User talk:Clio the Muse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Clio the Muse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

bibliomaniac15 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reply 2 Wow! 3 Award 4 Thank you 5 Appropriate Discourse 6 Concerns 7 Nimrod 8 Happy Thanksgiving! 9 Porn Insane! 10 Re: Vandalism Revert 11 Thanks 12 Sea Green Incorruptible? 13 Reference desk cleanup, help needed 14 Personal attack 15 Difficult users 16 Request for civility and NPA on Ref Desk 17 Attacks

[edit] Reply

No problem. I consider it an honorable job. If you have any questions, I will do my best to help you. bibliomaniac15 23:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

Oh man! Who the hell are you?

I know we got off to a slightly rocky start, but in all my experience here at Wiki, I've never been so blown away by another's intellect.

A lot of the people here are really bright, but...Wow!

Don't get me wrong, I tend to be extremely stingy when it comes this kind of praise. In my own circle of friends, I'm definitely the "intellectual" of the bunch, by far. Also, I'm an extremely proud guy, and it's extremely rare that I'd ever admit to meeting my intellectual match, if not my superiour! (My God! I'm such a proud guy that I can't even believe that I'm even considering that another may be my intellectual superiour!)

On the other hand, it's also possible that you're just on some sort of intellectual winning streak. Being a ball player, I know how streaks and slumps work. Or rather, I don't know how they work, I just understand how they just seem to happen.

In any case, PLEASE, stick around at the RefDesk!

And, if you'd care to, tell me whatever you can about yourself.

Your biggest Wiki fan,

Lewis

Loomis 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Clio, I award you the Surreal Barnstar, as I feel it best reflects the absolutely surreal feeling I have for having so very serendipitously coming across you. Loomis 02:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely respect privacy and anonymity. Tell me as little as you wish. I just can't help help but wonder though, with a name like "Clio", that you must be female. Again, feel free to decline to reveal absolutely anything. Nonetheless, I'm enchanted by it all.

But wait a sec, are you sure it was John Wayne and not Mae West who said "Flattery will get you everywhere"? I'll have to check up on that one, but you may be right after all.

And one last thing. You've proven to me by your phrase "and as far as intellect is concerned I think we walk hand in hand" that you possess that final, most ultimate attribute that I value: Humility.

All the Best,

Lewis

Loomis 06:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to include one last aspect: Yes, Socratic humility is important, but so is a touch of cheeky, smug, self-congratulatory humour! My own reply to Socrates should only be taken with a grain of salt. Or spice if you will. Just to spice up my userpage a touch. See you around, Clio!

Lewis

Loomis 09:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		I was the one who welcomed you, and even though you really can't be considered a newcomer anymore, you still deserve the Exceptional Newcomer Award! bibliomaniac15 Review? 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for helping me at the humanities reference desk. I asked the S.M.O.M. question, and your help, as well as that of the others, was appreciated. Thank you! | AndonicO Talk 19:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate Discourse

Hey Clio,

I've noticed of late that you've taken issue with Dirk's style of discourse on the RefDesk. At first I too was rather irritated by his comments, and we began by butting heads quite viciously, yet eventually we learned to give each other a wide berth. But I'm not writing to gossip about Dirk.

I'm writing because I'm completely aware that I myself tend to adopt a style of discourse at the RefDesk that some may see as innappropiate. I too can be accused, and rightly so, of having an "agenda" of sorts. But I do my best to keep myself from crossing the line, though, admittedly, I'm not entirely successful at all times.

I have great respect for your input, Clio, and I suppose the reason I'm writing is because I'm wondering if you view my occasionally outlandish, over-the-top style of debate as indeed remaining within the bounds of appropriate civil discourse. Loomis 15:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Clio, I'm truly grateful for yor words of reassurance. Being the RefDesk's resident Hot-Headed yet-diplomatic Right-Wing, Canadian, anti-UN, pro-US, Polemicist, Egalitarian, Republican, Tory, Zionist, Humanitarian Jew, I certainly find myself quite alone at times! Quite a few apparent contradictions there, I know, yet trust me, I manage to hold all these positions simultaneously. I suppose I'm something of a political contortionist. In any case, it's nice to know, though I wouldn't dare expect you to share ALL my views, to know that you have, at the very least, respect for their sincerity. I thank you for that. Loomis 03:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and please call me Lewis, though the "Loomis" pseudonym may feel appropriate on the RefDesk, for those with whom I correspond in this form, my real given name feels more appropriate).

Speaking of unknown brilliant female writers, may I suggest you switch your pseudonym to the simple "George"? In honour of all those great female writers, George Sand and George Eliot, (not to mention the male George Orwell who too, decided upon "George" as a pseudonym for his given name). But you've decided upon Clio, and I wouldn't want to change that. "Clio" is truly a far more beautiful and attractive a name than "George". Is it possible to fall in love with one simply based on one's intellect (and one's assumed gender)? Loomis 11:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Lewis

[edit] Concerns

Hi, Clio, I just want to address some of my concerns to you. It's good that you have chosen to be a Wikipedian, but keep in mind that the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. Forgive me if I'm being nosy or a meddler, but I am concerned that you are not spending enough time on regular articles to build up mainpage experience. I strongly suggest you join a WikiProject, or Esperanza. Please let me know if you feel I'm meddling in your affairs too deeply. Thanks. bibliomaniac15 Review? 01:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I was just concerned. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nimrod

Nice suggestion, indeed. So many people just go for the cheesy patriotic stuff. That's one of the most gorgeous pieces from the entire era. Best, Antandrus (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Thanksgiving!

I wish I knew! How churlish of me; I always welcome good wishes. Clio the Muse 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for wishing me well too. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porn Insane!

Thanks for bringing the response to my attention, Clio. Otherwise I probably would have missed it. I realize that many contributors aren't first language English speakers such as ourselves, and I do my best to be as accommodating as possible when I see that they're really trying to make a sincere point. I know how it is to live as a member of a linguistic minority. After all, I'm an Anglophone living and working in a majority French speaking city. I should probably rate my French at a "4" on that Babel Language Profinciency Scale thing, but I'm not sure I deserve it. I'm more like a "3.5", so for modesty's sake I just give myself a "3".

But take Flamarande, (please! Apologies to Henny Youngman,) though I may disagree with him/her in many areas, s/he's nonetheless a sincere contributor, and therefore I make sure to NEVER pick on the fact that s/he's obviously not a native English speaker.

But this kjvenus troll is just too much! That remark just leaves me...I would say speechless but that would be a lie. In fact it leaves me almost laughing out loud. I realize, that for linguistic reasons, s/he obviously doesn't realize as (I hope) everyone else does that what I say is so obviously meant to be a satirical reaction to his/her sheer ignorance, backwardness and downright vicious attacks. Most at this stage would GET IT and say "ha ha Loomis, very funny", but this one is particularly dense.

In any case, I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say, as I don't feel I'm conveying it as well as I should. I take a very dim view of making fun of "foreigners", for lack of a better term, but in this case I just can't help it.

In any case, we're both probably raising our standards way to high for ourselves, as apparently neither of us are anywhere near as brilliant as His Excelency, His Ultimate Royal Wikipedia RefDesk Highness, the Venerable StuRat. To be honest though, I don't think he holds a candle to you in terms of intellect, but shhhhhh, His Highness may be listening!

Lewis Loomis 23:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vandalism Revert

It's no problem at all, it's what I do around here. Happy Editing. Cheers. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 09:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I appreciate your message. I'll be back probably on Saturday, and I've no intention of giving up the fight. However, I have to reconsider how best to proceed, and take some time to get perspective, and I am by no means kidding about having shit to deal with in real life. If the fight is important, others will continue it while I'm gone... and the way forward will be clearer when I'm back. -- SCZenz 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Green Incorruptible?

I'm actually not quite sure if I'm a "true" lawyer or not. Yes, I do have my law degrees, but I don't practice. An English exchange student (actually, he was from Jersey, and from what I understand that wouldn't quite qualify him as "English",) told me that in England at least, a lawyer is merely one who is trained in law. Of course the question remains, do I indeed want to be considered a lawyer! In any case, no worries, going through law school alone, even without practicing, one acquires an immunity to any and all disparaging remarks regarding lawyers. (Incidentally, they're all true. Lawyers are indeed a vile group of bloodsucking bastards!)

Though I may not be a lawyer "proper", what I can say, with absolute certainty, is that I'm the very dictionary definition of a hypersensitive neurotic. That's why it both pleases and reassures me so that you sent me that little note. Your tone at the RefDesk can sometimes leave me wondering. What did she mean by that? Was this or that remark meant to be condescending? And worst of all, did I say something offensive? or utterly ignorant? or dim-witted?

Of course it's not at all inappropriate to have a RefDesk persona that, to a degree, betrays the persona one exhibits in real life. And if it is inappropriate, I should fully admit to being far more guilty than most of that impropriety. The person known to his friends and family as Lewis is a rather quiet, gentle, sensitive, diplomatic and mild mannered soul, compared to that loud, sometimes obnoxious, confrontational, shit-disturbing reactionary known on Wikipedia's RefDesk as Loomis.

I should also tell you of any (if any) intellectual strengths I bring to the RefDesk, many of yours are not among them. I fully admit that my literary knowledge is incredibly weak in comparison to yours. I've spent far too many hours concentrating my intellectual energies in reading tomes upon tomes of text-books, legal journals, case reporters, and just plain thousands upon thousands of pages of purely academic literature (most of it, I should add, in French, only to compound the misery of it all!) to have had the time to get to the "good stuff" that you seem so well versed in. Also, my love for my particular people and faith demands a great deal of intellectual exertion, not that I mind it at all though. There are few things more exhilarating to me than to engage in serious theological debate with my coreligionists. Literally endless theological study, (this time in Hebrew! As if studying in French wasn't enough of a headache!) debate, redebate, and yet more debate, plays a central role in our particular culture. But for goodness sake, I haven't even gotten around to reading Hamlet! All that's to say that many of your literary (and historical) references are wasted on me, as they go completely over my head. "Sea Green Incorruptible"? That's surely one of them, and as such, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Yet, despite those weaknesses, I still think I'm capable of adding a thing or two at the RefDesk, and besides, it's fun to have something of a doppelgänger in Loomis to excercise my skills of debate!

As far as having a "nose" for people, as I'm sure you recollect, I spotted you from the very start as a true kindred spirit. As for the two who get on your nerves, well one is obvious. Though it's certainly unfair to say this of his people, I'm all but convinced that he must have been defining inspiration for the naming of a certain awful disease afflicting the poor Elm.

The other is a bit of a mystery. Just as you are. I won't ask you to name any names, and though this may be a bit of a longshot, I'm just hoping it isn't that poor young Englishman with two left hands and one foot constantly stuck in his mouth, Phil. I realize that his manner of discourse leaves much to be desired, but I've developed something of an affection for the clumsy young lad. Perhaps it's got to do with memories of my own awkward adolescence, but I just can't shake that protective feeling I have for him despite his seemingly endless faux pas. The kid's actually a lot brighter than he sometimes appears, and I have have no doubt that his heart is where it should be. He just seems to be having a bit of trouble tactfully translating what his heart tells him into polite English, and then, for goodness sake, spelling it correctly!

As for the mystery that is that exceedingly articulate literary and historical fountain of wisdom (yet one who can learn a lesson or two from Loomis in certain other areas...hey, I may appreciate your intellect, but I'm not a complete pandering sycophant!) who decides to represent herself as "Clio" at the Wikipedia RefDesk, now that I've basically revealed to you far more about myself than I should ever reveal to someone for whom I've never met, though I completely respect your privacy, I have but two simple-yet-burning yes/no questions for you, of which, though I hope you don't, you are of course free to disregard:

Am I indeed correct in my assumption that:

1) You are female; and 2) You are English, or, if not, at least a Briton.

That's it for me...I think that now I'll enter the term "Clio" into that searchbox in an effort to even slightly begin to unravel that fascinating mystery that is Wikipedia's: "Clio the Muse".

A la prochaine, mon ami(e) mysterieux/mysterieuse.

Lewis Loomis 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk cleanup, help needed

As a user who has expressed interest in dealing with misuse of the reference desk, you may be interested in my comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Where we stand and my new strategy for dealing with the problem at User:SCZenz/Reference desk comments. It will take help from many people in order to make it clear which behaviors aren't appropriate. -- SCZenz 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If we work together to point out what's problematic, hopefully the users who are creating difficulties will modify their behavior. But in any case, we won't be stuck talking forever. -- SCZenz 05:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Clio, I take your comment [1]:

"some people are clearly inclined to pontificate about Catholicism and sexuality without having a clue about the subject"

as a personal attack. I don't know who it is aimed at, since you didn't say. If there is a specific factual error, feel free to correct it, but saying someone "doesn't have a clue" is unacceptable, to me, and only invites retaliation. Please try to keep things civil on the Ref Desk. StuRat 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Pontificate is a descriptive and accurate term for what I had in mind; and as the comment was not directed at any named individual it can hardly be construed as a 'personal attack'. I have no intention of responding to this, or rising to the challenge. I would rather not have any comment by you on my talk page; but as removal would, I believe, be considered as vandalism, I have no choice but to let it remain. I do my best to ensure that future posting as are not misconstrued by you, Mr. Rat, or any other user. But I would be grateful for no further messages. In any case, no further reply will be lodged. Clio the Muse 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want me to skip the first step and go directly to the second step, complaining about it on the Ref Desk Talk Page, I will do as you ask. This is what I will do for future issues regarding your posts. However, since this particular issue is not so severe as to require debate on the Ref Desk Talk Page, and you seem to promise to be more reasonable in the future, I won't complain there, for this issue. However, a thinly veiled insult is still an insult, whether you give the name of the person you are insulting, or not. Whoever taught you it was OK to insult people as long as you don't use their proper names was mistaken. StuRat 10:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difficult users

Hi Clio. Regarding your question on my talk page, there aren't any easy answers. When a user is difficult, but not entirely disruptive, it is neither easy to figure out what's best for Wikipedia nor easy to obtain consensus on any particular course of action. If such a situation proceeds for long enough, it may be that administrators will reach consensus on some kind of community block or probation, or eventually the Arbitration Committee can be asked to review the situation in detail and make binding decisions, including probation and bans from specific pages. Short of that, however, the best that can be done is to be patient and offer constructive criticism to difficult users. If the criticism doesn't take root, and difficulties repeat, then offer more constructive criticism; this may help, and it will certainly make it clear to anyone who intervenes later that efforts were made to solve the problem. I hope that helps; if not, you should feel free to email me. -- SCZenz 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for civility and NPA on Ref Desk

Having remembered that someone said not to talk ABOUT the Ref Desk ON the Ref Desk, I am moving here my comment and request about a recent post of yours at Ref Desk. I have sent a similar request to the other party:Edison 17:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Same comment as above: per WP:NPA Please delete your comments which attack the other editor and restrict comments to answering the question posed. Edison 16:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have hidden the comments since they were seen by both parties, and were not appropriate for the desk and likely will be regretted later. They are still there to delete or unhide. -THB 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My response was a retort to a vicious and unwarranted personal attack. But I have now excised it from this page. Thank you for your comments and please refer to my general response on the RD talk page. Clio the Muse 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks

I noted the RD discussion. I'm sorry for how things are going for you, but a bit of advice if you'll humor me enough to read it. If you're looking for fairness, or justice, or anything like that, you're in the wrong place. These are not essential ingredients to producing an encyclopedia, so we don't worry about them much here. That said, we do worry about people interfering with productive edits, and we do worry about people making a hostile atmosphere for editors. The point I'm getting at, is sometimes we get treated unfairly, and we just have to sit there and take it. It sucks, sure, but that's Wikipedia for ya. I'll help out however I'm able- I do want to see a less hostile atmosphere. Anyway maybe I'm saying nothing you don't already know well, so take it for whatever it may be worth. Friday (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Spend’st thou thy fury on some worthless song?EricR 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts on the incident. I don't think what Loomis said was fair even in the slightest, but to avoid such misconceptions in the future you might work on explaining things better. -- SCZenz 17:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will confess to a certain degree of abruptness with him, but this was only because he irritated me immensely with his tone in The Law of Tort and Queen Elizabeth II. There should be no further problem, though, because I have no intention ever again of entering into discussion with him on any matter. Clio the Muse 00:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left one final statement on this sad business on the RD talk page. Clio the Muse 08:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I've added a few comments in your support to the witch-hunt thread. They may be too late - and to be honest, they may be too irritable to do much good. But nonetheless, I'm glad you've decided to stick around, and I hope you won't let the wikinonsense get to you. Cheers, Sam Clark 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Clio, don't let them get to you. I have not seen you do anything wrong. I'm not sure what is going on at RD but I have seen Friday and Hippocrite around and i trust both of their opinons. David D. (Talk) 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)