User talk:Clio the Muse/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


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:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Template:AndonicO's version of Randfan's Happy Thanksgiving template

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Merry Christmas!


Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Clio the Muse! | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
May you and your family have a Merry Christmas, as well as any other Holiday you may celebrate. I hope that warmth, good cheer, and love surround you during these special days. May God bless you during the Holidays. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
.

Thanks for wishing me a Happy New Year. I hope you had a nice trip. :-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 13:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

New Year
Wishing you a Happy New Year
from S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
And a Happy new year wish from me as well, for your excellent work at the Reference Desk; good to see you back. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Punic War

Thanks for answer. Appreciate it! Will follow up on suggestions. See Reply on Humanities, can you confirm? --Doug talk 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Additional replies on Humanities Reference Desk. Comments? --Doug talk 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) They have archived that page. If you would like to comment on my "discoveries" and tell me what you think, I have it under my User page as "Second Punic War" under "Articles I'm working on". Thanking you for any input.... --Doug talk 22:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OTB: you may find this amusing...

Colcannon and the article history.
User_talk:Sarah777#.22borebkole.22
Two Dutch guys answered the unanswerable. As Heinrich Böll mighta said, "Wo warst du Clio?"
ps: 'U rAwK, dUdE', as I believe Young Folks These Days Say.--Shirt58 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

El gusto fue mío

Clio, thank you for thanking me for my thoughts on Mexico City. I was happy to be able to help you after all of the help you have given others on the Reference Desk. I very much admire your scholarship and civility. It is a pleasure to share the pages with you! Marco polo 19:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to your comment

I dug back through the RD archives, and found the incivil personal attack on you by Loomis on January 10. Had I seen it at the time, I would have similarly asked Loomis to remove it. On the Ref Desk discussion page, the consensus is that it is far better for an editor to remove their own incivil remarks than to wait for the RD deletionists to do it. I cannot condone a personal attack on January 29 as somehow being the proper payback for a personal attack by someone else on January 10. And please note that the removal of NPA warnings, when they are given in good faith, is not looked highly on. Please do not perceive me as being your enemy. I value your informed comments on military and political issues on the reference desk, and there are large areas of agreement on some political questions. I am not an ally of Loomis or anyone else, in general, but I do think it is important that the Reference Desk not be a sea of personal attacks and metacomments. Once again, please redact the parts of your comment that we can both see are incivil. Thanks. Edison 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the Jan 10 remarks are archived, it's hard to see benefit in doing much with them at this point. There is RFC and ArbCom and such, but that just opens you up to the same penalties if any. In the present instance, do you see incivility or personal attacks in Loomis' France/Germany postings that need to be removed? (not just disagreement about law and history)?Could you just go in and remove/delete/edit the parts of your post which need it? That leaves you in a better position if there are such exchanges in the future. Edison 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalking would be following you around and removing or otherwise deprecating your articles or edits. Baiting is akin to trolling: saying something which draws an actionable personal attack in response, but which is itself not actionable. Some on Wikipedia are masters of it. I always picture kids in the back of a car on a long trip: one seeks to touch or provoke the other surreptitiously to get the other one to yell or hit first, so they get punished. That is the behavior I hope to keep off the public area of the Reference Desk. "Ma, she hit me! He started it! No she did! Did not! Did to!"Edison 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For future refrence, in the event Loomis flies off the deep end for no particular reason again, please alert me on my talk page and it will be handled. You, however, must stop taking the bait. Users who count are well aware of who is presenting valuable historical information and who is presenting substanceless historical debate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer or not to answer...

Hello, Clio, regarding your statement at the RD talk page, your attempts to keep the drama low are commendable, but I don't think you should shy away from questions you'd normally answer. It's neither fair to the original poster nor to the interested reader.. :) Take care. ---Sluzzelin 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Sluzzelin; I will keep this in mind. Clio the Muse 06:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Welcome back!

It's good to have you back, Clio. I'm glad that my thoughts on Mexico City were useful. I hope that you enjoyed it! Marco polo 18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was fun! Clio the Muse 03:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

SF

I don't blame you for the position - facts are bullets. That said, some common sense helps: if someone says, for example, that the SDLP support the police, no sane person would be implying that that was even B-specials support. I don't blame anyone for that position! (I should say, though, you seem to know British politics well, to quote figures like that on Iraq. Not a topic most females (seeing your user page) seem to really care about. To quote Douglas Herd: if it weren't called politics, most people probably wouldn't have a problem with it! Even that probably doesn't apply to NI.)martianlostinspace 22:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. In Northern Ireland politics is just another name for history. Clio the Muse 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Extermination camp

Regarding your answer from RefDesk, perhaps you could adapt it to expand the Extermination camp entry?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

on the Reference desk dancing

Hey you, I see you, on the Reference desk dancing—was it you who answered the riddle of the 20th C. artists' first names? You should know they're discussing a new colour scheme for that infobox at the top of the desks. A trivial concern, but how can you resist?. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey you, too! I do indeed dance on the reference desk, but not to that particular tune. I can resist everything, including tempation! Clio the Muse 10:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Who can resist bold, linked text? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I really hate to disappoint people! Clio the Muse 18:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You are cool.

I'm just clicking around profiles, and I have to tell you, you are cool. Capubadger 15:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you, Capubadger! You are very nice. Clio the Muse 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet another admirer, afar

At least, as much "afar" as one can be in this near-yet-distant medium.

Your clarity of thought, logic, and language make the Humanities reference desk a place of beauty. It's like the library I've always wanted to work in.1 Thank you.

Anyhoo. Just popping in to add my voice of commendation and awe. Ta!

Thank you so much for your very kind words, Jfarber. Love and good wishes Clio the Muse 06:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


1. IRL, of course, mine is full of middle school students -- who have their own charm, but whose epiphanies are so much rawer in their beauty. Jfarber 03:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The composer Karl Marx

Hi Clio. Sluzzelin has very kindly found a few extra facts about him - see my talk page. You might be interested in taking a peek. It seems he held an academic post in Graz (Austria) throughout WW2, and then went to Stuttgart in 1946, so I think it's unlikely he was Jewish. Cheers. JackofOz 04:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And now we're told his work in Graz was at a Hitler Youth organisation. The plot thickens.  :) JackofOz 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you to ms. clio

dear ms. clio :

many thanks for your clear response to my question ref. MICHAIL GOURAKIN.

some of my novel writing concerns russia. if you know of anybody who'd like to get in touch with me, my co-ordinates are as before. knopf has just requested pages.

best, alf

alfred warkentin a l f r e d d d w a r r r r @ y a h o o . c a 216.95.60.129 08:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Clio, I moved this here from the humanities board, that certainly isnt the right place for it.. do with it what you will. Capubadger 12:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Capubadger, and thank you, Alf, for your kind message. Clio the Muse 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Italian Internment Camps during World War II

The current discussion that started on March 3 on the Humanities Reference Desk keeps showing up (on my Contributions page, anyway) as already Archived... so I just wanted to send you this head's up on something I've just added there in response to a point you raised. Otherwise, shall take this opportunity to note how greatly I value your contributions to the historical queries there, and my admiration for the content you provide. Severe time limitations preclude my own participation to a great extent, but I'd aspire to continue along these lines myself. -- Cheers, Deborahjay 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you so much, Deborahjay. I would be happy to continue this discussion, though it seems a little futile when the issue in question has already been archived. I think the cut off point is far too quick, and I shall raise the matter on the RD talk page. My very best wishes Clio the Muse 08:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nil desperandum - back atcha!  :-)

I want you to know that it was your remarks on this issue in the RD Talk page that provided me a suitable point to insert my suggestions. I've been troubled by this matter and thinking about it for quite a while now, so am glad to have been spurred to take the opportunity to formulate my ideas and express them. Hopefully other users will feel encouraged, adopt this active approach, and redouble their efforts along these lines — such that the momentum will shift the balance back towards a lean, clean, effective Reference Desk on all and sundry topics. And thanks for the note on my Talk page - nice to know I'm read with understanding, and I do consider your approbation an honor! -- Deborahjay 20:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are very nice, and I greatly admire both your coolness and rationality in dealing with matters that must cut close to the heart. Clio the Muse 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor nitpicking

Hello, Clio. As a German speaking Klugscheißer, I can't help myself and feel the compulsion to point out two minor typos on your user page: Leni Riefenstahl and Käthe Kollwitz - what an aesthetically challenging juxtaposition! ;-). Take care, and looking forward to reading more contributions at the desks. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Sluzzelin; both errors have now been corrected! Clio the Muse 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I have to say that most art I approach intellectually. There are some artists, like Frida Kahlo and Edvard Munch, who have reached deep into my emotions; but Kollwitz is the only artist who ever managed to make me cry. Clio the Muse 12:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What an homage! I envy you. I thought long and hard, but no painter or sculptor has ever done that to me. Like many mortals, I can be a big Heulsuse when listening to music and, frequently and annoyingly, when watching Hollywood movies. Deeply moved, nevertheless, by works of the artists you mentioned, I'm looking forward to visiting an exhibition this April: "Edvard Munch - Signs of Modern Art" (Why do they always need a subtitle, even when the artist is the theme?). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I too, can be moved by music and movies, Sluzzelin. I remember The English Patient really brought on the gushes when I was a teenie; it still does! There are also some novels that have had this effect on me. I can think of two in particular-The Last of the Just by André Schwartz-Bart and Victoria by Knut Hamsun. I'm a big softy, really! (also, as I think you know, hard as nails when I need to be!) I hope you enjoy the Munch exhibition. I find his work highly challenging, especially when he deals with the sickness and death of his sister, Sophie, and the themes he explores in the Madonna, a print of which I have on my bedroom wall. Be seeing you. Clio the Muse 15:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bully, bully

CtM, I just read your long response over here while your signature was off the bottom of my page, and resolved to say "holy smokes, good answer!" to whomever had posted it, but then saw that it was you again. Holy smokes, good answer! I know that on the internets no one knows you're a dog, but if you're really 24, then bully bully for you. <3 -- Sean —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TotoBaggins (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Sean. Yes, indeed; it's all true: young, smart, tough and very opinionated! It's all to do with my old-fashioned English upbringing, you see, an obstacle-course which took me through a girls' boarding school and into Cambridge (where I still remain). Clio the Muse 07:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sanctity of Life" (tardy acknowledgement)

Clio, I've been tardy in acknowledging your lengthy and helpful response to my March 10 query on the Humanities Reference Desk. Mainly I was tracking down what I knew of Franz Jäggerstätter, namely as the subject of Yehoshua Sobol's 2002 play, "Ed Re'iyah" (Eyewitness), which got me involved in editing problems on the YS page. I'll do what I can to close it off properly. -- Thanks much, Deborahjay 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Im really glad to have been of some use to you, Deborah. Clio the Muse 07:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mea Maxima Culpa

Clio,

I'm sure I'm the last person on Earth you'd expect to get a message from. Yet I give credit to Anchoress for inspiring me to take this bold step.

Regardless of the context, my personal attacks upon you were unbecoming of the type of man I aspire to being.

I therefore offer you my absolute, unqualified and unconditional apologies for any and all insult, offense or attack I have ever directed toward you.

Mea Maxima Culpa.

Loomis 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not in my nature to harbour and nurture resentment, but I find some of the things you wrote about me, and your consistent attempts at the lowest forms of character assassination, difficult to forget. It would be churlish not to accept your apology, if it is sincere, but I think we should continue to avoid each other, for both our sakes. Clio the Muse 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And so it goes on. Why am I not surprised? Clio the Muse 01:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Thanks for your contribution. Helpful. --Dweller 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I knew it could not possibly have been you. But please do not let this alienate you from Jfarber. He is a good and thoughtful editor who, in this case, has become confused between the Diligent and Dweller labels. My concern is that he is taking the anti-semitic rubbish far too personally, and may be driven off altogether, which would be a sad loss. Clio the Muse 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, then:
  • To Clio for the kind words and clarification as above.
  • To Dweller for taking my mis-identification of him so well, and for accepting my apologies so readily.

And...anti-semitism bothers me, but not enough to have reacted so strongly. Instead, people who misrepresent others' words back to them, in public, piss me off. People who misuse public space piss me off. People who refuse to actually "get it" piss me off. I'm working on this "issue," but as a teacher, I need to keep my instincts in RL in these areas honed, so it's a fine balance. I can't just say "learn to live with it." It's what makes me a good teacher, after all, in part, that my instincts do not allow me to remain complacent in the face of folks who will not take ownership of ideas, and listen, and learn, and be respectful. I guess I just forgot myself -- or perhaps am not, ultimtely, best suited for a medium where folks have no mandate to hold themselves to behavior which will support, not destroy, the social contract. I'll try to stay for a while, and see what happens. Wikipedia is, after all, a place for all of us to learn -- about facts, and about societies, and about ourselves. Thanks, both of you, for helping me remember that -- and for being worth learning about, with, and from. Jfarber 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

<blushes> --Dweller 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a few sad cases here of people who get off on 'pissing off', if you take my meaning. If they can't do this one way they look for another. I know it's difficult, but they are best treated with frosty contempt, or ignored altogether. For any other user I would have responded to the 'books of the future' question. Users like Diligent do not deserve a considered response, because I can see this turning into a basis for another of his wearisome rants. Please, Jfarber, try to hold in mind that these types eventually tire altogether. or become Wikipedia jokes. Your victory is to remain at all hazards. Clio the Muse 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your Tennyson Help

Clio:

Thank you for your help regarding the Idylls of the King; I realize they were a lot of questions, and the breadth of them was quite large. As for other editor's response, I'm over it, but I truly feel these type of response contributes to Wikipedia's growing cult like, and exclusive persona. We need to act professional to everyone, in and out of the community. Anywho, thanks again for your help. (BTW, I'm in awe of the sheer magnitude of your answers on the Humanities Board; it is quit frankly amazing.) Cheers Zidel333 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you! ♥ Clio the Muse 05:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union Privatization

Hello Clio. Thanks much for your detailed answer and helpful links in regards to my question about the Soviet Union I posted the other day. Your user page is fantastic, and I think you just became my hero. :D --Demonesque 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am always moved by kindness and courtesy, Demonesque. ♥ Clio the Muse 14:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

just a thought ...

Reading your regular contributions to RefDesk is like opening a finely wrapped, meticulously crafted and intricate gift of exquisite refinement, day after day after day. The knowledge, humor and attention reflected in these gifts are a testament to the mystery of great triumphs, travails and sacrifices that must have brought you to where you are. It is an honor to have witnessed even the merest facet of this unfolding story, which you boldly proclaim to the world. Respectfully offered with gratitude, dr.ef.tymac 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I love you too, Dreftymac! But to be honest with you the sacrifice may not be as great as you conceive. I've been an avid reader since I was a little girl, and I absorb information quickly and readily. I'm now a post-graduate student at Cambridge University, with nothing to do but absorb information. Even so, your kind remarks are very much appreciated. Clio the Muse 20:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Gold dust

You, my friend, sprinkle enlightenment like gold dust on the ref desks. Your outstanding reply on the Charles II Parliaments brought back dusty memories of A Level History, when the Popish Plot was actually my special subject... though I'd completely forgotten pretty much every detail.

Can I implore you to alter your stance on article editing? (So long as it doesn't diminish your ref desk contributions).

Whatever your answer, I award you this Barnstar. --Dweller 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


The Epic Barnstar
I, Dweller, award Clio the Epic Barnstar for outstanding History-related contributions at the Humanities Reference Desk. You sprinkle enlightenment like gold dust. Dweller 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dweller, you are a star yourself! If you have read my user page you will know that this particular topic actually touches on my present doctoral research. You will know also why I do not edit mainpages. Edit creep and collective writing are, for me, a real problem. Clio the Muse 15:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

<blushes> Yeah, I've read your rationale, but I hope you might change your mind. I've been working collaboratively with a partner on a series of articles that interest us, speedily (like in a fortnight) taking them to FA. I find that deeply satisfying and think (if I might be so bold) you might, too. --Dweller 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe. Who knows? Clio the Muse 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What a lovely gesture, and what a well-deserved and grimy star! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
♥ Clio the Muse 18:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Youthful father

Any chance of helping me out with my Humanities Desk question? Reckon it's right up your street! --Dweller 12:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I did see this question, Dweller, though I am unable to make any advance on Louis the Pious-sorry. I will, however, post a general response that may encourage others to take up the challenge, if only to prove me wrong! All the best. Clio the Muse 19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oxford DNB Login?

Hi Clio the Muse, do you have an account for the Oxford DNB, if yes, can you make an copie of the article Algernon Sidney/ can you confirm me, that in this article his birth day is in January 1623?


And can you say me, if it is true, that Charles II. of England was stuttering and that the reason was for his short speeches? P.S. Last work was this Image:Algernon Sidney(1623-1683) descent and political relationships.svg. Bye Johannes -- Jlorenz1 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Johannes. Sorry: I do not have a ODNB account at present. On your specific questions, yes, Sydney was born in January 1623, though the date is sometimes given as 1622. This may be because years were still officially held to run at the time from March to March, rather than January to January, so that January 1623 would fall within 1622. I hope that makes sense! I know that Charles I stuttered, but I have never come across any reference to Charles II suffering from the same disability. Best wishes from Anastasia aka Clio the Muse 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (Please do not use my real name on the Reference Desk itself)
Thanks Clio the Muse, I had left you a comment above the table and please delete it afterwards -- Jlorenz1 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)P.S. Are the election results* of the three exclusion parliaments("House of Commons") known? *(How many percent whigs/tories)If found nothing in google. only an article, which is saying (80% whigs in the second exclusion parliament)
A figure of 80% would seem to be far too high, but it really depends how this is calculated. Throughout the whole of the Exclusion Crisis the concept of party, and party loyalty, was still at a very primitive state of development: men elected on a particular 'party ticket' could easily change their minds when in Parliament. In early 1679 Shaftesbury calculated that he could rely on a core support of 150 MPs in the Commons, with others coming and going. The first Parliamentary vote on the Exclusion Bill in May 1679 showed a surprisingly high level of support for the Abhorrers/Court Party/Tories, with 128 voting against and 207 voting in favour. There was also quite a high number of absentees-174 in all-perhaps indicating those who were fearful of the dangers of commitment. I have two additional references which may be of use in your research, Johannes: The First Whigs, by J. R. Jones, and England in the Reign of Charles II by D. Ogg. Best wishes. Clio the Muse 15:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Clio the Muse, England in the Reign of Charles II by D. Ogg is from 1934 ;-) You haven't discovered my message. Go on edit and look above the table -- Jlorenz1 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, now I understand. Sorry, I was a little confused by your message, Johannes. Anyway, action has now been taken. My sincere thanks. Clio the Muse 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

British

Hey Clio, i'm[2] a cowtown hick seven timezones and generations away from any britishness. All i know of y'all comes from reading John le Carré novels—which give me the impression your entire island smells of cabbage.—eric 22:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Howdie, cowboy! I think John le Carré was writing about a vanished world. I can assure you that the island smells of everything but cabbage! You must come and find out for yourself. Clio the Muse 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Nazi apologist?" redux

Clio, I felt this was appropriate. While you are indeed eloquent in your own defense, as (one would hope) your words "speak for themselves"—that needn't be a lone effort. Count me among your colleagues who will offer support where so rightly due. -- Deborahjay 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Deborahjay, a mere 'thank you' does not really serve here. I value your good opinion above all others. Some of the attacks against me were so deeply personal that they would have driven away all but the strongest. There were times when I was reminded of the editorial style of Julius Streicher in Der Stürmer, highly ironic, considering the circumstances, and the source, of many of these accusations. The biggest danger we all face is the monster of irrationality, in whatever form it comes. Clio the Muse 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NPA attacks on the Humanities desk

Utterly unacceptable. I've excised a great chunk of excrement and noted as such on the talk page. I've also warned the anon. A recurrence would be regretful, as it would require admin intervention of some kind, probably via WP:ANI, or via Friday / Ten, the usual admins who watch the desks. If you're baited again, I strongly suggest you don't feed the troll, as you end up being tarred with the brush, which is unfair and unfortunate, but I've seen it before. Chin up - it was a silly mistake, but hardly an egregious one. You stepped on someone's sensibility. PS Thatcher was very unpopular north of the border; you probably stepped on two sensibilities. --Dweller 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know; thanks. To be honest with you I wasn't sure. He-it has to be a he-came across not as a troll but someone with deep personal issues. I know the Scots are prickly; perhaps I did not fully understand to what degree. But, my goodness, what lashings of inverted snobbery, combined with a latent sense of inferiority! Is it really all our fault? Clio the Muse 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually think his initial comment was already way over the mark. If he'd gently nudged you there or here about your mistake, you'd probably have blushed and rushed to amend it sweetly. But his excessive ire pushed you into a corner. Such is the nature of a troll - their wrath and fury turn even the best of us into warriors sometimes. But it's hard to have a fight when no-one will, erm, fight you. So, next time a troll pushes you into a corner, remember you can fly. --Dweller 09:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I will fly, yes I will! But I refuse to look over my shoulder every time I write England! England, my England. Clio the Muse 09:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

lol. There are similar problems with other touchy subjects. One or two editors fly off the handle if anyone refers to the USA as "America", pedantically pointing out that the latter is a (or two) continent(s). One of them insists on referring to the citizens of said entity as "US-ers" or something similar. Nationalism and antinationalism are almost as good as religion for kicking off a good fight on WP. Well not quite almost. Actually nothing like as bad. But you catch my drift. Funny how sexism and homophobia don't raise their ugly heads quite as much; odd considering how many "is gay" vandal attacks per day we get. Maybe it's because no-one takes them seriously any more - the fight's been won. --Dweller 09:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ISBN favour

Hi. If you take a look at User talk:The Rambling Man, you'll notice we're trying to track down an ISBN. It's for the 1986 (first) edition of "Canary Citizens" that I'm citing extensively in our latest FA candidate article. My numbered copy has no ISBN, but it's from a "proper" print house. I wondered if someone with <ahem> library access might be able to track this down? Thanks, --Dweller 11:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh you star. I presume one of those will suffice. I'll use it. Muchly obliged. --Dweller 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)