User talk:Filiocht/Archive three

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Multi-licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 14:45, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN

I agree. Where else can we advertise it though? Please feel free to do this yourself also! :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mete words meet

Well, I have attempted to add some stuff to the poetic diction article. I at least threw a bit on there about the history. A classicist could do a great deal more with how Latin and Greek poetic diction differed from common language, and each genre of poetry has its own general history of "diction" battles. Anyway, that's as much p.d. as I could think up for the time being (or p.diddy as it is known to the kids today). Geogre 18:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Meet yourself on DYK

Hi, Filiocht, I added a little more and put up Poetic diction for Did you know...? on the Main page.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 21:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Meet Abbey Theatre on the Main page

It's on for December 14!--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 14:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you know has been updated
and a fact from the article poetic diction, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:28, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Hooray

Congratutulations on the main page! Brilliant and near perfect timing. Giano 07:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggest you attempt to concentrate on whatever you are supposed to be doing on your computer all day! Giano 09:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've a feeling the pre-school playgroup near Tewksbury Abbey currently performing the famouse scene where 160 shepherds with tea towels on their heads visit the new born plastic doll also call themselves the Abbey Theatre - would you like to set up the disambiguation! Giano 09:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey congrats Filiocht on the Abbey! CGorman 21:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well! The punters obviously liked it only 30 edits, Lady Gregory for january? Giano 11:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

cringe making modesty Filiocht! Giano 11:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gold standard references

Already done :) Gold_standard#References. Btw, any idea why did my nomination appeared at the bottom of FAC? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid I can't even find the new instructions (and yes, I looked in Talk). Can we make it (or at least a bold link to it) sticky somewhere near the top? I have a self-nom in finishing stages coming soon :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Don't leave! But at least hear me out...

Look, I wouldn't have minded so much if CheeseDreams hadn't caused large structural and content changes of articles like Historicity of Jesus and had added her material in an integrated way. I would have argued whether the material was correct on the talk page and attempted compromises. But that's not what was done. Instead, one article was added on top of another. In other words one user acted in a roughshod way over several other hardworking editors. Do you think that sounds fair? Why should one user be allowed to make major changes that others don't agree with? Why didn't she just make smaller changes and discuss them? I suppose that some might say she's a newbie and to deal with it. But in this case she's been making personal attacks, creating new duplicated articles to get around problems and force her viewpoint (and note that the article title was Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be - entirely a POV title, and there was no need for it). At one oint the article even had empty sections which made the article look terrible structurally. If I thought CheeseDreams was willing to do edits in a more friendly and NPOV way then I'd have no problem. But it doesn't seem that she wants to do this. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, firstly let me be upfront. I've not asked others of my faith to comment on the story, but I've certainly asked many admins about the whole CheeseDreams issue. That said, I do see how that could be a little unfair. But I put to you that I'd be just as annoyed if I saw anyone add empty sections and slap an entirely new article on top of my exploding whale or Irish football. Wouldn't you? Imagine coming to many contentious edits and discovering the page in the following state [1] (and locked no less!). What would you do?
I can understand your ideas of a pluralist Wikipedia. Heck, that's what we are in effect because of NPOV. And (strangely enough because I'm a monotheist) I agree with it for this site. So please don't leave this site. I've seen your edits, and for what its worth they've almost always been of a high quality. If you left we'd be poorer for it. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Incidently, I forgot to note: if you look at that edit I gave you a direct link for, you'll notice that CheeseDreams just replicated the structure of another article, Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism on the top of it. While the article might have been necessary in summary form, that's not the way to do it. It should be added in one section with a pointer at the top of it. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I can see how it would upset her. That doesn't mean that the way she is editing is good though, and I stand by my reverts on this one. I try not to revert if I can help it, so when I do you'll know I have a good reason. Usually I try to either put dispute tags on and say why I've done this on the talk page. I've added my two cents worth on the talk page of Historicity of Jesus, in an attempt to compromise. I guess you could say you were part of the reason for that, though I would have done something like that eventually. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've made a start. Would you be able to help finish it in the discussion page so we can then add it after a few comments by people? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please note:

CheeseDreams 01:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A note from a friend

And I hope you don't think it's too pushy of me to call you a "friend" -- I think of you as one, at least. Filiocht, as part of the "Christian caucus" you allude to, I thought I'd come here to tell you that I don't think you're characterizing things fairly in the CheeseDreams case -- at the very least, I have a completely different perspective on the issue, which I hope you will read and consider. I can't speak for the others (and goodness knows we have a few crackpot Christians in the belfry here), but I know that my motives in dealing with CheeseDreams were always aimed at NPOV. From observing them, I feel that Slrubenstein and Wesley have been pursuing the same aims (although Slr, who has borne the brunt of CD's insults, has become combative also over the last few weeks). On the koans issue, for example, I haven't weighed in at all and Slr has defended the inclusion of the language on koans (with the caveat that we will need to attribute the claim to somebody, which is reasonable under WP policy). The issue with CheeseDreams has not been that she proposes ideas abhorrent to those of the Christian faith -- it's that she proposes ideas (often strange ones) while refusing to inform anyone of her sources, she is rude to people on talk pages (unless she is asked direct questions about sources, in which case she simply ignores the discussion and moves to a new article), and she does everything she can to disrupt Wikipedia (she filed a request for comment on me in which she essentially demanded I step down as an arbitrator because I had made a comment to clarify a Wikipedia policy -- see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig if it sounds too odd to be true). I have bent over backwards to understand CD's point of view and to help CD work productively with other editors, but I'm treated with disdain and incivility in response.

I can understand why it appears to be the "Christian caucus" responding to CD, but you have to remember that each article attracts its own interest group. If a troll arrived to add unverified information to History of cryptography, and then bashed people on the talk pages, added NPOV tags to dozens of cryptography articles without explanation, before finally filing requests for comment on half a dozen users and then filing an arbitration case against itself (again, not kidding), I don't think you'd be surprised if the "crypto caucus" came out en masse to deal with the issue -- after all, it's them who would notice soonest and care most. Christians tend to care about the Jesus articles...and I have to say, if you really did invest time to look at the discussions, you'd see that, by and large, the Christians are very happy to include verifiable assertions about Jesus, even those that attack the Bible's account of his life. Besides, CD has angered editors of all faiths -- in the arbitration case I mention, among the editors attacked as "fundamentalists" were Slrubenstein (Jewish), Wetman (devout atheist) and Eequor (I don't know if she is of a definable faith, but it's not Christianity, as evidenced by her user page and comments she makes just about everywhere).

I'm sorry to leave you such a long missive, but I confess I was stunned at your remarks. If there has been an attempt by some Christians to whitewash the Jesus articles, I'd say it is ridiculously minor compared to many other campaigns to present POV versions of articles (all the Israeli-Palestine articles come to mind). And frankly, I don't see the bias you see -- it makes sense to me that the Historicity of Jesus article mention Mithras cults, etc., as long as we can quote a decent source to establish the connection. I have no doubt that such a source exists. The issue with CheeseDreams was never about her bias, as far as I was concerned -- it was always that she used every kind of abuse she could think of to disrupt business here. More than once, an article dispute that she began has been near to resolving itself, as both sides find their way to compromise, and then CD has reappeared at the page and made inflammatory remarks in an attempt to derail the progress towards consensus. If CD would just stop all that and make serious attempts to improve our articles by responding to reasonable requests from other editors, we would work together and find compromise. I hope you can believe me when I say that. We know that there is still work to be done on the Jesus articles. But when your house needs remodeling, it doesn't mean that someone can walk in off the street and start knocking holes in the walls with a sledgehammer...especially if, when you ask them why they're knocking down that wall and what they're going to put there, they refuse to offer any kind of blueprint. It makes more sense to me to stop the person demolishing the house and then talk (with the community whose house it is, which may well include the sledgehammer-bearer) about what it is we hope to accomplish. Slr, Wesley, Ta bu, I, and several others have attempted to have these conversations on numerous articles....all that it has done so far is earned us the scorn and enmity of CheeseDreams, and ultimately the conversations never conclude anything because CD leaves once consensus begins to form and starts messing with another article...to which we all move to try and get consensus...continue ad nauseam.

I grant, the above may well be somewhat biased. But I hope you trust me enough to know that I'm trying my best to be accurate. CD is intelligent (I have no doubt) and may have many good things to contribute (while her ideas often sound to me like valid skeptic's positions, more and more her behavior looks to me like that of a troll here to disrupt the project). I am more than willing to work with her if she decides she is willing, and I have no desire as a Wikipedia editor to bias the Jesus articles. I would fight any Christian who tried to bias them (and my deeds do back me up -- just a couple of days ago I noticed that Christian views of women now misrepresents Christianity by acting as though Christians had never been anything but welcoming to women, so now I'm slowly getting into how to fix that article). I hope you'll reconsider the statements you made -- I feel sure that you have not seen the entirety of the situation (and it is likely I haven't either -- please point me to talk pages or articles where I'd get a different side of the story). Thanks for listening, and again, I apologize for the length. Jwrosenzweig 15:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No bad feelings, indeed! I am very much agreed with you on that point. And I will do my very best to be hyperaware of my bias -- I noticed the troublesome aspects of the house analogy as I wrote them (the house isn't really mine, at Wikipedia, or rather it is but only as much as any article belongs to each Wikipedian). I believe that my defensiveness of the articles about Jesus is driven by my feeling possessive of good NPOV articles, but I admit that some of the resistance may be coming from my beliefs, so I will do what I can to be aware of that, and correct it where I can. If you honestly see CD as a potentially productive user, then I can only hope you will work with her and the rest of us to get things moving productively again. I did what I could in that regard, but fruitlessly. Thanks for being honest about this, and please do call me on any of my actions that may be wrong-headed or counterproductive. I hope you have a pleasant evening, and a happy Christmas (if you celebrate the holiday) -- Jwrosenzweig 16:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I'm feeling a bit better, though I'll probably crash into sleep pretty soon. I agree with you on the paragraph in general, although I think I'd even take issue with the phrase "many historians". :-) I certainly agree that many historians don't think the Gospels adequately attest to Jesus' miraculous ability, etc., but as yet no one has produced on any of the Jesus talk pages more than a few names of academic historians who believe that Jesus did not exist. Most historians (again, based purely on my experience) seem to take the N.T. and what other documentary evidence exists (admittedly not a ton) as proof that some character named Jesus did something in Palestine during that time that ran him afoul of the authorities as a rabble-rouser and got him executed, but which galvanized some of his followers into propagating the notion that he was divine and that he was not truly dead (whatever those phrases may be taken to mean). I think that's what we're bumping up against -- Slrubenstein and I (and others) keep saying that our experience in this field would indicate to us that Jesus' historical existence isn't much disputed by academic historians, which CheeseDreams (and a couple of others, I think) tells us we're nuts and that tons of people doubt Jesus' historical existence. And I for one would be happy to see evidence of this -- certainly I know there are plenty of skeptics on the Web (CD cites many of them) who claim their research shows that Jesus din't exist, but it doesn't seem like many of them are credentialed. If you have any information in that end, it would be much appreciated -- I'm happy to have plenty of good attributed assertions about Jesus' non-existence from anybody who has ground to stand on historically, but so far we have not been given many names to work with (other than Elaine Pagels and a couple of others). I think the issue generally is that CD thinks it's common sense that many historians and other academics doubt Jesus' historical existence, and believes that we can say "many historians" or even "most historians" doubt Jesus. And Slr and I are saying that, while many academics outside the field of ancient history and religious studies may personally doubt Jesus' existence, we aren't aware of too many people whose expertise is in the history of that region at that time who doubt that Jesus was there, in some form or other -- therefore we would like to attribute claims against Jesus' historicity carefully so as to represent the actual research in the field fairly. Deadlock. Sorry for another long note (shorter than last time), and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I promise! :-) I'm just trying to hone in on what the real point of dispute is, although by now you may well have decided never to look at one of the Jesus articles again (I tell you, I'm close to throwing up my hands and letting anyone have them who wants them). Perhaps things will change soon -- as I said above, if you have any info that would help us attribute many of the assertions CD has made about what "historians believe" that would help immensely. I know I have no problem with challenges to Jesus' historicity being in the article, as long as they're reasonable and not merely repetitions of assertions made by guys who have websites that attack Christianity (as there is a lot of nonsense on the Web both for and against Christianity, though I doubt I need to inform you of that!). Anyway, I probably won't be around much for the next two weeks, so if I don't stop by again, have a wonderful Christmas (it sounds like you have a good one planned) and a good new year. Jwrosenzweig 00:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note: sorry for my continued efforts to drag you into a dispute you want no part of. I hope you will understand and excuse my efforts as the actions of someone who desperately wants a civil and intelligent resolution to the whole thing, and who therefore wanted someone like you on the other side. I appreciate the titles you left me and will endeavor to learn something about them soon. Thank you again, Jwrosenzweig 21:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of cultural references in The Cantos

Can you explain to me the use of this article? It doesn't look very encyclopedic to me. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:50, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the cultural significance of The Cantos, but if people there agree, I won't bother you about it. Thanks for answering so quickly. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Happy wikibreak

Hi Fili, nice to see you pay a flying visit! I hope you're enjoying your wikibreak. --Bishonen | Talk 15:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hey Filiocht, just wanted to let you know i've put Ryanair on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, so if you want to, please support - if you dislike the article - keep your mouth shut!

Hope your having a good christmas. I've started reading Ulysses - I probably missing some of the underlying meanings, points etc., in it as this is my first time to read it - but by God - its one of the best things i've read in a woeful long time - his sheer use of languague is worth the read alone! I'm about 90 pages in (im reading the peguin classics edition) and its fantastic. I must admit that I love the fact that my hometown (Mullingar) and county (Westmeath) are mentioned in such a remarkable book. CGorman 15:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration comedy

Thanks, Fil, I hope the wikibreak has armed you with patience for wikifools and -knaves for the new year, I'd hate to see you take off. Rc got edited through the night, but there was a big ongoing database replication fubar, just like the other day (when I saw you pointing it out somewhere, about stuff showing up on the page but not in the History or vice versa), and most of these edits seem to have disappeared, vandalisms along with friendly offerings. Maybe they'll turn up eventually. (That'll be delightful, a whole crop of piss and fuck magically reinstated.) Rollback wouldn't work, and Ta bu shi da yu had to protect it for hours to stop the history further feeding on itself. I think s/he had to do it on the two-line version that went "Restoration comedy is a xxxxxxx that licks xxxxxx xxxxxxxx", so, well, I'll check before I e-mail my mother to look at the front page and be proud. How are the Cantos?--Bishonen | Talk 12:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Matthew Brettingham

Thanks for the vote, this one is a bit of a yawn, but I wanted to promote somebody who was not very well known, in fact so unknown he looks set to remain so! Giano 16:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ryanair

Thanks for your support. CGorman 13:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some appreciation

Hi, Fili, want to see your appreciation appreciated? On my Talk page. Did the user in question really add content to your lit pages? He has edited all of mine, indeed, but only to add cats. I had received the impression that cats rather than lit were his consuming interest. Whazzat you say? Yeah, yeah... you're right. I probably will rm it from my page in the morning.--Bishonen | Talk 03:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do not think about going, I got disillusioned too, and left, after two days I could not stand the sight of the bad edits that cropped up on my pages, so returned, no-one had noticed I'd gone! Problem is the whole thing is too bloody addictive, and then these stupid petty spats take up too much time as well, Pcpcpc told me he could write better than me when he was 14, he's probably right, but if we all push off then the likes of him take over, can't you write a dissitation on Animal Farm, I'm sure there's an Irish connection in it somewhere. (I've never been able to plough through it, in case you are wondering) Giano 09:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Status

Hi there, I'm sorry to say I've not been following what's been going on around here recently. I've been kind of taking a back seat here for a bit recently (not sure that anyone has noticed). Anyways, I can highly recommend it. We don't get paid to work on Wikipedia - so what you do on it is entirely up to you. You owe Wikipedia nothing, especially with your exemplary past work. So work according to your terms. And that doesn't mean you can't even continue to be on Wikipedia every day for a bit (even to just check watchlist). I've pretty much been keeping on top of my watchlist, despite a long break over Christmas. I've one or two things I plan to do now, in my own time. I'm quite busy with things in work, socially, etc., that's the main reason for my back seat stance right now. I must admit though, it's a pity the Irish wikipedian's notice board has been so quiet recently. Perhaps the time is ripe for an Irish meetup even so? Apart from just meeting one another, I can think of any number of interesting topics to discuss, and perhaps we could take stock of where things stand with Irish topics on Wikipedia. zoney ♣ talk 12:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further to our duscussion

Hi Filiocht, Yes I know what you mean, after a while it gets to you, I'm actually in America at the moment on a job for a few days, problem is I never seem to acclimatise and manage to sleep, never here long enough I suppose. The amazing thing is one never meets these people here, they are all (well perhaps one exception comes to mind) delightful educated and broad minded, I suppose its the one or two who get the lot tarred, but then people always think we Italians are all the same, short, dark and pinching other people's girlfriends/bottoms - or both, well I don't fit any of those, well I'm dark, I'm not short, and as for the last - well I'm older now. Not working on anything at the moments, I am planning to do a few more architects who are less well known Matthew Brettingham is the third or fourth; but I had a run in with some-one about Rachelle Waterman, and was accused of anti-Amercanism - me? I'm more American than British, well actually I'm not at all British. so I thought I would stick firmly in nice uncontroversial architecture - then a serious fall out with Pcpcpc, who decided Country house was crap, his privilege, but he took the page to pieces, tons of smart new headings and then nothing, he appealed for help, I responded and then tons of abuse, so I too have begun to think what the hell. I think Zoney above is right - we can do what the hell we like! I go when I'm good and ready not when pushed. Giano 13:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) (with sadly not one tiny drop of Irish blood!)

I'm afraid Filiocht it leaves you looking like:- a tea total, shilalee waving, leprochaun singing "Danny boy"! and me selling ice-cream, singing "Just one cornetto", but at least I'm credited with a roving eye! and unless there is something very wrong with my spelling you with some Irish red links to blue. Giano 17:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the congratulations on MB, that was all very fast and painless. I actually read The Cantos last night, I had never heard of it before (burying head in shame), its a good article an very interesting, and I'll vote on FA, but I can't see myself ever reading the original somehow - give me Clive Cussler anyday. See those Irish links are still red!!! Giano 09:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
PS - I should explain my entire library has been bought at Heathrow, Fiumicino, O'Hare etc etc etc Giano 09:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What do I make of that? - As a lawyer and banker who lives in a Palladian house and finds romanesque architecture depressing and reminiscent of death - not a lot! Giano 10:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Serves the bastard right! I'll ask in the bookshop at O'Hare later today, they're bound to have loads on the subject for you. Giano 10:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yep, its 5.20. and I've been awake since 3, but I did fall asleep at 9.30 last night, trouble is I've a brain that never stops working, but leace for home this afternoon, weekened in Rome and then London on Monday so chance to catch up then; but I get amazing air miles which means I 'm never short of friends! Giano 11:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Reading re Ollieplatt

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Matters_currently_in_Arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Evidence

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Proposed_decision

Note that Ollieplatt has been deemed likely to be Libertas and about a dozen other user IDs by several Wikipedia developers who have presented technical evidence. The evidence page cites numerous examples of Ollieplatt engaging in disruptive editing and violations of wikipedia policies. The proposed decisions range up to a one year ban.

— Davenbelle 22:19, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Literature Collaboration of the Week

What's happening at the moment? For the past couple of weeks it's been that Greek bloke, but I seem to be the only one who's actually added anything to the article, and I didn't even vote for it. (In fact, I'd never heard of him.) If no one else has anything to contribute, maybe we should go on to something else... Deb 21:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm very impressed with your article on The Cantos. I never knew there was so much in it... Deb 12:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer_review/Archive_1#List_of_women_poets

You might want to check the archives next time. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail?

Hi, Filiocht, I've got a kind of urge to send you an e-mail. Might you be interested in making this possible, by either first sending one to me, or by temporarily enabling the e-mail option for your account? It's no big deal, certainly not anything important (though if you don't, you'll wonder gnawingly for the rest of your life what I would have said, won't you? ;-)). Best, Bishonen | Talk 22:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not. :-( Darn wikipedia e-mail, it only works about 50 % of the time. You might try mailing Giano instead, that will work just as well. Bishonen | Talk 15:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Your second mail message reached me, replying now. Bishonen | Talk 17:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cool! :-) Bishonen | Talk 09:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antique art objects on FAC

Ouch! Premature! Well, never mind, though it's a bit of a pity that neither Giano nor I have any free time to play today. Filiocht, feel free to move the page into the article space, if you think it would be safe there, I'm a little conflicted about it. I worry that it might get speedied there, or that it would be turfed off FAC as seriously Silly Vandalism, but maybe I'm paranoid. (Somebody referred it to peer review, but nobody referred to VfD yet, I see...!) I'm at work, no chance of even looking in at IRC and telling people to go vote. :-(Bishonen | Talk 14:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Bishonen's talk page, how many more times must it be explained this is not FUN it is serious research. I have been away for a couple of days due to a misunderstanding with a plain clothes policeman in Hyde Park while carrying out research for the page. However following an appearance before the Magistrates, one of whom had been happy to pose for the article only hours earlier, all is now sorted - sadly the video was confiscated. Pirate copies however, are obtainable from [2]. Giano 11:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Glad to see you're taking this seriously - not a lot of fun no, they seem to prefer to examine each others truncheons - odd lot the Brits! Giano 12:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sadly No! Giano 13:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Time for a laugh:- 2 seconds after leaving the last message I was adding an image to Cottage ( a very tasteful image too) have a look at the last paragraph - why do you suppose they have to stand in a shopping bag? My mind in boggled! Giano 13:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antique art objects in the Near East

Hi, Fil, thanks for the Alhambra addition and image and especially the image caption. :-D. I'm trying to dam the article against global contributions (trying just once, I'm not setting up for becoming immortal as Toilet Paper Holder Page Obsessed Bishonen), as I reckon it'll lose all funniness if it becomes too long, so I removed some Asian stuff, out to an article of its own (if you'll believe it—hey, maybe I am becoming obsessed), though I've sneakily kept your haiku in both places. See Talk page. Anyway, do you reckon I'd need to remove the Babylonian and Summerian material to the other "article", to be consistent? Babylon and Mesopotamia are, well, they're Asia, OK, but they're so much European heritage, aren't they? No...? I couldn't bear to lose the portable Byzantine holder and the Summerian clay pouch. I'm beginning to think I was hasty (usually I'm not even bold) in starting the Europeanising of the present article, maybe I'll just revert myself and turn the other articles into redirects. Even though there's something magnificent about having a whole article family... the Antarctic toilet paper holder is a bit of a challenge, maybe we'll need a "This article is a toilet paper holder related stub" template for it... a tph infobox... a Category:toilet paper holders... maybe a great overarching grandparent article Galactic bottom cleaning facilitator... [lost in happy musings. Bishonen | Talk 18:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

Hi - Have you seen this we are famous/notorious[3]. Giano 12:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antarctic toilet paper holder has now been created! It's a mere placeholder, though, a redirect to Tux. But hopefully User:SPUI has plans for a grand historical sweep. Bishonen | Talk 15:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Happy to oblige

That's OK understatement is my middle name! Giano 09:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/l/User_talk%7EFiliocht_Archive_three_b0fa.html"