User talk:Geogre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archive 1, Talk archive 2, Talk archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18: Lots of heat Archive 19: After the fire, before the pan Archive 20: After the pan, before the vote

List of things with gaps

It's new! It's exciting! It's an idea whose time came months ago: The Tags and Boxes Player's Guide Continuation: The Demotion Idea. If RFA is "broken," let's not make it FUBAR: The RFA Derby It's newer! It's not exciting! Essay on Wiki Cults of Personality

New Messages

Contents 1 "Real life" and "bias" 2 Portfolio for ArbCom 3 ArbCom vote page 4 ArbCom voting 5 Your input is requested 6 Oscar Rodriguez 7 Your questions 8 Jack Sheppard 9 Peachoid 10 Advice 10.1 Some Questions 11 ArbCom voting (2)

[edit] "Real life" and "bias"

I'm annoyed by the assumption that a person's actual political affiliations are supposed to be read. I'm even more annoyed by people who try to live their personal political affiliations on Wikipedia. Can a member of the Communist Party be fair in editing the article on David Stockman? Sure.

However, I have decided to list my personal memberships: Amnesty International. Other than that, I used to be in Greenpeace, USPIRG, I think, and I gave $15 to the Wobblies and $20 to the ACLU some years ago. My most active memberships come in the form of several scholarly organizations with dastardly plans for promoting two-day luncheons and Christmas fund raisers and the International Philologist agenda. Obviously, I bring a strong pro-buffet lunch bias with me to my editing. (I told you that I'm boring.) I don't blog about myself, don't write essays about myself, don't talk to myself, and try not to look at myself. (Hence I can't imagine why anyone else would want to, either.) Geogre 03:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first, and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

[edit] ArbCom vote page

Threaded discussion is not supposed to be part of the ArbCom voting pages; please keep all discussion on the talk page. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• If that were the case, Ral315, it would be possible for me to go to Oppose and simply malign without basis to whatever degree I wished. There was no discussion that I offered. There was a correction of a matter of fact and no invitation for there to be any discussion. As top vote, having an outright misstatement is pretty out of the question. I should much prefer that we strip all reasoning from votes altogether, as no good and much bad will come from voting rationales. Geogre 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Let me explain: the moment we have voting rationales, we have threaded discussions. This is the secret to RFA as well. The moment someone does "oppose because," we have an argument made. If we strip all of that and just have people list names (which is what all the candidates themselves have been doing, except in one case for me), we'll have an accurate vote. Instead, though, we are seeing the "oppose" votes in particular get into threaded discussions by means of the votes. We can't have one foot on the boat. If there is a choice between no correcting of outright misrepresentations and no rationales, I'd far rather have no rationales. In fact, that's how it really ought to be all the way anyhow. Nothing but argument and hard feelings will result from all of this soap boxing. Geogre 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. There are enough places for discussions already. How about if someone just said: "Oppose[http ... (link to discussion)]"? — Sebastian (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would love that. One of the reason that "RFA is broken" is that the voting rationales (developed for AfD and other discursive pages) cause cascades of votes among those who don't really click or who, because they link after reading the charge, have their reading of the link colored by the characterization that took them there. With AfD, people debate vigorously. With RFA, their hands are more tied. On the ArbCom elections, that kind of crowd dynamic can really be worrisome. Geogre 10:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Update here. Carcharoth 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom voting

Also, please note for anyone else reading this, that I do not think the exchange in question does evidence incivility, so I'm not in a hurry to hide it. I have offered and continue to offer an explanation for any honest questioner. I have too many reasons to think that Cyde is not honest in inquiry to answer anything from him in this case. (It nullifies the question, if the questioner does not want an answer.) No one has asked, but they've voted anyway, so I'm not very sure that the substance of the comments was the determining factor. Geogre 10:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, I hope you don't mind me also asking why you voted when you said you wouldn't. I was pleased when I saw that you had said you wouldn't vote for or against other candidates, but surely if your "dog in a manger" comment is correct (and I do find the comment interesting), then you've just fallen into the very trap you pointed out. By getting this response from you, this candidacy has stirred things up again and, well, you can see the results for yourself. I understand that this is a matter of principle for you, but would you consider striking your vote and/or comment? That candidacy was unlikely to succeed anyway, so who can claim the pyrrhic victory? (Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't meant to be a battleground, but elections often are). Carcharoth 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Are you speaking of Kelly Martin? I voted for several, and I voted against two. What I had said was that I had not planned to vote against anyone. I hadn't. At that point, Kelly Martin was not running. It is a matter of principle for me, because of Kelly's statements and actions in the past. She has enunciated very clearly a view that ArbCom is the real power of Wikipedia, and the single issue that frames my candidacy, from beginning to end, is that there is no power on Wikipedia, that we are equals. I will vote against the notion of power, against the notion of unilateralism, and, with nothing being said by her that distances herself from her previous statements and actions, that means that it would be hypocritical of me to be silent on her candidacy. The other exception, and one that I might well strike, is Kylu, and that is on one issue. I had to think about it very long and hard, too. I have no vote against her, but only against a vision of Wikipedia that she has announced that I think would lead us to paralysis, and that is a preference for IRC and untraceable communications. Again, I felt that I had to vote against that view, not that person.
• You are correct, of course, that I would have fallen into the trap, but I also think that no trap was necessary, that Cyde, for example, and Ideogram, for another, had never entertained voting any other way (and this is because of the history of the Giano RFAR and no other interactions). As it is, Cyde has claimed that a use of "he" had to be... something. Had it not been that, he may well have clipped from the RFAR comments or somewhere else, and, in the end, when I told him flatly that he was wrong, that I was not making any allegation about Kelly Martin's sex or gender, he actually said something that was flatly untrue. I have never called Kelly Martin a "wolf." I have not called her names, and those who don't click through won't be swayed in any case.
• Cyde's campaigning vote with its misrepresentation came before I even knew voting was open, so I don't think my vote and it are at all causally linked. However, you are correct: the candidacy of Kelly Martin had an extremely slim chance from the beginning -- so slim, based on her past campaigns and the fact that nothing has been resolved since -- that, when asked, I tried to guess what the motivation could be. Other than turning up the heat, I cannot think of any. Perhaps that's just a failure of imagination on my part, though. Geogre 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Geogre's reply to me: Yes, Geogre, I am talking about Kelly Martin. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Also, I see that I was wrong to say that you didn't intend to vote, and that in fact you only intended not to oppose. Having thought about this a bit more, I see that you are of course perfectly entitled to change your mind. I see that at the moment (well, as of mid-day when the bot last updated) you, Kelly and UninvitedCompany have the largest number of total votes, whatever that means. Carcharoth 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. I may look when I have time and inclination, but I have neither now. Geogre 16:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't say how long it'll stay open, but certainly at least for a few weeks. Whenever you have time is fine. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And so it came to pass: you're "a liar." At the same breath, she promises "to make a better effort at being civil." (HTH HAND) El_C 13:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I had hoped the nastiness was behind us long ago. However, there seems to me to be a great deal of venom being spread about any and all who once complained of her actions. I'm not sure how that undead cause (the complaints about her actions (I have to spell things out, lest my words get again subjected to being passed through the prism of antagonism)) can be put to rest, how that ghost can be sent onward, but I don't think getting into charge and counter-charge is going to help anyone. This is why I have no inclination and why I will not devote time to anything smacking of an indictment at present. It won't help dispute resolution, in my view, because passions are far, far too high and people are, again and again, focusing on personalities rather than issues. Geogre 14:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a lot of time and energy which could be directed toward more productive ends. El_C 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Rodriguez

Thanks for deleting and protecting Oscar Rodriguez - I was beginning to waste too much time on it. Please note that there is still a page called Oscar rodriguez which currently functions as a redirect page. It should probably be deleted and protected as well.--Tlmclain | Talk 19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We should probably also warn the various IP's involved not to do that kind of junk. A professional tomato picker, indeed! School kid goofs are annoying. Geogre 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again and I agree about kid goofs. I just hate getting sucked into this kind of thing. It is such a time waster to tag things for speedy deletion, just to have them recreated again and again. Here's another one I have been watching: Caz and hannah. Now the user has created a nonsense user page at User:Mrs Blobbyb and I'm not even sure how to tag it. I think I'm going to go back to editing for a while!--Tlmclain | Talk 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions

I'm not going to edit war with you over your own questions page ... that you removed my question rather than address it is evidence enough. --Cyde Weys 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is why I removed it. You assume that I am at war with you, that I hate you, and you launch an attack just there. You assume that I have to have one reason for removing the question, that it has to be "evidence." Why is that, Cyde? Are we at some war that I have not declared and whose declaration I missed? You assume that any reference I make to anything must be "evidence," must be "proof," must, must, must, must. That's the kind of atmosphere in which nothing may be said.
• I removed your question for not being a question. Your question was: why do I assume bad faith. That's the fallacy of many questions or begging the question. You assume, in your question, an entirely villainous, unproven, and subjective assessment of me and then demand that I explain why I am that way. It's absurd! The fact that you demonstrate that anything I say or not say will be "evidence" of something you've already concluded (in other words the fact that you are demonstrating bad faith) only heightens the absurdity of reading your statement as a "question." To even attempt an answer fuels your argument about me rather than with me. To ignore it is to leave a slanderous attack in place.
• So, since you have never attempted any resolution with me, never asked me questions or tried to reason with me...anywhere at all, much less on my talk page... and since the irate rant should have been on my talk page (since it was putatively about why I feel a particular way about you) and not on a policy page (since it had nothing to do with arbitration), I removed it as being evidencing very bad faith indeed. The fact that you continue to rage against me and try rants and mischaracterizations is your business. I would hope that people would investigate and decide for themselves. Now, why you want to sow these seeds I haven't a clue. Why you want the harvest they'll bring you is mysterious, but it's your business. Geogre 12:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Sheppard

... -- ALoan (Talk) 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dadgummed image server wasn't passing pictures when I went to look. I saw your comment on the talk page, and I think you're right. I've been scared of playing with NGC, but if Bridgeman is valid, then they don't have standing, and all our prior practice is commensurate with that. Several NGC's are here now. There is no question that it is old. I hope the image server wakes from its slumber by tomorrow, as what had been there was lacking. Geogre 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not getting the image. (Sigh) Geogre 12:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

NGC? But you were meant to be looking at the recent changes! Do you have a copy of Howson's Thief-Taker General? Is there anything in the DNB that should be added? I am half-tempted to FAC this, but would like to see what else can be added/cited first. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know that that was what I was supposed to look at. I already added in the DNB material (and they cribbed from Howson). I do have Thief Taker General. I also, I think, have access to Defoe's contemporary account. I know I have had, anyway. (If you're near a good U. library, the Works of Defoe will have it. He wrote it for Applebee's Journal. I might have it via Questia.) Geogre 14:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The library to which I have easy access is not that good, unfortunately. Never mind. I have finished with Gentleman Jack for the time being, unless I find another source. I am tempted to add snippets to Jonathan Wild, though, with <ref>s. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, this was relevant. Pity we don't have a complete set. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatchu talkin' about, Willis? I still have the Dover Thrift edition of the prints of William Hogarth. I didn't like Industry and Idleness, but I can scan 'em in, with some left/right cropping. Geogre 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Willis? "Sheppard's tale may have been an inspiration for William Hogarth's 1747 series of 12 engravings, Industry and Idleness, which shows the parallel descent of an apprentice, Tom Idle, into crime and eventually to the gallows, beside the rise of his fellow apprentice, Francis Goodchild, who marries his master's daughter and takes over his business, becoming wealthy as a result." -- ALoan (Talk) 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't know Willis? Sure I know the reference. I've heard it before, including in the book of prints I have. My question is whether you're game for trying to do for Industry & Idleness what you did for A Harlot's Progress? It's not as good a series of prints (not as fun, much more pedantic). Geogre 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

O-I-C. Could do, I guess. I think it works for the Harlot, FWIW. There is also the Rake and the Marriage, of course, for which we have full-colour images already. I may get to Times or Cruelty tomorrow - I don't think we have any of them, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cruelty is cruel, but the Times is good, as well as Before & After (which is hilarious). I still like my b&w prints better than the paintings. That's just me, though. Geogre 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, commons does have Before and After. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peachoid

You're welcome. I've been removing that sort of unsourced stuff from articles I casually run into fairly recently in the past few days. One thing's for sure though - we don't want anything cited "according to rumor" :) —Scott5114↗ 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This one is a magnet, too, for school children who want, desperately, to say, "It looks like a butt!" In that case, it's absolutely without any question or hesitation bullflop. There are photos from the day it was built, there are drawings, and there is the account by the Gaffney Board of Public Works that it was a peach, was always a peach, always looked as it does, etc. Still, kids will want to scribble "fart" in their school books, and they'll want to point out the obvious here, too. Geogre 03:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Firstly, I'm sorry the Arbcom thing turned into somthing of a midden and can only find solace in the knowledge that those still in the running appear to be ok candidates. On another tack I'd appreciate your thoughts. Architecture currently has no written policy for either notability or importance - this post is prompted by a few events. 1. WP:ARCH has implemented an article assessment process 2. discussions in AfD's are pretty ad hoc at the moment (this might be an ok thing but a policy might aid consistency) 3. We were recently asked if fictional structures should be included as part of WP:ARCH, I responded like this. Do you have any advice regarding establishing policy? --Mcginnly | Natter 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the flames are mysterious and bad, as no one has actually attempted to discuss whatever it is that I'm supposed to have been furious about, and I don't recall being furious at any point. It's hard, then, to figure that the people taking such umbrage weren't intending to do so no matter what was said. The voting, on the other hand, isn't so plashy as it seemed. Never mind, though: as I said before, I don't see how it's going to make any difference to me, either way.

I do, in fact, have some advice. The best thing I can recommend is that we maintain our general standards and work from them. Way back in the mists of time, I suggested that we consider 1) first of its kind, 2) imitation, 3) innovation in technique, 4) degree of effect in other senses than artistic heritage. To that we can add, as very much of a second tier, infamy and failure. This is the intellectual basis we apply to other areas. For example, in contemporary music, we look for leaders (e.g. John Cage) and for big sellers (e.g. Abba), those who gather negative attention (we probably have an article on the dozens-selling Screwdriver). In that case, it's hard to talk about longterm influences, but we slide the importance onto other areas. (Sorry if I'm stating the obvious and you're looking for specifics.)

If you're looking for specifics, I'd shy away from too many of them, because too many will make the policy impractical, but I'd suggest that architecture by a leading architect is not sufficient, unless it is itself a building that meets one of the other criteria. (In film, for example, we have to understand Stanley Kubrick as a great, but his first few films were studio productions with no signs of life, so they'd be best discussed in his article rather than in a separate one.)

If this isn't helpful, or if you have a spot to work this stuff out, let me know, and I'll be happy to help. Geogre 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that fictional architecture is rarely related to real-world architecture, so there is little need for the two to mix in WIkipedia. I'm also posting a comment here because I had to go and look up 'plashy' and found lots of interesting definitions here - its a Google cache and might vanish soon, so I've copied the definitions over here:

• Plash

• A small pool of standing water; a puddle. Bacon.
• "These shallow plashes." Barrow.
• A dash of water; a splash.
• To dabble in water; to splash. "Plashing among bedded pebbles." Keats.
• Far below him plashed the waters. Longfellow.
• To splash, as water.
• To splash or sprinkle with coloring matter; as, to plash a wall in imitation of granite.
• To cut partly, or to bend and intertwine the branches of; as, to plash a hedge. Evelyn.
• The branch of a tree partly cut or bent, and bound to, or intertwined with, other branches.

• Plashet

• A small pond or pool; a puddle.

• Plashing

The cutting or bending and intertwining the branches of small trees, as in hedges.

The dashing or sprinkling of coloring matter on the walls of buildings, to imitate granite, etc.

• Plashoot

• A hedge or fence formed of branches of trees interlaced, or plashed. [Obs.] Carew.

• Plashy

• Watery; abounding with puddles; splashy.
• "Plashy fens." Milton.
• "The plashy earth." Wordsworth.
• Specked, as if plashed with color. Keats.

Maybe you are saying that you thought the voting would have more people splashing their opinions around to create a nice abstract 'granite effect'? Or maybe a 'puddle' effect? Anyway, I'm going to use plash in the other (hedge) sense the next time anyone mentions walled gardens, or should I say 'plashed gardens'? :-) Carcharoth 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant, in fact, "abounding in puddles": the voting is not so swampy/besprinkled/wet as it might appear: there is less of a sinking into the mud than one might suppose. Of course now it appears that a new group has begun to show up, and one could wonder why, if one were inclined. As I've said before and say again, it will make very little difference to me. I do plan, upon advice, to actually "respond," but I loathe the need or the effort. Geogre 16:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that someone has responded to Cyde's first oppose vote, castigating him for not presenting the facts fairly. I wonder if there is a way to randomize vote order on the page in future, so that people can't try and jump in and 'set the tone' of an election? I've seen that happen at RfAs, and I was hoping it wouldn't happen here. I should go and remove Ben's comment to the talk page, per the "no discussion" thing, but I'm running out of ArbCom Election-watching motivation here. Maybe later. I do notice that you are still high up (fourth) on the list of total number of votes with 235 overall (go to User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections and sort by total). Only UninvitedCompany (243), Kelly Martin (244) and Can't sleep, clown will eat me (307), have more total number of votes than you. By comparison, the bottom 14 candidates have less than 100 votes in total each. CSCWEM has had an astonishing surge in support votes over the past few days. So much so that he has received 63 more votes more (more than a quarter more) than the next nearest candidate. I'm planning to run some stat-generating thingumies over this election after it has finished. Carcharoth 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks George, yes I'd be very grateful if you'd have a look when we set it up. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear to me why voters (for or against) get a free shot, with no (or, at least, no effective) right of reply (yes, the comments are moved to the talk page, but who looks there before voting?) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, some people seem so expert in their misrepresentations in the first vote position that they couldn't have planned it better had they had a month of stewing and stoking vengeance for perceived slights. The real villainy is in people who don't investigate and who don't think independently, but such is the nature of a plebiscite. It's not the first time, surely, that a first vote voter has biased everything that followed (see RFA). Despite that, such is the system we have. We can respond to it by rethinking voting methods (yes), rethinking franchise (probably), rethinking the "threaded" definition and lack of proctor (no), or agreeing with the people I utterly loathe that we should abandon "process" and let the "clueful" do what they want (obviously not). I remain committed to democracy wherever possible, but before voting began I was in favor of simple names for support or oppose, with no comments at all or secret votes. The present system was begging for fights, and it is living up to it promise. Geogre 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Questions

Greetings, thou sage of notability! I've found this discussion of notability quite interesting. Besides guidelines for music, there are no guidelines for the performing arts, therefore I've set about the initial stages of devising some. The first area I'll tackle is dramatic works. I'd like to pick your brain on a few things:

• • First off, I'm defining the category of dramatic works as encompassing all individual works for the stage ranging from ballet to opera to plays but also including works written in a dramatic form but not meant to be staged such as oratorios and closet dramas. Do you think this is too broad?
  • Here are the criteria I have so far:
    • 1. Works essential to the development and history of a particular format or genre. This includes works that may be deemed the "first of their kind" or works that introduce innovation.
      2. Major works by major creators.
      3. Winner of a non-trivial prize or award. (Should this include nominations for such awards?)
    • What else should be added?
  • How would you handle minor works by notable creators (i.e. Albee's The American Dream (play), Handel's Agrippina (opera), or Kander and Ebb's The Visit)?
  • What about lost works where there is substantial scholarship such as Shakespeare's Cardenio?

Thanks for your wisdom on this! Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got a dilemma, there. Plays, in particular, straddle the worlds: they are both literature and performances, both actions and documents. Therefore, you need to be somewhat subtle in your standards. For example, Cardenio is well discussed as a literary document, and that is tied up with Shakespeare-the-poet, whereas, for example, the performance of Rite of Spring was a huge event. Thus, plays in performance, as ongoing actions, carry one sort of notability and need to fit one set of criteria, while others exist as their remains. This is complicated further when we look for plays whose fame/importance is in their ability to continue to be performed. (P.S. Our Town is a moderately major play as a play, but that sucker is being staged around the clock in high school auditoriums the world over. Therefore, as literature, it's moderately good, but as a play that can be performed and that is performed, it's top of the charts. The Crucible is, I think, a moderately poor play on the page. There's nothing to it. However, because it was the first major anti-Blacklist play, it gets marks. Because it is performed around the clock in school auditoriums around the world, it gets huge marks.)

I agree with the criteria you have so far.

I would add, perhaps, Works whose performance had an exceptional effect on the world around it. (E.g. Deep Throat is a worthless film, but it had a huge effect.) Therefore, those plays that caused riots or made everyone respond (e.g. The Deputy by Ralph Hotchuth, which dramatized the Pope agreeing with Hitler, caused an explosion, and Hair (play) is really pretty boring, but its nudity changed the theater a bit) would qualify.

Minor works by major authors do not generally need separate articles unless they are major objects of study. Albee's play got quite a few performances and gets discussion, just as some of Beckett's one act plays do, and so it should stand alone, even if the works are minor in other respects (short, for example). Beckett's Endgame is only one act. That makes it rotten for performance, since you have to stage something else with it, and yet it is talked about over and over again. Therefore, it probably should have a separate article, while most of his other one act plays shouldn't.

Handel's works all get a lot of ink, even the minor ones, so they probably need separate treatment, but, as I said, you've got two separate directions for notability to apply with these things: performative and objective. If a thing is substantially important as a performance or as an object of study, it will be sought by readers of the encyclopedia. Geogre 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PS #2: When you get to the worst problem will be with "happenings" and "performance art." John Cage's silent 4' 15'', or whatever it's called, has only been performed twice. It isn't written about much as itself. It's referred to constantly. It happened, man. John Cage came out and sat at the piano for four minutes! The event in other words, really qualifies as a major event. I think we'd agree on that one. So, once we do, how do we filter out every random hare brain defecating in public, urinating on a lump of clay, getting shot in the shoulder, shaving her hair (all of it), inserting razor blades in naughty places, etc.? How do we allow in the big "happenings" and not allow in every "I saw some dude eat doo-doo" event? It's a lot harder for me to think of a set of criteria that people can agree upon there. Geogre 02:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom voting (2)

I have to say I'm impressed with much you say, and what you've done here, though squeemish on some aspects of the razor weilded on WP:AFD—I tend to be inclusionist. People have made an effort and spent time so I see many nominations as a discourtesy, and we so agree on the quality, so I'm inclining your way.

     How about a quick review Template talk:Wet noodle award. I'm getting ready to poll a bunch of others, so if you got a minute before I spam some requests... I'd appreciate it. I was reading through this and got a thirst to see whether you think this would be too outre. I get sooo tired of poor tracking annotations, which alas, is usually none at all. Good luck regardless. // FrankB 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I make no bones about the fact that I set my include/exclude higher than other people do, but I would like to think that, despite arguing for higher standards, I abide by consensus. If a thing goes to AfD and wins, even when I know deep down that it's silliness, I tend to leave it alone. To me, that's what it's about: we reason together, and we have to lump it as often as like it. I know that nominations can offend people, but I honestly think that we have to be tough enough to face it, that that's a prerequisite of cooperative editing. It's to be expected that other people will mess with "our" work, including thinking that it should be deleted, and it's all of a piece. That said, people need to be a lot nicer on AfD and stick to the deletion policy rather than reflections on personalities. I'll take a look at the template and let you know. My latest little essay User:Geogre/People People argues that we have to dissociate our selves from our articles and from our interactions on Wikipedia. That's easier said than done, and I fail as often as anyone almost, but sometimes we're just going to have to launch our articles out there and let them fare as they will. (I do rescue articles when I can, by the way, but I am regarded, still, as the archangel of deletionism, I suppose. That's more reputation than performance, though.) Geogre 02:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• On the award: It's pretty funny, and I'd be tempted, if I weren't conflict averse, to reach for it from time to time. I get pretty frustrated with tags on articles that have no clear rationale. I've gotten "cleanup" tags on articles, where there was nothing wrong with them. They were written by me, in my second year as an admin, full of wiki-links, and I teach grammar and punctuation, so there was nothing wrong there, and yet, when pressed, the person who put the tag on said, "I didn't understand some of the sentences." I felt like shouting, "Which ones?!" I then felt like making rude observations about the person's reading comprehension. I didn't, of course. The person placing the tag was usually a new editor, and he or she was usually really trying to help, and he or she usually really thought, "I don't understand" = "No one can understand." Therefore, I wouldn't have put the template on.
• Basically, the problem, I guess, is a template along those lines. An actual award that was less template than image, or a simple personalized message (e.g. the "UserX's Nagging Finger of Fate") might have passed muster. The temper of TfD these days is pretty intolerant of warning/nagging templates, as well as parodies and jokes. I don't mean to accuse the voters there of being totally po-faced, but, well, template making is rapidly becoming one of those republics or satrapis at Wikipedia: the people who make them seem to be in conversation with each other, and outsider templates get denigrated. That community within the community is generally dedicated to doing the right things for the project, and for the right reasons, but it can render them humorless. Geogre 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)