User:Geogre/Talk archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Covering 12-5-05 to 1-5-06, or thereabouts, this is talk archive 12. Highlights include WebComArbComArfArfArf and... Well, that's about it.


Contents

[edit] Ke ke ke

[Nonchalantly.] Today I got 512 IP addresses blocked indefinitely. [Walks away, whistling.] Bishonen | talk 03:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the matter? You don't like children! But it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Who knows, there might be the next Mozart in that school system!!!! (You can tell I'm being sarcastic, because I'm using exclamation points.) ("Exclamation points should only be used in direct discourse, and then only when one of the parties is on fire.") [Good job getting that vandal factory blocked. I never heard of a good edit coming out of it, and the pissants were very energetic.] Geogre 04:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we can negotiate with them to give them their access back, provided they watch those kids! (and get some servers in the process. Hey, it worked for kennisnet! ;-) Kim Bruning 04:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Energetic pissants?!? I love it! What a night I've had. Look at the edit history of my talk and user pages if you want a really good chuckle. Not. - Lucky 6.9 04:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Instant Deletion

I think that you've missed the point regarding Dub is a Weapon.

  • I have been a Wikipedia editor since January, 2005.
  • My edit count is 837.
  • I created an article I believed was legitimate. I even included a detailed US-band-stub tag for it.
  • I hit SAVE and walked to my bathroom to take a leak.
  • One minute later the article had been deleted.

Also of note:

  • This was the second time that this happened to me, the first being after I created an article about Michel Martin - a highly regarded African-American woman journalist for ABC News who had just had an hour-long appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. While the legitimacy of Dub is a Weapon may be debatable that of Michel Martin is not.
  • Instant deletion of articles seems to be what User:Lucky 6.9 does here and in the process of doing so he has received SCORES of complaints on his user page from active Wikipedia editors.
  • He has also been criticized by other Admins for his instant deletes and it has been strongly suggested to him that he contribute his time as an Admin elsewhere in Wikipedia.

Do you really believe that what he is doing is above reproach and that encouraging him to resume without any adjustments is what best serves the Wikipedia community? --AStanhope 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, well, since I recommended that he use AfD, I don't think I did say that, no. As for whether the speedy deletes were legitimate or not, that would require reviewing the state of the article at the time of the speedy delete. If you hit "save" when the article has no established claim of significance, then, even if the topic of the article is legitimate, the article can be speedy deleted within the criteria. I haven't reviewed that one. However, you are getting far too upset about this. Lucky has gotten praise as well as complaint for doing a particular task that is utterly thankless. I should know, because I've done my share of New Pages patrol, and I've gotten complaints, too. So it goes. Sometimes people are right, sometimes wrong. However, nothing good comes of getting upset and screaming about admin status. Just relax, establish the credentials of your articles, and things are going to go fine. Geogre 13:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reproach and adjustment

Wondered if you'd come across Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements? Just thought it might interest you...why not add your own?

Oh, I hate conflict. I really, really hate conflict. I'm pretty seriously against running for ArbCom. I probably have the time for it, but I can't face the constant bickering and people upset with one another, and then with ArbCom. Geogre 13:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The deletionist poem

Thanks. I had a feeling that you of all people would understand it (posessed as you are of a sense of humour :-). Chris talk back 17:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Folks get...worked up. On talk:Flann O'Brien, for example, we have someone who showed up out of the blue to begin screaming about prejudice against the Irish language because the article uses the English form of the name. Never mind that he didn't know that most of the article's authors are Irish -- didn't matter. Never mind that all the evidence suggested that Flann O'Brien called himself Brian Nolan. There is now presumed anti-Canadian and anti-Australian sentiment. Honestly, it's hard to keep up on all the hatreds the project is supposed to have. It's tough when real world anxieties bleed over into pixellated ones. We've got to make room for wit, and we've got to be able to say, first, "Not funny" rather than "You must be eviscerated!" There really ought to be some step between "Ha ha" and "I'm opening an RfC on you!" There are worse things to be than a "deletionist." A mean person, for one. Geogre 17:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
If I'm both, do they cancel? - brenneman(t)(c) 23:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
What, a deletionist and mean? Maybe. I don't know. After all, I'm not a deletionist, I'm just mean. Chris talk back 00:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
See, I'm just a snob. I wear it well, and generally I can come up with the necessarily withering comment for any occasion. I do all my editing from the Club, you see, and wearing the Club tie and jacket. We are dismayed at the sorts of people they let in as it is. Geogre 10:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ah shucks...

You just made me blush! Hamster Sandwich 02:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linking madness

a small example for your delectation. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I wonder what sort of person is reading these articles and benefitting from some of these links. Geogre 11:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Mind you, I've been taken to task for linking all the years in Objectivist poets. I've actually gone and fixed Heaney up, so to speak. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I agree with linking years, myself. If we did as we're supposed to do, then the year articles would be excellent overviews of all the Wiki articles of the year. I really do recommend Station Island, and in particular the title poem. It's strangely old fashioned for him and comprehensible. (BTW, the University of Georgia has just started a chair in environmental literature. I don't know why.) Geogre 12:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to the library this weekend. If they have Station Island, I'll get it. Maybe I'll apply for that job. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The Chronicle of Higher Education a few years ago had an article on some valiant associate professor inventing the field of environmental literature. This confirmed a parody that I had made years earlier, when I suggested that there would soon be a "Vegetarian Criticism." Indeed, vegetarian criticism came into being. No telling what will be next, as I'm out of jokes. Environment and Literature is a great subject. Meat and literature...not so much. (Carnivorous insertions in medieval literature? Wordsworth's Nutting and the protest against the Yule oxtail soup?) I think UGA set up the position because they had a valiant full professor who had decided that teaching a literary period didn't thrill him anymore. Geogre 16:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics Arb

Is it just me, or is this likely to be a bloodbath?
Further, is perverse and disassociated Schadenfreude-like exultation an unusual reaction on my part?
brenneman(t)(c) 07:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Although, having now noticed this, perhaps if I stall long enough, you'll hear the case. You would be a credit to the ArbCom, and my first choice in the current field. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
However, it is not at all certain that the next ArbCom would be a credit to you. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not running. I'm ... really, I'm not. It's one of those things: I'm conflict averse at the same time that I'm pretty draconian. So long as I'm not on ArbCom, I can say things like, "There should be a one strike policy before impeaching admins who abuse administrator (and only administrator) powers, but that should not result in a ban, only a demotion." It's easy to say things like that from this distance, but digging through the diffs of people calling each other names, watching people debate red herrings while the main issue tromps merily down the path, seeing folks spend days talking about the quality of the trees and wondering where the forest is, that all just adds to the despair.
Webcomix arb is absolutely going to be the non plus ultra of everything Wikipedia does to shoot itself in the head. I suspect there are going to be entire shoals of red herrings, a choice of lovely trees obscuring entire topologies of forest, and, of course, a whole Grimm's Fairy Tales of trolls, real and imagined and created, and all of this will serve to up the temperature, thicken the smoke, and accomplish virtually nothing. If there were only some way to get disinterested parties to debate instead of having the debates ruin everyone's interest. Geogre 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, balls. I just looked at it. Does anyone else think that today's Snowspinner is not yesterday's? How utterly weird. I'm only surprised the FennecFoxen hasn't shown up to weigh in, as he's a web comic author. If ArbCom were to accept the "going around consensus by drafting a policy," they'd have to go straight to Snowspinner's "semi-policy" pronouncements next and the Schoolwatch page next. This "trying to draft a policy off AfD to influence AfD" is something that I feel is pernicious as well, but the "inclusionists" have been much more active on it than the "deletionists," and Snowspinner, in particular, has been actively accused of drafting "semi-policy" in the dark and then enforcing it as if it had been agreed to (see the old RfC of Snowspinner vs. Orthogonal). If folks want to arbitrate specifically on the behavior of three editors on AfD (and that, by the way, would be rather unprecedented, a mass ArbCom?) when prior steps had not been followed, and if they are going to exclude the inclusion/deletion debate (as most accepting have said), then the users are going to come out fine, since it requires an assumption of bad faith to assume bad faith in the AfD nominations or, and this is what I find more troubling, it requires an assumption that nominating to AfD is and effort to delete. It isn't. It's an effort to determine consensus on deletion. Geogre 10:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
What is worse Geogre, is that the case was actually accepted. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics if you would like to comment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I saw that it was heading that way, hence my disgust. I'll look again, later in the day, when I have more time. I suppose I will comment, although it really shouldn't be necessary. Frankly, the basis of the action self-destructs if one applies logic to it. Further, there were no grounds for it in the first place, unless you begin with the presumption "AfD bad! AfD hate! AfD means enemy of the subject!" That's a big chunk of assumption, and it's not logical. (I.e. only by having those assumptions can you regard the nominations of articles as "bad faith," and that's all the diffs show -- nominations and some belief that the topic is too tiny. Do we want to arbitrate people for their beliefs?) Geogre 10:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
One thing which I have seen argued by Snowspinner is that the case is about Aaron et. al. assuming bad faith regarding the new contributors. Therefore, the evidence I presented was to show that Aaron's actions there were good faith efforts to maintain the integrity of the AFD debate. He did not say "This is an invalid sockpuppet vote", but "Users 5th edit". It is the discretion of the AFD closers whether or not to count such votes. Personally, I usually count them if there are only one or two of them and they argue their case well, but when a flood of "keep"s from very inexperienced accounts start popping up, I immediately grow a lot more suspicious. Several months ago, I got angry about this RFC. I am having the same feelings about this RFAr now, strengthened in fact, by this being a request for arbitration rather than comments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This has taken an interesting turn. This morning an attempt was made to emasculate WP:DRV. I pushed back pretty hard, in the end the only real change was the inclusion of:
    "Many problems that people are tempted to solve by deletion can actually be solved by any editor simply by proper use of normal editing powers. In particular, articles about inconsequential or obscure branches of a subject may be merged with a more substantial article on the subject, or simply redirected if the content is too small. The advantage of this approach over deletion is that it expands the scope of the encyclopedia."
    Nothing out of the ordinary so far, these little skirmishes occur about once a month... except that it's all going into the arbcom as "evidence". Tony and Phil now appear to be attempting to get a policy ruling. I have suddenly gone from quietly amused to deeply concerned.
    brenneman(t)(c) 05:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
This is precisely what it must not do. ArbCom is not the end-around for policy. Perhaps this is the old Snowspinner, after all. He had been looking for a way of writing policy and not submitting it to the rabble ("semi-policy"). He may have decided that he can do it this way, since that way failed so spectacularly. I hope not. What's more, if ArbCom starts agreeing to such things, it will be establishing undemocratic policy by an exceptionally illogical path. The path would be this: by judging not your actions but rather all potential actions and saying that these particular (not agreed upon) potential actions could have avoided a specific harm (a harm that is assumed (the loss of editors X, Y, and Z, who left when their particular web comics weren't included), and not a harm that is proven (would they have stuck around after their vanity article got in? did they leave because of the nomination or the comments? did they leave for the nomination or the dullness of the project?)), there should be a finding of fault with your specific actions. That is, as I say, illogical, and it would be necessary in order to come up with the finding, and that finding would be necessary for a "semi-policy" by another name. This is a very, very bad turn of events. Geogre 10:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
So what are we going to do about it. Why not present some "evidence"? Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What can we do? All I've got is logic. There isn't evidence. I mean, how do you present evidence of hypotheticals? How do you present evidence of the content of someone's heart? How do you present evidence that ComicAuthorA left because of the nasty comment of NewUserB and not the nomination? How do you present evidence that ComicAuthorB would have left anyway after the vanity article got in? Seriously, other than scolding them for allowing the nonsense to start, I'm not sure what there is that can be done. (And scolding probably won't be well received.) Geogre 11:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No, but a logical argument for why it should never have started would be worth posting. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, I think that an experienced administrator like yourself posting some commnets or views at the workshop or its talkpage would be helpful because a lot of people, including arbitrators I think, listen to what you say and respect your judgment. I have posted a few comments at the workshop and evidence page, but I am rather inexperienced with ArbCom cases, this is the first one I have ever participated in. I know that it is hard to produce evidence that misconduct has not occurred. Man! RFAr is a dark and dreary abyss... Perhaps I ought to write some more articles on chess instead... Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, I've tried now. I don't know if it will do a bit of good, and I couldn't find the workshop page. I'll be happy to say more, if folks'll give me a pointer to a location. Geogre 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. By the way, the workshop is here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
      • And oh yes, I would like to say that your opinion there was very well written. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Returning to the left: I think I'm talking my way out of a seat on the ArbCom on the Workshop page, but what the hell. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Whereas I have the priviledge of having announced all over the place that I ain't running. I only got a little bit carried away. I think, seeing that the district attorney, self-appointed, is Tony Sidaway, I did a good job of making no personal allusions. I'd best not look much more, though. Geogre 13:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, with you not running and me talking my way out of it on the Webcomics workshop, it's time for me to decide who I might vote for. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Final" thoughts on the WebComArbComArfArf

You know, it seems to me that the workshop page presents a great many things that are not listed in the RFar itself, that it has become a separate RFC (not RFar) by Tony against Aaron. Everyone else has disappeared from the prosecution except for "oh, yeah, and Dragonfiend, but no one cares about what she did." The problem is that it's just too tempting, and seemingly far too important, to let any of the "evidence" presented by Tony stand without counterargument, so we're all commenting. The result is that the thing gets longer. New stuff seems to show up. Then new counters.

In other words, it's moving from a (nonsensical, IMO) RFar from Snowspinner (who mysteriously can't sign comments all of a sudden after being an admin for two years) to an RFC from Tony, and it's moving from that to a flat out, old fashioned, Usenet-style argument. What the hell are we doing?

I'm going to take a break from any more of that, and especially answering new bits and bytes. I have a feeling that we're all getting dangerously close to tit-for-tat answer and charge. That's going to make the case drag on for an extra eternity. It also basically leaves an open indictment, where anything anyone can think of gets added. So, although I'll prove hypocritical I'm sure, I'm going to try to break off from all of this before it degenerates or lengthens. Obviously, I do want to hear of any new developments, if there are any. Geogre 15:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm following your advice here. I am really pissed about the "pat on the back" smear, however. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
If the workshop page is getting out of hand (I can't really say never having seen or been involved in one before) perhaps part of the problem is a result of the fact that there never was an RFC in the first place. Had there been, much of this discussion might have taken place there. This is just one of several reasons why I think the ArbCom did themselves no good by accepting this case. Paul August ☎ 17:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're both right. Furthermore, it's a 4:1.5 there. It's Tony Sidaway and half a Phil Sandifer vs. four to five who object to what he's written. What's remarkably missing is any statement from the presumed plaintiff, Snowspinner (who doesn't sign things anymore, it seems). As I said above, it looks like it is the RFC. I'm surprised that there have only been two outrageous statements, actually. The "pat on the back" thing is the most obvious, but the "crony" is just as bad. Both imply that Aaron is the leader of some sinister movement. Both invoke the language of conspiracy and plot, and yet the people supposed to be involved in this (myself included) aren't known for being very chummy folks, very clubbable folks, or, most of all, very weak folks. It's altogether peculiar, outrageous, and counter-productive. Geogre 17:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Geogre, Phil Sandifer is Snowspinner. Paul August ☎ 19:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dang. There ought to be a playbill so that we can keep up with who all the players are. There are a lot of characters on the stage, but only a few actors. This is half way between a Beckett and a Monty Python skit. Geogre 19:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Oh, and I'm only me. Just me. No one else. I must be lonely, not having 3-5 other names to post under. Geogre 19:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

George I take all your points above, but I'm uncertain what to do about them. It would certainly be easy to simply wash our hands of this whole sortid affair, but I'm not sure I'm confortable just leaving the field to Tony and Snowspinner. Paul August ☎ 20:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by no means to I recommend leaving the field, only leaving the Workshop page for a while. Also, this is more advice to myself, and I am not trying to be a leader. I just noticed that I was checking in on the page twice a day. That was a sure sign that I was mentally going into a "oh yeah? says you!" mode, a mode that would keep the workshop page growing indefinitely and keeping the matter from actually getting arbitrated. I feel like logic and evidence will lead to a quick conclusion with no serious admonition being given to Aaron or Dragonfiend (again, remarkable how only one defendent is being prosecuted and that it's all Tony ... something I hope the arbitrators notice as easily as the rest of us do). I'm just worried about myself and my own habits of mind. Geogre 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Darn, and I was so looking forward to starting our very own personality cult with you as our Dear Leader. Ok I won't start saluting you just yet. Anyway I just took what you wrote as some free, friendly and eminently reasonable advice. Which, leader or no, like Fil, I'm inclined to want to follow. It would feel easier though if I was as confident as you, that this case will end reasonably. But then you have more experience with these things than I do. I hope you are right. Paul August ☎ 02:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preston Plucknett

Thanks for the rewording - now please do add something too this interesting stub, which I created to avoid a red link. C'mon don't be shy be bold! Giano | talk 17:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

But I doan know nothing about no Wilson Pickett! (I did try, but I really don't know of any interesting things that happened there, although I'm sure some must have.) Geogre 18:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SCH

Wikipedia:Schools is very clear - "If a school appears on AfD anyway, do not comment your vote more than strictly necessary." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • That's begging the question: who made WP:Schools boss? Who decided that it trumps AfD? If you really want to say as little as possible, then don't say "keep" or "delete": just say "See WP:SCH." However, once you take on the burden of saying "keep" or "delete," you take on the burden of justifying, with reference to the article, not to a meta page. Geogre 21:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I suggest that you review the full history of WP:SCH before commenting further in the school debate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No thanks. I was there before it began. I know how I feel about schools, but thanks for the suggestion all the same. If I ever do need someone or some page to tell me how I must feel about schools, I'll be sure to raise my hand and ask. Otherwise, I'll just go on voting according to the deletion guidelines. Geogre 02:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] your name

Forgive me if I'm the 109th person to ask this, but what is the origin of your name? It appears that a lot of people assume it is a typo (or deliberate mauling) of "George" but I have hypothesized that it might be intended as "Geo-" (as in "earth") + "Ogre" (as in "troll"). Anyway it would might be a good name for a future pokemon. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You are, in fact, correct. It wasn't really "troll" that was intended as much as "monster." I got the name during flame wars, back when I was a younger and more interested-in-such-things person. I would be placid and happy and doing fine in a mailing list or FidoNet echo, and then, when an argument had reached a high pitch of stupidity, I'd put on the heavy boots and be Ge-ogre, launching a single "a curse on all your houses and salt in all your fields" message, then go back to being pleasant and mild mannered. It would be a good Pokemon (or "Mighty Thor") villain. Geogre 13:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please discontinue your involvement outside of the article namespace

I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. --Gmaxwell 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And your request is not supported by policy, is not in the interests of the project, is not supported by the guidelines to RFA, and is not well considered. Further, there was no "pawn" involved. I can only assume that you have mass pasted your comments above into every single oppose vote. Mine being the very last of the oppose votes could hardly have been most important, as it did not lead a parade. Indeed, I have a right, and now you have provided a motivation, to insist that administrator candidates take a stance on the undocumented "consensus" standard. I opposed and continue to oppose the escalation of consensus to numbers approaching unanimity. Your request is outrageous and no doubt intended to be an outrage. I can only hope that you are not attempting to alienate proven editors and policy designers by pasting that comment throughout talk pages. If you are, look carefully at yourself and ask if the hypocrisy is bothersome. Geogre 13:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rl

Hi! We haven't quite seen eye to eye over deletion issues at times, but you've always been quite reasonable. That and you're an excellent FAC writer. I must admit that I'm kind of curious about what led you to your opinion at Rl's request for adminship though. Kim Bruning 06:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Because, at the time, there was a mounting effort to define "consensus" and to define it well beyond super-majority. That candidate was clearly scared of speaking to the issue. When he did, he came out in favor of an extraordinarily high number. If that represented his true opinion, then he would have licensed his administrative position on the issue and would have gone forward in campaigning to make deletion more difficult (impossible, in my opinion). If that was not his actual opinion, if that was something he was pressured into saying, then he would not have had the strength of conviction to stand up against people (like yourself) who have taken vocal stances against deletion. Given the fact that I spend almost as much time actually on VfD as I do writing articles, I actually see the crap on VfD. I further see the effects of people who vote without consideration of the article, and I see what happens when closing administrators are too afraid to take a stand and discount nonce voters. It is unacceptable, and I am suspicious of the people who have universal stances on deletion and consensus who don't actually spend some time reading the articles on VfD and considering them. As for the comment above, it is the height of absurdity. I oppose quite a few RFA's. Why do you care about this one especially? Geogre 13:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blackout's Box reply(s)

I understand completely your point of view. Only time will tell whether or not Blackout (Michael Richard Bigansky; he's actually claimed his full name as a trademark so that's something) gets big enough to truly open up and discuss. As you suggested, I did put a paragraph on him on the Prank Calls article; nothing too intrusive, just a reference.

Thanks for the insight into the Wikiprocess; it's Wikiriffic! Have a great Wikiday! (heh I'm silly!) What did you think of my sonnet by the way? :)

I liked it, of course. The meter didn't seem, um, natural, but you at least tried. Most people cop out and duck over to free verse or a haiku or a limmerick or something. One user promised me a Skeltonic sonnet and then delivered a l33t poem. John Skelton never wrote like that. I'm glad that things are working out, and I look forward to your articles. Geogre 14:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
...I already explained this- it was a Skeltonic verse, which I ran through a l33t-ifier and made some judicious edits of my own. --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Suuuure it was. Now we just need to invent a John Skelton filter to run l33t speak through. :-) Geogre 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As one of those who copped out, I've now given you a sonnet (of sorts). It's also a homage (or hommage?). Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A frommage? I love a good cheese! (I'll check it out now. Better than grading those last three papers anyway. Remember, you have the advantage of the sun on me. It's not yet 6:00 AM.) Geogre 10:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Here it's anything but sunny. Sheets of rain all morning so far. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like my edit never got saved. I've added the sonnet again and it's definitely there this time. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Whew! I was thinking it was written with a white font on a white background or something (it's possible; I don't recommend doing it) or that I just wasn't looking the right place. (So, umm, are we "the professionals?" Is that a good thing? Do you think he means that in the terms of "professional schools: doctors, lawyers, clergy, and architects?") Geogre 12:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
And I promise that the Pound echo was not deliberate. It just jumped out at me after the fact. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The vandal you blocked for 24 hours for blanking an AfD discussion...

...has once again blanked the same AfD discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OUW

I've reverted the blanking, of course, but apparently the message you sent the other day failed to take root. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave him a 1 week block to meditate and reflect. Nandesuka 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-) The time out corner is getting rather full. You know, people ought to figure it out. Some don't. So it goes. Geogre 22:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm reduced to spam and begging

Please come and voice an opinon at Wikipedia_talk:Websites#Straw_poll regarding the facts of "syndication" indicating notability.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I was going to ask for your help on something

but then I realized that under the new unwritten rules, I might be pilloried and punished for telling another admin about an issue I thought they might be interested in. So nevermind. Sorry! Sorry. Nandesuka 06:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As your local Wikilawyer, I have to tell you that communicating with other community members goes totally against the whole idea of community ;) Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think our next step is to try to say it in Navajo. My igpay atinLay is so cient-anay that I'm totally ostlay. Besides, we all know that, while it is wholly inappropriate to post messages on talk pages, five minutes in IRC in private message tabs is a sign of good fellowship. Geogre 15:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The microfilm

Eogregay,

Iyay ontday antway ootay ontravenecat Onytay Idawayssay ewnay olicypay boutayay otnay alkingtay ootay itorseay iavay alktay agespay, osay easeplay reparepay ootay beyoay Rotocolpay irtythay-evensay orfay ecuresay mmunicationscay romfay ownay noay. Ethay alicechay inay ethay alacepay oldshay ethay rewbay athay isay uetray.

Anndesukanay 14:49, 7 Ecemberday 2005 (UTC)

Ohay apcray! Eymay eadhay urtshay! Geogre 15:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
ZOMG Eogregay! Now there's a seriously lovely username, you should change to it by deed poll or something. Ishbay 15:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Well, I don't know if others take notice, but I try to follow people's (especially troglodytes) ideas on VfD (AfD). It helps me know where community consensus might fall if I were to nominate something for deletion. Heck, even I remember when it was VfD. I hope that doesn't make me old. I am still practically a newbie. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/¡El Toro Loco!

Your explanation on the afd about why some websites are encyclopedic and others aren't is wonderful. Excellent writing and clear explanation, as always. Joyous | Talk 02:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks, Joyous. I had been away from VfD/AfD for ages, and I'll probably take a break from it again pretty soon, but one user specifically asked me to come back to it to...to... up the tone a bit, I guess. I always try to provide rationales, always make sure they relate to the deletion policy, and not to bite the newcomers. I failed on that last with the El Toro Loco vote, and I really felt like I needed to explain myself so that the contributor didn't get too hurt by the flip comments. (I had gone swearing to myself not to stay so long that I got into the game of "who can write the snarkiest comment about how bad this article is," but I realize that I may have failed.) A little fun while voting is good, and I can't resist, but we needn't be mean. I always regret it if I think I've crossed from being frivolous to being vicious, and contributors who are honestly wondering what's going on deserve our utmost patience. I know you know this. I guess I'm typing it as a reminder to myself. Geogre 02:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orbiter (sim) overkill

A single user, 0.39, has set out to pretty much document all the minutae related to a space flight simulator called Orbiter. I saw you voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multifunctional display (Orbiter sim) and found another VFD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Orbiter community. Right now there are even more articles about locations and fictional spacecraft in the game (see related links). This came to my attention because I found a HUGE number of templates being created by him (see lists 1, 2, & 3). I could use some help with all this. -- Netoholic @ 02:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What needs to be done? I see that we're looking at a campaign by a single user. I suppose it's worth a comment and warning, but I'm not sure there is anything in blocking policy about "knowingly writing articles that violate previous AfD discussions," as the contributor could, I suppose, say that he thought that this detail, surely, would be welcome. It's not at the vandalism stage, as the articles are more obsessive-compulsive than graffiti, but cleaning up with a mass AfD listing is going to be a huge hassle. I'll try to reason with the fellow on his user talk page. We can hope it takes effect and avoids further nastiness. Geogre 02:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree in that this isn't block-worthy. This is just one situation where a single user has worked in obscurity for a long time, and not really been challenged on it before. Thanks very much for your help with this. -- Netoholic @ 03:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to ask you for your reasoning with beeing concerned about encyclopedic standard with the articles like Von Braun Wheel Station (World_of_Colliers_add-on) which I have been working on in obscurity for some time when at the same time articles like Bullsquid, Gonarch,Antlion (Half-Life 2), Inara Serra do not seem to arouse controversy of the Wikipedia community ? I am little bit confused about what is the proprietness criteria for the Wikipedia in this respect? Being fictional, or game-relate does not seem to be one... Please advise me no this subject as I feel a bit confused (to say the least)0.39 11:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Your vote on my RFA

My RFA vote draws to a close here in less than two hours. I am hoping you will permit me the opportunity to possibly sway your vote to "support".

You mention in your vote that there has not been enough time to adequately determine whether a vote for or against is appropriate at this time. I would like to submit the following as a distilled look at how I cope with mistakes, in hopes that they demonstrate a consistent pattern of being level-headed in response to being notified of error.

[1] I concede that a "no consensus" close made by me was made in error, and alter my closure comments.
[2] Cryptic points out to me that I am relisting AfD discussions without removing them from the old AfD discussion pages. I alter my behavior forthwith, and respond to Cryptic in a concilatory fashion.
[3] I concede my error with respect to closing AfD discussions as "no consensus" in contravention of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Deletion process. I have not closed any "no consensus" AfD discussions since that time.
[4] The existence of Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals is pointed out to me after I mistakenly put a self-created award up on Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia without previous discussion. I shame-facedly admit here that I'd missed the existence of Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals entirely, and that I would be putting the award up for discussion and vote forthwith, which I did immediately.

The long and short of it is: I am not generally given over to having my ego involved when I make a mistake. I don't petulantly stamp my feet and deny that I've made an error to salve my bruised vanity, and I don't dig in my feet and refuse to make the correction. Errors and mistakes are inevitable. People screw up. The proper way to deal with that is to accept it, correct any errors you've made, and move on. And that's what I do. Which has the advantage that I learn from my mistakes a lot faster than people who refuse to admit error.

My apologies for the length of this message, but I wanted to make a good case on the first go. I hope that you will find these comments compelling. If not, I understand and respect your decision.

Thanks for your time.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Greetings, Geogre:

As you may already be aware, my RFA squeaked by with a final tally of 46/13/2, and I am now an admin. My goal now is to spend the next week or so making mistakes, so I can get them all out of the way in advance... =)

No no, I kid, I kid. My goal now is to conduct myself in such a manner that neither you, nor Cryptic, nor Xoloz, nor Splash, have any reason to regret the success of my RFA. You four provided the most thoughtful "non-support" comments in my RFA (so did Carbonite, but he recanted at the last minute), and I wanted to thank you for taking the time to provide them.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An absolutely fascinating edit

Three cheers for Cryptic: [5]. Nandesuka 13:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Damn straight! I'm glad Cryptic was watching. I looked, and about half of what had been written was suddenly gone. I assumed that it was sent to the /Withdrawn page, but I wasn't sure. All I could hope, and I'm full of hope, as my comments above show, was that the arbitrators had read all of the comments before they were "refactored" to remove the bits where Tony gets clobbered. In a sense, Tony's removals were "withdrawn" because he was acknowledging that his position was getting destroyed, and so he didn't want to leave the charges as an active complaint. That's fine, in a sense, despite people wanting to be able to point to the fact that they had argued well and that Tony was introducing a large volume of material against Aaron only that came from a fishing trip and that they were swatted back. Geogre 13:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I've raised the issue on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop (see the end), but given that I'm not a party to the debate don't feel it's proper to raise it in the workshop proper. Plus, like you, I don't really want to get sucked in. Nandesuka 14:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I suppose the real issue is simply that all matters that are removed need to be put in the "Withdrawn" section. Having it removed just to be removed is not valid. Having it shifted to a catalog of "what is no longer alledged, along with what was said about it would be alright. Geogre 18:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition to withdrawing proposals he introduced, Tony has also "withdrawn" other peoples proposals e.g. Filiocht's "General point on procedure" (which I have now restored). Paul August ☎ 05:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't know who had introduced it, but I was pissed that the "this should not have been accepted" section had disappeared. That's one of the sections that needs to remain, because it's not going to be withdrawn. Kelly can write something intemperate about how they've already accepted, so it's no one's business, but the point remains: most of the people signing in under "Other parties" are doing so because they think the case shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. I doubt that this is defense or shoring up of Brenneman -- certainly not why I'm there -- but the outrage of the case itself. Geogre 11:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm, the whole "motion to dismiss" thing is gone again. I think it is. I'm getting vertigo just trying to keep up with all the redaction. Geogre 11:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
It's still there under General point on procedure. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Whew. Thanks. I was worried, there, as I did think...well, per above. Geogre 12:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bless

For what it's worth, I don't want to vandalise yer page. Keep smilin'--Crestville 17:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Don't know how you do it, but please don't tell me

Heh - yeah, I meet some very interesting people. Have you seen my archives yet? – ClockworkSoul 01:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I can see why you chop it off your page, but I really like to keep it: I think of it as a kind of diary that reminds me of where I've been. – ClockworkSoul 01:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athens music

Wow, great, please let me know if you see any other holes and/or know of any good online sources to use. I found the Hampton Grease Band homepage and expanded on that a bit, and took some other bits from your advice. Any other help you can give would be most appreciated! Tuf-Kat 07:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration literature

Hey, Geogre, do you still have some Restoration literary ambitions in amongst the Athens music? I don't, myself, as I've gotten tired of how cold and dark and lonely it is in that corner, and am looking for a transfer to the videogame department—you know I'm a sociable soul. Anyway, I thought of something, re. Restoration literature. It ought to be featured on the Main Page, but take a look at the first paragraph, if you will. See what I mean? It's fine in itself, but not good as a front-page blurb. I reckon you weren't thinking in those terms when you wrote the paragraph, but rather of demarcations and clarifying the connections within the article family. Maybe Raul even hops over it for that reason. You want to rewrite it to, you know, more hit 'em in the eye? Or I can have a shot, if you're bored/busy. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athens music pic

Thanks again! Since it looks like the Vic Chesnutt pic is going to be deleted, there will soon be only two pics in the article, one of debatable usefulness. Do you happen to have anything you'd be willing to license appropriately? Tuf-Kat 17:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Album covers and the like would be okay, but it might be hard to justify fair use on music of Athens, Georgia rather than the article about the band or album in question. A photo of your band might be okay, if the venue is notable. We could frame the pic as a picture of the 40 Watt Club or whatever, and I think that would be fine. Tuf-Kat 05:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks a lot, I'll put them all in. Tuf-Kat 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] template:Maintained

Just wondering if you'd seen this latest item of [worship]. The first template I've ever listed on WP:TfD. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Please stop purposely misrepresenting the point of this template to stuff the TFD with votes in your favor. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:49
Well, I don't see any representation at all. Filiocht expressed jaundice and told me of an accomplishment. Since he's a friend of mine, it's not really a packing. As for me, my reaction might have been predictable, but only to my friends, which Filiocht is. Friends should let friends edit Wikipedia. :-) (Come on, Brian! It's just one vote and one template. Please don't take it as a personal affront.) Geogre 13:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Ummm, how is this useful compared to, say, the History tab, or the talk page? I don't mean to be too snarky, but when folks introduce weirdness into an article where I'm one of the few experts, they find out about it pretty quickly from my watchlist lighting up. Geogre 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)"

  • It provides direct contact to email someone, something with which all readers are familiar, rather than assuming that all readers will know what the "history" tab is for, how to check for significant contributors (ie: looking for non-minor, non-bot, significant edits). Besides the contact, one of the main points is to let readers know that the page is being maintained by people, that it is being watched for vandalism, and that some people will hold themselves accountable for its contents. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
  • Also note, anyone can remove anyone from the template's list of users, if those users become inactive, since the point is to provide a list of contacts and a list of people who are volunteering their time to protect the article against vandalism and are knowledgeable about its facts/sources. If you feel the template is sending the wrong message, please suggest alternate wordings. This is more productive than typing 7 letters.. (ie "Delete"). — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06

Like I said, let's not assume this is a death match, eh? My view is that it isn't needed, that it adds clutter, and that it introduces the idea of ownership. Yes, obviously, the template says "maintained," and I fully understand the impulse behind it, but I see a certain amount of creep involved in it, whereby we may well believe that there are priority voices in a debate over an article that have achieved that priority simply through maintenance. In fact, although I might, for example, "maintain" an article on linguistic determinism, my opinion should be disregarded if someone with more training in psychology, philosophy, or literary criticism were to shown up, and my only expertise is that I'm a dilletente in all three fields rather than a master of any of them, so I can "maintain" simply by ensuring a balance. Finally, though, such "creep" could lead to an insistence that articles get maintainers/janitors to prevent another Siegenthaller case. In other words:

  1. I see no present need,
  2. I see an elevation of "experts" implicit in it (whether that is the author's intent or not),
  3. I see a potential for abuse that will include proprietary articles
  4. I see a potential for abuse that will move toward an anti-wiki assignment system.

Unless there were an acute need, I can't see a reason why we would willingly expose ourselves to the potential abuses. Again, please be aware that I'm certainly not doubting your motives or "against you." Geogre 14:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church Talk 20:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm shocked at the response I've received, I really think it's for the best that I disappear, at least for now; I won't have a lot of time in January, as it is, and I need to take personal stock of whether the other poisonous elements in this project can be skirted. Nevertheless, thank you for your kind words; your sentiments are appreciated. Robchurch 17:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Maintained

I've added a clarification to the template itself, which was suggested by the template's chief opponent, User:Zoe. Is this acceptable now? Please change to Keep if you think it has a chance in some form, not necessarily this form. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:57

[edit] 60 Minutes

Hi, Geogre, Ambi asked me to tell you she's very grateful. Danny will apparently be doing the interfacing with the "60 Minutes" people. All the non-US stuff that was in the main article has been hastily spun off to subarticles, for less mess. Bishonen | talk 08:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point/-Counterpoint

I noticed that your edits to 60 Minutes changed this to a slash after I had changed it back to a hyphen. I wasn't sure if this was deliberate or just a byproduct of your working from the previous version while I made the change. I've seen both ways, but figured that in the absence of a definitive authority, following the style of the NY Times was the best option. --Michael Snow 18:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, sounds like your source was closer to the era, so it might be better after all, at least compared to somebody at the Times trying to exhume the niceties of style years later. Anyway, that's a nice "hash" you've made of the article. --Michael Snow 18:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)