, but choosing Ken Starr is just one of those magnificently unconscious bits of irony. Geogre 13:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I read your comment on the FAC, and I certainly see where you're coming from, but I'm not all that sure how to fix it. While she's a fairly celebrated figure in the sport, she's not a household name, as even though netball is probably the most widely played sport in Australia, it doesn't get much recognition at the elite level - I think there's only about two players from the national team who'd be considered household names. On the same note, I don't think it could be said that her successes have brought any extra attention to the sport - only Liz Ellis has seemed to be able to achieve that one, and that's more because she's become a media personality than anything else.
I'm not sure what you mean by "wider career" - do you mean in the media? Virtually all netballers here (apart from the Australian captain) here have to take on a full-time job as well as their sporting commitments, but since Neele was a university student up until a year ago, and was unemployed for most of this year, there's really not that much to say besides what I've already added, I think. Please understand that I'm not trying to shoot the comment down; I agree with it, but I'm just not quite sure how to broaden the context appropriately. Ambi 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC) |
Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my tendancy to be cryptic has not helped this at all.
The 1st user box was untenable, and the block was just if abrupt. The second was was rude and ill-advised, but blocking for it was a little hasty. Editing the user page of someone who has just been blocked for (in effect) saying he would be opposing her for ArbCom (something that we should be able to say, as long as we do so sensibly) reeks of gloating.
I have now, however, pushed my tendancy for necro-beastial sadism way beyond the point of diminishing returns.
brenneman (t) (c) 03:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this page was linked from the WP main page on Jan. 8, but when I went to look at it I saw it was horribly unclear, so I rewrote it. If you'd like to clean it up even more, I'd be delighted. Halcatalyst 05:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Mail! Bishonen | talk 19:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
<blink>
I'm surprised. What have I done to cause your ire?
Kim Bruning 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
hey george, what did you mean by all this posts by one particular user may be i don't know what for a freshman I don't know what...? I'm really sorry, I didn't get your point, but if u wanna tell me something, go ahead, just please make it straight forward because I speak spanish. :) -- Cosmic girl 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
ok, u r right :) thnx 4 pointing it out.-- Cosmic girl 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
ps. what I understood from that article of linguistic determinism is that we can not know about a thing which we haven't defined linguistically, but I'm confident that some day we will be able to understand God by creating concepts for him/her/it, like the example of those people that only had 3 words to talk about cuantity (one-two-many) so they wherent able to distinguish or comprehend more objects, same with us and God, we can not comprehend him because we havent pinpointed any termns nor descriptions that are objective regarding God...but someday, as we evolve more, we may be able to understand even God's subjetivity, or at least, that's what I hope.-- Cosmic girl 20:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, we've both voted "oppose" on the fellow leading the arbcom voting. What's wrong with us? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 00:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Geogre, I assure you I am quite well informed about the HW matter, as I've been following it for months. I started observing her edits back when she was Winnermario; we both edit a lot on pop music topics. I also have read most of the content she's added and the FAC discussions. I really doubt there is anything significant about the situation I'm not aware of. This "failure to research" business is insulting, and sounds like an attempt to discredit or dismiss me. Everyking 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
No. I was waiting for you to achieve this miracle. Also, there is a discussion now on an/i about it. I know that that's not very helpful for you, but the editor himself is there, and I outlined my position. Basically, it's this: if he takes a 2 week block, he'll have caught up with the offenses committed as Winnermario and Hollow Wildering. As for what penalty there should be for block evasion (which was not known until then), I'd prefer to leave that to an ArbCom. I'm not a member of that body and do not seek to be, at least partially because I'm kind of conflict averse. Geogre 11:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Any time, G! Yes, I noticed his "imagination" when I browsed through his contribs. I think you're right - his insistence to come back so long after the issue was closed for good proves that you got him right on from the beginning. It also demonstrates that you hurted his feelings, lol! I've added your user page to my watchlist just in case he feels like coming back. Btw, you sure look impressive with that shotgun! Kisses, -- Phædriel *whistle* 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not very good with borders, myself (but I respect boundaries, according to my kindergarten teacher). I am absolutely the worst shot with a shotgun, ever. The one time an animal can be absolutely it won't die, unless it's from a heart attack brought on by laughter, is when I'm aiming a gun at it. On the other hand, no tree can call a dead pine cone its own, when I'm armed and on the loose. (One must always be on guard against killer trees.) What does "hensca" mean? (I have always been interested in my long distant Creek heritage, but, once I began investigating the timeline, it just grew depressing. My great-great-great grandmother married in around 1820. That's a significant date, alas. Not that I have any evidence that it wasn't a wonderful love match, but the year is simply too grimly coincidental.) No bother at all. Until I can get back to researching and writing, I'm merely puttering around and thundering at folks. Geogre 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course not! I'm honored. I am always amazed when people even notice me, much less when they do such clever and interesting things. ("Lexicographer: n. Maker of dictionaries. A harmless drudge.") In fact, now that I'm finally getting back to some books and reference works, I plan to make that brag list of mine grow again. (I always feel like I'm only worthy of being here as long as I produce, and every day that I only produce some policy argument or troll bashing, I feel like I'm treading water.) The people of southern Georgia (where I am this year), incidentally, are so totally unaware of the Creek that it's astonishing. The closest thing to it they know of is "Tecumseh," and that only in combination with "Damn" and "Sherman." Geogre 17:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The last I knew he was on this page having a cup of tea with ALoan. Did somebody slip him a Mickey Finn? Shall we send out the dogs? Organize a search party? Notify the proper authorities? Paul August ☎ 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
New uproar and weirdness on WP:ANI at "Attempting to resurrect Wikipedia career". Sit out the block, any block? Don't make me laugh. Bishonen | talk 05:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC).
I hereby bestow upon you the title of Defender of the Wiki -
FCYTravis 23:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You're quite right. Catholics should be creating more articles on lives of the saints. I accept your challenge (or at least, I will when I get my next assignment in)! Cheers. AnnH (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
My last name may be Wilerding, but you are never going to be able to call me as I reside under a different surname. Don't you dare bother looking at any of my family/friend(s) user profile emails. Also, I'm already going to be filing an RFar against Bishonen if she does not stop constantly accusing me of being three users. 64.231.168.115 02:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Would this link be enough to convince you that Cruz and I really exist? Please don't call my house, I really don't need that. He is a writer on another site, works with Zelda (as demonstrated through my editing Majora's Mask) and has Mariah's name in his biography. He has been a user here since January 3, 2004, and did not join Wikipedia until April 2005, so this registered account is not a hoax to return us to Wikipedia. It is but evidence that three of us exist. 64.231.168.115 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Back in grad school, all those years ago, someone was complaining that he didn't want to take 18th century British literature. As a Modern American major and a Southern minor, it was irrelevant. It would do him no good, etc. A professor of Romantics who had finished with his own student walked over to this querrulous person and said, "You, Sir, are a vaccuum!" Talking to this editor about himself/herself/themselves is like tossing iron filings into a vaccuum: the words disappear, and you end up with as much of a void, as much suction, as before. After her second comment, above, I figured that I wouldn't play anymore. The facts are the facts. The user evades blocks. Nothing else really needs to be known. I was only concerned that the teacher had a student who was pretending to be her and that this teacher was therefore going to have a horrible surprise if she ever decided to contribute: she'd set up a user account and find that she was already labelled a problem. I figured that these misrepresentations were a form of identity spoofing, and I was worried about the real teacher. It was her I wished to call, and most emphatically not this user. As Billy Pilgrim says, though, "So it goes." Geogre 13:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Geogre, please allow me to present you with this small gift, which may seem unsignificant - but believe me, in my eyes, it only means you're a very special person. The way you defend a lady like Bishonen from mistreatment, shows you're both a gentleman and a gentle spirit. As you strive to keep WP a better place, I want you to know that there are some of us, the common and nameless editors, who value the commitment, quality and effort of people like you. Ai! Cheers, Phædriel tell me 03:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't miss this CheckUser request, you'll like it! Bishonen | talk 01:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Here's one to take you back: Adam Bede for your perusal. Danny 11:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
So I was innocently glancing at those fun-loving 40 Martyrs of England and Wales, and I had the misfortune of seeing this. My eyes! Make it go away, Geogre. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 16:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
AAAIIIIIIIIGH! The goggles, they do nothing! Geogre 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
(Who in the world thought of a "Solid Gold Top 40" emblem for people who died horrible, horrible deaths? Owie!) Geogre 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You know how gullible I am? I'm so gullible that, when you showed me that, I didn't check "what links here." Know why? I was sure, absolutely sure, that people working on the 40 Martyrs would never use something so gauche. I really had faith that people working on articles about such somber and sober subjects would not inflict that blob on people. I need to get more cynical. Geogre 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, man, this new way of doing things is stressful at certain moments. Sheesh. That was one of the moments. The first thing I need to teach myself, obviously, is to not reply on IRC at such a juncture, even if it's you. I hope you got unblocked, and thanks for reverting my page. Can I call tomorrow, like at 3 PM EST? Bishonen | talk 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
As the mailing list is mostly, in my opinon, where bad ideas go to get amplified by a yes-man circle jerk... but don't get me started. I just thought this thread was equal parts fascinating and repellant. - brenneman (t) (c) 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You credit me when I am not due. I saw the redlink and wondered whether it was worth linking to the article for the Earldom rather than the specific Earl (our coverage of the UK peerage is quite good due to the efforts of Emsworth). Then I saw the scandal on the page for the subsidiary Viscountcy - relating to this specific person - so how could I leave that out! -- ALoan (Talk) 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
D'OH! Da odder one. Geogre 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Pathetic. But "she is something she has yet to possess" is curiously apt, somehow. Take a look at the other contribution of this one, too. Remind me, why do we ever bother to block anybody, again? Or at least, why bother to block the unscrupulous? Bishonen | talk 02:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
Please help me contact Bishonen, I want to negotiate the unblock of the fighterforfreedoms, but her page is locked. This is urgent, please. User:fffreedom]
I am not a sockpuppet of fighterforfreedom. I am a war buddy of his. He was having difficulty thinking because of the medicine he was taking for the 5 bullets he took in Iraq. He would apoligize for his actions if he was unblocked. Thank You. Fffreedom 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I was just leaving you a message saying no problem, and that I enjoyed your sermon and found it very sound, when the talk page was whisked out from under me by WoohooDoggy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). My edit ended up getting saved to the redirect and I assume is now deleted. How very bizarre. In any case, I did like it, and I'm glad you kept it up. Chick Bowen 04:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope I got it right. I moved and deleted and undeleted and reverted and carried on, to fix the vandal move of this page. Please see the history, and here. Bishonen | talk 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC).
I think the vandal was an AOL floater (hence the unblock). So it goes. The amount of intelligence involved is only slightly less than the value of these peoples' edits. Thanks all for the maintenance. No problem, Chick; I'm told that my little essays ended up influencing the current standards, such as they are. As you can see by the link from Brenneman above, some people find them far too constricting. Geogre 11:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that Gutenberg's index by authors [2] has links to Wikipedia for those authors that have articles. I guess that means that the ones without links are writers without articles, and well, I thought you might like to know. Zocky | picture popups 16:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Take a look [3] Sadly they have missed the page does not have a reference section at all. Otherwise I would vote for it - just to be bloody minded. Giano | talk 15:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit idiosyncratic and purple, I admit. I knew what I was doing, and what I was doing was intentionally choosing an archaism because I wanted to suggest that he was not only old, but kind of disgusting. I was trying to insult him as I described him, and do it in a shifty manner. I can be plainer and more NPOV. (Well, not NPOV exactly, but less clever-clever.) Geogre 20:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
193 at present. I would have gotten to 195 on Friday, had I not had to conduct an historical tour and not known about it in advance. This weekend is all grading first papers. Monday, probably, I'll get a chance to do some research on E. Montagu and rewrite that to claim it as mine. Then I'll do a few more. I do want to get to 200 before I take my next step, which will be to read secondaries on either Charke or Scott and work one of them up to FA. Geogre 21:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for backing me up on this. We have continued our discussions at the incident board if you'd like to comment there. Arniep 00:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Advertisement - Please join the talk on if all articles brought to DRV should be fully restored and open for editing by default.
brenneman
(t)
(c) 15:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you wondered what that was. It is "Wikipedia:Deletion review", formerly "Votes for undeletion". The name change was to accomodate disputed "keep" results on AFD debates. Also, do you have any opinion on using the Arbcom against people for following process? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Geogre! I am going to take this to ANI shortly. Arniep 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
How amusing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep, he's a clerk alright. I'm just a regular admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
See, the question is whether being a clerk makes anyone a higher life form. Its defenders say that will never happen, that anyone could have been one. The problem with that logic is, first, that two of the clerks already think they're more equal than others and have demonstrated a...distorted...sense of how supported they are, and, second, that the people who criticize the system didn't want to be clerks because...as we've been saying quite clearly...we don't agree that the position should exist. 11th hour, in the dark, lame duck, and now deal with it. What a fiasco. Geogre 13:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, shame and humility don't seem to be bothering Tony much these days. He was a great asset to the WebComics case, he is saying on AN/I and wrote all the findings of fact. (sigh) How many people will have followed that case and know the degree of weakness in that "summary?" Geogre 13:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The question I have for the clerks is this. If any editor can perform the same tasks as a clerk, without actually being a clerk, why do they want to be clerks? Paul August ☎ 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, I agree with shining a light in this dark corner, but I find an RFC...strange. First, RFC's on content for ArbCom are going to be a bad precedent -- something the AC members will instantly point out. Second, there isn't content. For behavior, it's even weirder, because an RFC on conduct, if successful, goes to...ArbCom. If Tony doesn't archive the page every time it looks like there are a few voices taking a contrary point of view, no one should need a "summary" to see what the community thinks about the summary feature. I'm also livid that this was done by "no one objected in a day, so it was something everyone agreed with." That kind of thinking is endemic among a certain set on Wikipedia, and my longtime desire for quorum and a demand for positive assent is something I think few people even understand, and those who do understand it are benefitting by its not being followed. Geogre 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You may with to look at this Raul654 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Aww, I'm fond of you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Just going through and looking at the disputes you are involved in right now (most of them scrolled way too high up on AN/I) has stressed me out; I imagine you aren't feeling so great either. Here's some hot chocolate. May everybody who thinks knows they are right, and must do what is right for the good of the rest of us, get a nasty case of boils. —
Bunchofgrapes (
talk) 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Geogre, please enjoy your cocoa. You deserve a nice relaxing moment of repose. I agree with everything you have written on the L'Affaire clerk. And I think you deserve much thanks for writing it. Having discovered the issue late, and being by nature slow (Fil put it nicely once when he said that I was the most "considered" editor he knew), I have yet to make much of a contribution to the debate there (besides you were doing such a bang up job). I spent much of last night trying to find and read through the debate, and trying to formulate responses, but I could never quite seem to catch up. Now I feel a bit remiss for not joining in with more words of support — would that Fil were here to lend his voice. Paul August ☎ 16:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, your comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Clarification_of_styles. Thanks Arniep 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Geogre. First, thank you for the kind acknowledgement at the end of your comments. You do make some valid points about "In-groups" and "out". And about how friendships can blind and bias. But Cliques form. It is a basic fact of human behavior. There are, naturally certain people and groups we gravitate towards or away from. Cliques are the inevitable result of this tendency. I freely admit to having mine, and please don't deny that you have yours with Giano and Bishonen also. You accuse me of only backing my friends, well clearly you are guilty here of the same "crime". Pot meet kettle...Glass house meet ROCK:> Let's be honest with eachother. I see nothing wrong with informal, friendly cliques, long as they do not become hostile, warring FACTIONS. This is the dangerous waters we are heading into now, which is another reason why I sent my apologies along with an offer of peace to Giano and Bishonen, which he (taking the liberty to speak for her too) soundly and coldly rejected. Unless we find some way to resolve our differences as civil adults and Wikipedians, this petty feuding will only continue and grow worse. So I extend my apologies to you as well. I plead guilty to the charges of standing up for my friends and for causes I believe in. I'm sorry if, in doing so, I've offended you in any way. The respect you have shown me as a writer and editor are mutual, even though outside the realm of Fac's and Rfa's our paths seldom cross. I regret this. It is perhaps one reason for our misunderstandings. Best regards,-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If you came here for an explanation of my vote, I have provided it. Beyond that is asking me to defend or change it, which I'm not inclined to do. Geogre 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have been trying very hard to avoid any insult, here, or anything that would create or increase animosity, so perhaps I've been too subtle. Everyone has his own view of "the #1 problem on Wikipedia." One person recently said that he thought personal attacks were the #1 problem. Well, I don't. I don't think personal attacks are even common, much less a big problem. On the converse, I find people who take things personally, who put personality first, who approach the project for personal affection/disaffection, to be the source of personal attacks, as well as the source of hamfisted reactions to supposed personal attacks. Tony1, for example, took things personally. He took them so personally that not getting to be an admin was a reason to not only leave, but to go down swinging and cursing and to resume the battle when he returned. I opposed him for reasons that had nothing to do with Giano's or Bishonen's. I opposed him because of a temperament issue. I felt that he took disagreement as insult, took everything personally. My opposition to you as an administrator, and only as an administrator, is that I fear that you take things as being to the person when they're not. Unfortunately, the fact that you have tried to rebut each oppose vote and wrestle with each objector has somewhat confirmed me in my opposition to only promotion to administration. The reason I would oppose administration only is that our most serious crisis right now (unaddressed so far) is "wheel warring" and peevish RFC and RFar procedings, and the thing I see in common to them all is putting personality above article editing. I wish all of us to watch carefully for that. Geogre 11:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've taken my life in my hands by altering another editor's (your!) comments at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities by altering "baronetcy" to "barony" because I know that's what you meant. Should you think this too forward of me, I'll understand. - Nunh-huh 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Gurubrahma 06:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep. What's more, the DYK listing has, so far, generated good edits and no stupid edits. I hope it keeps going that way. I know there are thousands of people who took a Shakespeare class and got told about Mompesson more recently than I, and one or two may help the DNB account. You already did so with the reference to Massinger. I have a feeling this is one of those guys about whom there is a lot more under the surface. Geogre 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for Raul to rediscover Restoration literature, or even Augustan literature. Oh, well. Mo' visibility, mo' problems. I doubt Bishonen has been able to sleep all European night for her article being on the main page. The amount of vandalism is staggering and varied. (See WP:ANI for one delightful little turd who was attaching things to the article.) Geogre 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my goodness! I need to go over to commons and find an image. You absolutely get the Bridesmaid but not a Bride barnstar. You've been that patient for that long? And it's not like Attalus was a very minor guy. He invented velcro and solved Mario 3 in only thirty minutes! He wrote four of the Star Trek the Next Gender Nation scripts! He discovered salt! (Seriously, if Raul needs a nudge, you should be nudging. That's a long, long time.) Geogre 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think I'll start a new thread, as it's probably difficult to find my posts when they're right in the middle of a long page.
No problem about the revert. On reflection, I agree with you. I suppose I was mixing up categories with lists. It was just a kind of instinct — what's she doing among all those martyrs? But I can quite see that it doesn't mean that she's a martyr: it means that she's a relevant entry for people who are looking for information about martyrs.
On the same note, I'm now wondering whether two articles (stubs, really) that I created a few months ago should be in the saints category. They are Jacques Fesch and Elisabeth Leseur. Originally I'd have said no, because they haven't been canonized. (I think that, out of tact or sensitivity, the cause of Jacques Fesch is being delayed until the daughter of the policeman he killed dies.) But they would certainly be classified among lives of saints in a library or a bookshop.
Anyway, I'll keep going with the forty martyrs. And actually, I have books about a lot of the other English martyrs from that period as well. AnnH (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Dante26#Blocked, this person has most of the 205.x.x.x range autoblocked-- 205.188.116.11 14:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
January 6 - Feb. 7, 2006
As a nation I don't think it wise for yours (in the form of you!) to discuss the "velour track suit", here [1] I will just say to you Roma and Milano, should you wish me to be to be more precise Versace, Gucci and Prada. I'm sure there are some very clever people indeed in North America designing some very "colourful" garments, (does anyone wear them?) and I wonder why they haven't exported them here - Oh : "Levi you say?" - well think Armani. I look forward to you correction very soon and govelling, yes very grovelling - puddle drinkingly apology on the talk page. Oh yes I forgot - Happy Christmas - I assume you do celebrate the holy season in those unfashionably nothern parts? Furious of Palermo
Ok not only can't Geogre count, apparently he has a hard time reading as well (perhaps its a Southren thang). Any way just to set the record straight, "dilly" is the only kind of "dallying" this Paul has done recently. Paul August ☎ 18:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what you people are talking about, but it do sounds like you're not being productive. I'm going to have to step in and demand you all go back to editing. This is what you are here for. We have assigned time-wasting as a separate task to more qualified people. Let's trim our talk pages in accordance with the Wikipedian lifestyle. JRM · Talk 08:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Me, that is. Is it perhaps a doubleplusungood idea to dare ArbCom to raise the level of sanction? But seriously, I just cannot give a flying fig anymore. I tried to be patiant, I tried to maintain a sense of homour. I took a little break and came back feeling nice, did some actual article space work. But this is a joke, and this is obscene. - brenneman (t) (c) 23:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Not sure if you want the Christmas Eve Featured article promotional message I've crafted (the red one) here on your talkpage; do you? Shall I put it on? Merry Christmas, honey! Bishonen | talk 01:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course he want's it - he loves it, I've decided to award Geogre one of my personal limited edition Christmas cards.
Cool! I wanted a bicycle for Christmas. Now I'm Geogre on Wheels! Geogre 12:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Holiday greetings to my favorite "reactionary foamer" Paul August ☎ 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
'Oh! MY Goodness! I am flabbergasted. I'm glad that he came to the conclusion that I'm not a reactionary foamer (one wonders...right or left wing? I didn't know socialists were "reactionaries"), but I am left puzzled at what I had said that led him to make the assumption in the first place. Well, at any rate, it turned into a nice left-handed compliment. I don't know why, though, folks think that somehow we're against web comics or for them or anything else. I think most of us are just quite upset at going straight from "I'm ticked" to RFar, with none of the procedurally mandated steps between, and then ArbCom doing the inexplicable and accepting the case. Geogre 18:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You may not be a reactionary, but admit it, you can foam with the best of them. Oh and has Foamer eaten Giano's little doggie? Paul August ☎ 22:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok I stand corrected, "thundered" is more apt. (A new epithet, "Zeus Ogre?") By the way, as I look back and forth between Foamer and doggie, I'm noticing a striking resemblance. Is it possible that Foamer is really some kind of an Ovidian Metamorphosis of Little Doggie? Am I just imagining the beginnings of a rabid gleam in Doggie's eyes? and the first frothings of foam on Doggie's tongue? And now I see of course, those are Foamer's actual ears not just red earflaps on the Santa's hat. Now I'm convinced, Foamer is Little Doggie" (I wonder if Giano knows). Now the chainsaw makes sense. Paul August ☎ 17:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Have you made your New Years revolution yet? Paul August ☎ 06:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed that Hollow Wilerding has been nominated for adminship. Bishonen | talk 04:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I do plan on running at RfA again someday. If you want the full details on why I never revealed why User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario are friends of mine, please access the following link:
This link. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 15:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on my talk page! =) And again, I want to say I'm sorry for how I treated the Wild article. It was not at all deserved. Jon Harald Søby 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You probably have, but I thought I'd point it out in case you hadn't. William Connolley,fights for two years to get Global Warming to an appropriate state... this quote is particularly cogent "It takes a long time to deal with troublemakers," admits Jimmy Wales, the encyclopaedia's co-founder. "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense." Global warming is, in the grand scheme of things, a bit more important than webcomics. (I watch talk pages I post to, feel free to reply here, I'll see it)++ Lar: t/ c 16:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Geogre, no, Everyking's dispproval of the HW block isn't recent. It was posted on User talk:Hollow Wilerding, early on, because Everyking is banned from commenting at the admin noticeboard pages (I'm pretty sure he is). You prolly want to delete/strike out that comment. I hope he doesn't think you're getting at him if he sees it (I know you're not). Thanks for commenting on the RFC, though I expect none of us should have, really, considering it was created (not "filed"—it's not listed on the main RFC page) by a blocked user. Blocked does mean that you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 06:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That's like expecting Ken Starr to apologize to Bill Clinton for prosecuting him.
Exactly. Let's see: Ken Starr exceeded his mandate, concluded his investigation into the matter he was charged with in a year but kept going onto three matters he was not charged with investigating, employed evidence from illegal phone records, and produced no evidence of criminal wrong doing. Hmmm. A perfect example of a person who was righteously prosecuting and who should never apologize? Uh, not really. He could have said "asking the Neuremberg prosecutors to apologize for prosecuting Albrecht Spier" or something, but choosing Ken Starr is just one of those magnificently unconscious bits of irony. Geogre 13:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I read your comment on the FAC, and I certainly see where you're coming from, but I'm not all that sure how to fix it. While she's a fairly celebrated figure in the sport, she's not a household name, as even though netball is probably the most widely played sport in Australia, it doesn't get much recognition at the elite level - I think there's only about two players from the national team who'd be considered household names. On the same note, I don't think it could be said that her successes have brought any extra attention to the sport - only Liz Ellis has seemed to be able to achieve that one, and that's more because she's become a media personality than anything else.
I'm not sure what you mean by "wider career" - do you mean in the media? Virtually all netballers here (apart from the Australian captain) here have to take on a full-time job as well as their sporting commitments, but since Neele was a university student up until a year ago, and was unemployed for most of this year, there's really not that much to say besides what I've already added, I think. Please understand that I'm not trying to shoot the comment down; I agree with it, but I'm just not quite sure how to broaden the context appropriately. Ambi 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC) |
Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my tendancy to be cryptic has not helped this at all.
The 1st user box was untenable, and the block was just if abrupt. The second was was rude and ill-advised, but blocking for it was a little hasty. Editing the user page of someone who has just been blocked for (in effect) saying he would be opposing her for ArbCom (something that we should be able to say, as long as we do so sensibly) reeks of gloating.
I have now, however, pushed my tendancy for necro-beastial sadism way beyond the point of diminishing returns.
brenneman (t) (c) 03:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this page was linked from the WP main page on Jan. 8, but when I went to look at it I saw it was horribly unclear, so I rewrote it. If you'd like to clean it up even more, I'd be delighted. Halcatalyst 05:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Mail! Bishonen | talk 19:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
<blink>
I'm surprised. What have I done to cause your ire?
Kim Bruning 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
hey george, what did you mean by all this posts by one particular user may be i don't know what for a freshman I don't know what...? I'm really sorry, I didn't get your point, but if u wanna tell me something, go ahead, just please make it straight forward because I speak spanish. :) -- Cosmic girl 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
ok, u r right :) thnx 4 pointing it out.-- Cosmic girl 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
ps. what I understood from that article of linguistic determinism is that we can not know about a thing which we haven't defined linguistically, but I'm confident that some day we will be able to understand God by creating concepts for him/her/it, like the example of those people that only had 3 words to talk about cuantity (one-two-many) so they wherent able to distinguish or comprehend more objects, same with us and God, we can not comprehend him because we havent pinpointed any termns nor descriptions that are objective regarding God...but someday, as we evolve more, we may be able to understand even God's subjetivity, or at least, that's what I hope.-- Cosmic girl 20:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, we've both voted "oppose" on the fellow leading the arbcom voting. What's wrong with us? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 00:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Geogre, I assure you I am quite well informed about the HW matter, as I've been following it for months. I started observing her edits back when she was Winnermario; we both edit a lot on pop music topics. I also have read most of the content she's added and the FAC discussions. I really doubt there is anything significant about the situation I'm not aware of. This "failure to research" business is insulting, and sounds like an attempt to discredit or dismiss me. Everyking 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
No. I was waiting for you to achieve this miracle. Also, there is a discussion now on an/i about it. I know that that's not very helpful for you, but the editor himself is there, and I outlined my position. Basically, it's this: if he takes a 2 week block, he'll have caught up with the offenses committed as Winnermario and Hollow Wildering. As for what penalty there should be for block evasion (which was not known until then), I'd prefer to leave that to an ArbCom. I'm not a member of that body and do not seek to be, at least partially because I'm kind of conflict averse. Geogre 11:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Any time, G! Yes, I noticed his "imagination" when I browsed through his contribs. I think you're right - his insistence to come back so long after the issue was closed for good proves that you got him right on from the beginning. It also demonstrates that you hurted his feelings, lol! I've added your user page to my watchlist just in case he feels like coming back. Btw, you sure look impressive with that shotgun! Kisses, -- Phædriel *whistle* 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not very good with borders, myself (but I respect boundaries, according to my kindergarten teacher). I am absolutely the worst shot with a shotgun, ever. The one time an animal can be absolutely it won't die, unless it's from a heart attack brought on by laughter, is when I'm aiming a gun at it. On the other hand, no tree can call a dead pine cone its own, when I'm armed and on the loose. (One must always be on guard against killer trees.) What does "hensca" mean? (I have always been interested in my long distant Creek heritage, but, once I began investigating the timeline, it just grew depressing. My great-great-great grandmother married in around 1820. That's a significant date, alas. Not that I have any evidence that it wasn't a wonderful love match, but the year is simply too grimly coincidental.) No bother at all. Until I can get back to researching and writing, I'm merely puttering around and thundering at folks. Geogre 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course not! I'm honored. I am always amazed when people even notice me, much less when they do such clever and interesting things. ("Lexicographer: n. Maker of dictionaries. A harmless drudge.") In fact, now that I'm finally getting back to some books and reference works, I plan to make that brag list of mine grow again. (I always feel like I'm only worthy of being here as long as I produce, and every day that I only produce some policy argument or troll bashing, I feel like I'm treading water.) The people of southern Georgia (where I am this year), incidentally, are so totally unaware of the Creek that it's astonishing. The closest thing to it they know of is "Tecumseh," and that only in combination with "Damn" and "Sherman." Geogre 17:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The last I knew he was on this page having a cup of tea with ALoan. Did somebody slip him a Mickey Finn? Shall we send out the dogs? Organize a search party? Notify the proper authorities? Paul August ☎ 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
New uproar and weirdness on WP:ANI at "Attempting to resurrect Wikipedia career". Sit out the block, any block? Don't make me laugh. Bishonen | talk 05:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC).
I hereby bestow upon you the title of Defender of the Wiki -
FCYTravis 23:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You're quite right. Catholics should be creating more articles on lives of the saints. I accept your challenge (or at least, I will when I get my next assignment in)! Cheers. AnnH (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
My last name may be Wilerding, but you are never going to be able to call me as I reside under a different surname. Don't you dare bother looking at any of my family/friend(s) user profile emails. Also, I'm already going to be filing an RFar against Bishonen if she does not stop constantly accusing me of being three users. 64.231.168.115 02:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Would this link be enough to convince you that Cruz and I really exist? Please don't call my house, I really don't need that. He is a writer on another site, works with Zelda (as demonstrated through my editing Majora's Mask) and has Mariah's name in his biography. He has been a user here since January 3, 2004, and did not join Wikipedia until April 2005, so this registered account is not a hoax to return us to Wikipedia. It is but evidence that three of us exist. 64.231.168.115 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Back in grad school, all those years ago, someone was complaining that he didn't want to take 18th century British literature. As a Modern American major and a Southern minor, it was irrelevant. It would do him no good, etc. A professor of Romantics who had finished with his own student walked over to this querrulous person and said, "You, Sir, are a vaccuum!" Talking to this editor about himself/herself/themselves is like tossing iron filings into a vaccuum: the words disappear, and you end up with as much of a void, as much suction, as before. After her second comment, above, I figured that I wouldn't play anymore. The facts are the facts. The user evades blocks. Nothing else really needs to be known. I was only concerned that the teacher had a student who was pretending to be her and that this teacher was therefore going to have a horrible surprise if she ever decided to contribute: she'd set up a user account and find that she was already labelled a problem. I figured that these misrepresentations were a form of identity spoofing, and I was worried about the real teacher. It was her I wished to call, and most emphatically not this user. As Billy Pilgrim says, though, "So it goes." Geogre 13:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Geogre, please allow me to present you with this small gift, which may seem unsignificant - but believe me, in my eyes, it only means you're a very special person. The way you defend a lady like Bishonen from mistreatment, shows you're both a gentleman and a gentle spirit. As you strive to keep WP a better place, I want you to know that there are some of us, the common and nameless editors, who value the commitment, quality and effort of people like you. Ai! Cheers, Phædriel tell me 03:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't miss this CheckUser request, you'll like it! Bishonen | talk 01:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Here's one to take you back: Adam Bede for your perusal. Danny 11:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
So I was innocently glancing at those fun-loving 40 Martyrs of England and Wales, and I had the misfortune of seeing this. My eyes! Make it go away, Geogre. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 16:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
AAAIIIIIIIIGH! The goggles, they do nothing! Geogre 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
(Who in the world thought of a "Solid Gold Top 40" emblem for people who died horrible, horrible deaths? Owie!) Geogre 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You know how gullible I am? I'm so gullible that, when you showed me that, I didn't check "what links here." Know why? I was sure, absolutely sure, that people working on the 40 Martyrs would never use something so gauche. I really had faith that people working on articles about such somber and sober subjects would not inflict that blob on people. I need to get more cynical. Geogre 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, man, this new way of doing things is stressful at certain moments. Sheesh. That was one of the moments. The first thing I need to teach myself, obviously, is to not reply on IRC at such a juncture, even if it's you. I hope you got unblocked, and thanks for reverting my page. Can I call tomorrow, like at 3 PM EST? Bishonen | talk 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
As the mailing list is mostly, in my opinon, where bad ideas go to get amplified by a yes-man circle jerk... but don't get me started. I just thought this thread was equal parts fascinating and repellant. - brenneman (t) (c) 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You credit me when I am not due. I saw the redlink and wondered whether it was worth linking to the article for the Earldom rather than the specific Earl (our coverage of the UK peerage is quite good due to the efforts of Emsworth). Then I saw the scandal on the page for the subsidiary Viscountcy - relating to this specific person - so how could I leave that out! -- ALoan (Talk) 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
D'OH! Da odder one. Geogre 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Pathetic. But "she is something she has yet to possess" is curiously apt, somehow. Take a look at the other contribution of this one, too. Remind me, why do we ever bother to block anybody, again? Or at least, why bother to block the unscrupulous? Bishonen | talk 02:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
Please help me contact Bishonen, I want to negotiate the unblock of the fighterforfreedoms, but her page is locked. This is urgent, please. User:fffreedom]
I am not a sockpuppet of fighterforfreedom. I am a war buddy of his. He was having difficulty thinking because of the medicine he was taking for the 5 bullets he took in Iraq. He would apoligize for his actions if he was unblocked. Thank You. Fffreedom 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I was just leaving you a message saying no problem, and that I enjoyed your sermon and found it very sound, when the talk page was whisked out from under me by WoohooDoggy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). My edit ended up getting saved to the redirect and I assume is now deleted. How very bizarre. In any case, I did like it, and I'm glad you kept it up. Chick Bowen 04:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope I got it right. I moved and deleted and undeleted and reverted and carried on, to fix the vandal move of this page. Please see the history, and here. Bishonen | talk 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC).
I think the vandal was an AOL floater (hence the unblock). So it goes. The amount of intelligence involved is only slightly less than the value of these peoples' edits. Thanks all for the maintenance. No problem, Chick; I'm told that my little essays ended up influencing the current standards, such as they are. As you can see by the link from Brenneman above, some people find them far too constricting. Geogre 11:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that Gutenberg's index by authors [2] has links to Wikipedia for those authors that have articles. I guess that means that the ones without links are writers without articles, and well, I thought you might like to know. Zocky | picture popups 16:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Take a look [3] Sadly they have missed the page does not have a reference section at all. Otherwise I would vote for it - just to be bloody minded. Giano | talk 15:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit idiosyncratic and purple, I admit. I knew what I was doing, and what I was doing was intentionally choosing an archaism because I wanted to suggest that he was not only old, but kind of disgusting. I was trying to insult him as I described him, and do it in a shifty manner. I can be plainer and more NPOV. (Well, not NPOV exactly, but less clever-clever.) Geogre 20:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
193 at present. I would have gotten to 195 on Friday, had I not had to conduct an historical tour and not known about it in advance. This weekend is all grading first papers. Monday, probably, I'll get a chance to do some research on E. Montagu and rewrite that to claim it as mine. Then I'll do a few more. I do want to get to 200 before I take my next step, which will be to read secondaries on either Charke or Scott and work one of them up to FA. Geogre 21:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for backing me up on this. We have continued our discussions at the incident board if you'd like to comment there. Arniep 00:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Advertisement - Please join the talk on if all articles brought to DRV should be fully restored and open for editing by default.
brenneman
(t)
(c) 15:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you wondered what that was. It is "Wikipedia:Deletion review", formerly "Votes for undeletion". The name change was to accomodate disputed "keep" results on AFD debates. Also, do you have any opinion on using the Arbcom against people for following process? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Geogre! I am going to take this to ANI shortly. Arniep 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
How amusing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep, he's a clerk alright. I'm just a regular admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
See, the question is whether being a clerk makes anyone a higher life form. Its defenders say that will never happen, that anyone could have been one. The problem with that logic is, first, that two of the clerks already think they're more equal than others and have demonstrated a...distorted...sense of how supported they are, and, second, that the people who criticize the system didn't want to be clerks because...as we've been saying quite clearly...we don't agree that the position should exist. 11th hour, in the dark, lame duck, and now deal with it. What a fiasco. Geogre 13:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, shame and humility don't seem to be bothering Tony much these days. He was a great asset to the WebComics case, he is saying on AN/I and wrote all the findings of fact. (sigh) How many people will have followed that case and know the degree of weakness in that "summary?" Geogre 13:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The question I have for the clerks is this. If any editor can perform the same tasks as a clerk, without actually being a clerk, why do they want to be clerks? Paul August ☎ 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, I agree with shining a light in this dark corner, but I find an RFC...strange. First, RFC's on content for ArbCom are going to be a bad precedent -- something the AC members will instantly point out. Second, there isn't content. For behavior, it's even weirder, because an RFC on conduct, if successful, goes to...ArbCom. If Tony doesn't archive the page every time it looks like there are a few voices taking a contrary point of view, no one should need a "summary" to see what the community thinks about the summary feature. I'm also livid that this was done by "no one objected in a day, so it was something everyone agreed with." That kind of thinking is endemic among a certain set on Wikipedia, and my longtime desire for quorum and a demand for positive assent is something I think few people even understand, and those who do understand it are benefitting by its not being followed. Geogre 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You may with to look at this Raul654 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Aww, I'm fond of you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Just going through and looking at the disputes you are involved in right now (most of them scrolled way too high up on AN/I) has stressed me out; I imagine you aren't feeling so great either. Here's some hot chocolate. May everybody who thinks knows they are right, and must do what is right for the good of the rest of us, get a nasty case of boils. —
Bunchofgrapes (
talk) 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Geogre, please enjoy your cocoa. You deserve a nice relaxing moment of repose. I agree with everything you have written on the L'Affaire clerk. And I think you deserve much thanks for writing it. Having discovered the issue late, and being by nature slow (Fil put it nicely once when he said that I was the most "considered" editor he knew), I have yet to make much of a contribution to the debate there (besides you were doing such a bang up job). I spent much of last night trying to find and read through the debate, and trying to formulate responses, but I could never quite seem to catch up. Now I feel a bit remiss for not joining in with more words of support — would that Fil were here to lend his voice. Paul August ☎ 16:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, your comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Clarification_of_styles. Thanks Arniep 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Geogre. First, thank you for the kind acknowledgement at the end of your comments. You do make some valid points about "In-groups" and "out". And about how friendships can blind and bias. But Cliques form. It is a basic fact of human behavior. There are, naturally certain people and groups we gravitate towards or away from. Cliques are the inevitable result of this tendency. I freely admit to having mine, and please don't deny that you have yours with Giano and Bishonen also. You accuse me of only backing my friends, well clearly you are guilty here of the same "crime". Pot meet kettle...Glass house meet ROCK:> Let's be honest with eachother. I see nothing wrong with informal, friendly cliques, long as they do not become hostile, warring FACTIONS. This is the dangerous waters we are heading into now, which is another reason why I sent my apologies along with an offer of peace to Giano and Bishonen, which he (taking the liberty to speak for her too) soundly and coldly rejected. Unless we find some way to resolve our differences as civil adults and Wikipedians, this petty feuding will only continue and grow worse. So I extend my apologies to you as well. I plead guilty to the charges of standing up for my friends and for causes I believe in. I'm sorry if, in doing so, I've offended you in any way. The respect you have shown me as a writer and editor are mutual, even though outside the realm of Fac's and Rfa's our paths seldom cross. I regret this. It is perhaps one reason for our misunderstandings. Best regards,-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If you came here for an explanation of my vote, I have provided it. Beyond that is asking me to defend or change it, which I'm not inclined to do. Geogre 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have been trying very hard to avoid any insult, here, or anything that would create or increase animosity, so perhaps I've been too subtle. Everyone has his own view of "the #1 problem on Wikipedia." One person recently said that he thought personal attacks were the #1 problem. Well, I don't. I don't think personal attacks are even common, much less a big problem. On the converse, I find people who take things personally, who put personality first, who approach the project for personal affection/disaffection, to be the source of personal attacks, as well as the source of hamfisted reactions to supposed personal attacks. Tony1, for example, took things personally. He took them so personally that not getting to be an admin was a reason to not only leave, but to go down swinging and cursing and to resume the battle when he returned. I opposed him for reasons that had nothing to do with Giano's or Bishonen's. I opposed him because of a temperament issue. I felt that he took disagreement as insult, took everything personally. My opposition to you as an administrator, and only as an administrator, is that I fear that you take things as being to the person when they're not. Unfortunately, the fact that you have tried to rebut each oppose vote and wrestle with each objector has somewhat confirmed me in my opposition to only promotion to administration. The reason I would oppose administration only is that our most serious crisis right now (unaddressed so far) is "wheel warring" and peevish RFC and RFar procedings, and the thing I see in common to them all is putting personality above article editing. I wish all of us to watch carefully for that. Geogre 11:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've taken my life in my hands by altering another editor's (your!) comments at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities by altering "baronetcy" to "barony" because I know that's what you meant. Should you think this too forward of me, I'll understand. - Nunh-huh 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Gurubrahma 06:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep. What's more, the DYK listing has, so far, generated good edits and no stupid edits. I hope it keeps going that way. I know there are thousands of people who took a Shakespeare class and got told about Mompesson more recently than I, and one or two may help the DNB account. You already did so with the reference to Massinger. I have a feeling this is one of those guys about whom there is a lot more under the surface. Geogre 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for Raul to rediscover Restoration literature, or even Augustan literature. Oh, well. Mo' visibility, mo' problems. I doubt Bishonen has been able to sleep all European night for her article being on the main page. The amount of vandalism is staggering and varied. (See WP:ANI for one delightful little turd who was attaching things to the article.) Geogre 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my goodness! I need to go over to commons and find an image. You absolutely get the Bridesmaid but not a Bride barnstar. You've been that patient for that long? And it's not like Attalus was a very minor guy. He invented velcro and solved Mario 3 in only thirty minutes! He wrote four of the Star Trek the Next Gender Nation scripts! He discovered salt! (Seriously, if Raul needs a nudge, you should be nudging. That's a long, long time.) Geogre 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think I'll start a new thread, as it's probably difficult to find my posts when they're right in the middle of a long page.
No problem about the revert. On reflection, I agree with you. I suppose I was mixing up categories with lists. It was just a kind of instinct — what's she doing among all those martyrs? But I can quite see that it doesn't mean that she's a martyr: it means that she's a relevant entry for people who are looking for information about martyrs.
On the same note, I'm now wondering whether two articles (stubs, really) that I created a few months ago should be in the saints category. They are Jacques Fesch and Elisabeth Leseur. Originally I'd have said no, because they haven't been canonized. (I think that, out of tact or sensitivity, the cause of Jacques Fesch is being delayed until the daughter of the policeman he killed dies.) But they would certainly be classified among lives of saints in a library or a bookshop.
Anyway, I'll keep going with the forty martyrs. And actually, I have books about a lot of the other English martyrs from that period as well. AnnH (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Dante26#Blocked, this person has most of the 205.x.x.x range autoblocked-- 205.188.116.11 14:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)