User:Geogre/Talk archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 1 - June 8, 2006

[edit] How can I vandalise a protected userpage? No fair.

There was a Pelagian called Geogre, The trolls thought he was an ogre. I tried to devise A poem to eulogise, but the rhyme it just wouldn't go. Grr.

That's great! I'll put it on the user page forthwith, with the heading. Besides, I'm a semi-Pelagian. I haven't gotten my Pelagius merit badge yet. Geogre 13:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about the other Tups article?

I've saved my version of Anders Uppström in a text editor for now, I can't manage that level of complexity of edit conflicts. But I assume you're done with it now? Do you have plans for Olaus Johannis Gutho also, shall I wait? Bishonen | talk 19:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

I had a spare :05, so I did what I could, and that's all the time I spent on it. I didn't plan to spend more or to do the other article. It shouldn't have been any conflict at all, nor queue jumping. I was just bored. Geogre 19:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take a quick look at Guto now if you have any more minutes, Geogre, I'm done with it. Hey, you should get Zocky's picture popups, I have them, it's neato! I can look at an embiggened pic right in its article now, rather than have to go to the image page. Think for instance the Andrée map: you need that kind of thing with the text, not separately. If you ask Zocky on IRC, I'm sure he'd love to install them for you. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "Legitimate Drama"

"Legitimate" = legal, not just "good." The legitimate theater is theater that won't get you busted and thrown in Newgate. There were always productions being done at irregular sites and plays that shouldn't be performed, and there were some longstanding cases of salutory neglect. For example, the various fairs had plays put on, but these were not, strictly speaking, legal. The authorities tended to ignore them. (Imagine trying an arrest of players in the middle of Bartholomew Fair, and you'll see why.) You could throw up some planks and lay down a cloth and act, but you could be prosecuted for it. The patent theaters were the ones that had permission to put on plays. A consequence of this legitimacy is that the illegitimate theaters put on lower quality plays with slapdash values, and thus "legitimate theater" began to mean "good theater." Geogre 03:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the original intention of the patent was to forbid all theatre of any sort -- comedies and opera included -- outside of the patent companies? I haven't seen a source that makes such a claim. Then again, most of them just ignore the issue, mentioning "legitimate" drama in scare-quotes and moving on. If that's what you are saying, how long was it before that broke down, a matter or months or years? Because rather soon indeed it seems like the monopoly on "legitimate drama" meant what we tend to think of today: "important" (or even "State" or "English") drama. The Cambridge Guide mentions that "the legitimate drame over which the patenteees squabbled is now largely confined to the bookshelves of collectors of the voluminous anthologies of British plays - Cumberland's, Inchbald's, Lacy's, Dick's, and eventually French's." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC) PS you hate to see the words "Inchbald" and "Dick" in such close proximity.

Watson & Baker's Sheridan to Robertson: A Study of the Nineteenth Century London Stage has some more focused discussion of this (It credits The Struggle for a free stage, 1908, for much of the info but that work is so... diffuse.) Here's a google books link to the first few pages of chapter II of Watson & Baker. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, rather, I'm saying that the default position, outside of the patents, was that all theater was illegal to start with. The patent system said, essentially, "Oh, alright. You can put on plays, but plays are too dangerous to just float around. I trust this nobleman and that nobleman." That's also why the "King's" and the "Duke's" playhouses. Essentially, they're saying that the Duke of York and the King are vouching for these two houses. There is no need, incidentally, to "make" plays illegal, as they were illegal to start with. Remember that in 1660 all theatrical entertainments were against the law, so Charles II licensed two places to put on plays. During the interregnum and previously plays were put on on an ad hoc basis and at fairs, and the crown and parliament considered them all to be public nuisances. There are a lot of books on the anti-actor and anti-theater statutes. Geogre 10:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good perspective. Althought the status of all theatre being illegal during the interregnum is, as with all things here, a grey cloudy area, right? For instance, I believe I read that Davenant was putting on operas in a fairly non-underground manner during the time, in a way pre-establishing the exception that opera wasn't legitimate theatre. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is practically an industry of New Historicists talking about the "anti-strolling" laws and their prosecutions during Shakespeare's day. You hit that word, "strolling," over and over in Shakespeare and Marlowe. As an actor, you did not want to be accused of strolling. Geogre 10:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I think Bish would back me up on this, but D'Avenant's productions during the interregnum were at private homes. Thus, they had Royalist audiences who wouldn't have anyone arrested, and they were often masques. The Puritans would have none of it, officially, but their own John Milton had written The Masque at Ludlow (better known as Comus). The point is that the unofficial productions done by D'Avenant were not unofficially official but rather a sign of political alliance with the future court. Interestingly, Thomas Killigrew was a spy for the royalists during the interregnum, and there is reason to suspect that D'Avenant was also passing intelligence. Thus, both men were rewarded for their loyalty upon the Restoration. Anyway, the point is that the private home productions were secrets. Geogre 16:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

According to a very revealing article I was glancing through recently, the performances at Rutland House were public theatre in all but name, as Davenant charged 5 shillings for admission. This argument from ticket charges to not-private is made by Hume. For me the lavish sets Davenant provided also shout "business venture". I don't think Davenant was a rich man, or had any notion of entertaining mere guests in such a professional-looking venue. Even in those days, it would surely have looked a little over the top, not to say vulgarly ostentatious, dontcha know, old boy. Bishonen | talk 11:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

Come now, that argument isn't very strong. First, he actually was a wealthy man, but that's not a refutation. The refutation would be simply that charging doesn't equal a box office. It can be a subscription. The main question, though, is whether or not you mean to suggest that the theater wasn't shut down, that producing plays wasn't illegal, that actors and producers weren't prosecuted. (There are raves going on in London where people take ecstacy and where they are charged; these have elaborate light and laser shows. Does that mean they're legal?) By the time of Richard Cromwell everything has changed, so no arguments from his days. Richard was weak in terms of personality and power, and he tended to agree to his advisors. If Hume wishes to rewrite history and suggest that all that happened in the interregnum was that the plays were in homes, then he'll need more than two productions by D'Avenant. As the years went on, Ollie's control over the remaining nobles got weaker and weaker, and he started adopting a more and more "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward what they did, so long as what they did didn't invite Charles Stuart back. I'm not saying that no one put on a play, but I am saying that it wasn't a wink and a nod to the Puritans that there were anti-drama laws. Geogre 11:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for deleting Roy. I wish I could be an admin... *dreams*--Keycard ^(talk) 17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it happens to everyone, eventually -- both being deleted by the grim reaper, and becoming an admin. :-) Geogre 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation

Having followed some of your comments on the Ref Desk and elsewhere, you've got me interested if you're still in teaching, and at what level. I would've asked by email, but you don't have it enabled for your account. Mind indulging me? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 20:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, lots of people's e-mails are disabled now without them being aware of it, because there was some update a month or so ago, whereby you had to go to your prefs and re-affirm that you wanted e-mail. The information about it wasn't exactly high-profile, it was easy to miss, and it looks like many have. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

Good. I'll turn it back on and then duck the confession here on my page. I want to be a bit invisible...at least that much invisible. TB: E-mail re-enabled. Geogre 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Have time to look over something? I could use a second opinion. I've been trying to do some copyedits to Criticism of Mormonism, an article that has some POV content from both sides of the issue. I worked through about half of the article before calling it a night, thinking that I made some pretty good progress toward NPOV, but another editor disagreed and reverted my changes. I've asked for some input from other members of the LDS WikiProject; however, I'd appreciate any insight you may have into what worked well and what didn't. Take a look if you get a minute. Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I missed your query. Ok, I'll take a look between essays in the morning. All "criticism of" articles are so fraught with emotions that it's amazing that any of them survive or get stable at all. (And I have my own criticisms, too, but, well, no one needs to hear them.) Geogre 23:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if you didn't. So do I, which eventually led me to leave Mormonism and set up the potential for a lucrative book deal later in life. Thanks for checking. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fear of a White Shirt: How I Survived Ringing Doorbells for the LDS or From Temple to 7/11: My Body and Caffeine? Geogre 10:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you've even set me up for a sequel. You'll get a royalty cut, of course. Anyway, there's been some progress in terms of some editors agreeing to look at it on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis; that's probably a more lengthy involvement than you have time for, but in any case, it'd be good to have your advice. Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ;-)

I adore the semicolon. I only wish they looked different; they are so easily confused with a colon or a bit of something smudged on the screen. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the good old semicolon; when you want to change thoughts and are weary of conjunctions, the semicolon is your only friend. Sometimes, you have a list that is so conditioned, so implausibly filled with words, some adjectives; numbers, some modified; and objects, some compounded, that the semicolon can be your only rescue. Mr. Vonnegut can despise them, if he chooses, but the rest of us can have thoughts sufficiently independent and yet insufficiently distinct to require its services. Geogre 18:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I like semi-colons too; perfect for continuing the same train of thought, but almost like starting again as well: on the other hand, I like colons too - and dashes. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I find that I cannot function with any regularity without a colon. Further, without the colon, there would be no academic papers delivered at conferences. Indeed, the difficulty is in coming up with a paper or thesis or dissertation title that does not use a colon. The dash can seem rude, as if one wishes to impart one's breathlessness to the paper itself; Laurence Sterne used it in exactly that manner, along with other August(an) novelists. Weep for the semicolon, though; so few know that it requires a full independent clause on either side that it is rarely done at all and almost never done well. Geogre 02:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are hoist by your own petard. Is "numbers, some modified" a full independent clause? No! J'accuse! (Oh, you mean when not using it as a heavy-duty list separator? OK then.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The semicolon separates complex items (that already have comma delimiters) in a list, acting as a sort of square bracket to the comma's parenthesis or as an inverted comma to the comma's quotation mark. Otherwise, yes.... (From zombified memory of over-repetition) "a comma precedes a coordinating conjunction when joining independent clauses; alternatively, a semicolon can be used, usually without a coordinating conjunction. Conjunctive adverbs, such as "thus, however," and "therefore," require a semicolon, as they are not coordinating conjunctions." (I've given some version of that speech every day of my professional life, it seems like. It never makes any difference, though. I wonder if branding would work?) Geogre 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It never makes any difference because in practice the only way to write well is to read a great number of well-written things and absorb the techniques. Your students have grown up reading IM windows, or, at best, livejournal blogs. The good news is that the language evolves, and soon enough "ZOMG!11!" will be considered adequate English. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The "models" theory. No doubt models help. In fact, independently reading helps one more than any professor. However, writing is more craft than art, and, like any skill, it can be taught. Even more than reading good works, the simple act of writing helps writing. The more one writes, the better one gets, generally, at that type of writing (skills are built by repetition). So the e-mail and IM window are not necessarily a sign of doom, because the "zOMG!1!" kids are also trying to write love letters and break up notes by e-mail -- many more than they formerly did -- and so they are accidentally getting ever so slightly better at full sentences, as well. As for the "733t becoming English" argument, I really don't think so. First, the typists themselves won't use their acronymns and moronia in speech (admitting shame over it). Second, they regard it as a private slang, and so they don't want it to get standard (because then they won't be 733t). Third, it's way, way, way too ephemeral. Remember when "jive" was going to be standard English? Every time we think that a youth slang is going to become part of the language, what really happens is that it lends a term or two, possibly an alteration or two of a standard word, and then it gets replaced by something "really" cool. <shrug> Language changes, but not as quickly as the people who point that out think.* Geogre 10:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Except during the Great Vowel Shift.

[edit] Honorifics

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Campaign_to_force_the_use_of_honorifics. Thanks Arniep 11:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryze delete

I have an major problem with the fact that you deleted the Ryze (aka Ryze.com) page without any discussion. It is a highly notable site, with tons of major media mentions and 250,000 reg users. Why did you delete it, and how can I appeal this unilaterial decision? Dlazzaro 05:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I am sorry about the tone of my above statement, but I was quite upset to see my work destroyed. Dlazzaro 05:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, mate. I'm commenting on this because the author asked for help on IRC. I understand perfectly why you deleted it, so don't take this the wrong way, but it seems to have addressed all of the issues in the AfD, and I think that it ought to be undeleted. I figured that this'd be simpler than taking it through DRV as you're the only other participant, although if you'd prefer it could go there instead. (Oh, and though I'm sure you've forgotten about it, I'm wanted to say I'm sorry about my posts here... don't know what I was thinking. I'll do better next time, promise.) Thanks, Snoutwood (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and now I've reviewed it. It was deleted for G4. I was just going through the CSD backlog. I think, in this case, the article really should go through DR. The reason is that I wasn't involved in the AfD, so I don't feel comfortable in overruling the AfD decision. For my part, I'm concerned at the zeal of the author(s). Still, if the site passes WP:WEB, I have no position on the matter. (In the past, before WP:WEB was developed, I was of the position that it took an earth-shattering website to need an encyclopedia article, as Wikipedia didn't recognize good vs. bad sites, but only sites that need explanation to general readers and sites that don't. That's just me, though.) Geogre 10:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine, makes sense. I'm going to tip off your man about your post and then I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the help, Snoutwood (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I have posted it on the deletion review page. Dlazzaro 21:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I probably won't take part, as I was just performing a statutory deletion, but at least this will give another review, if the facts of the case have changed or the quality of the article has improved. Geogre 23:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonel Francis Charteris

You may like this - having read it, I assumed it was one of yours! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! You're right. I feel completely flatfooted, not knowing this guy's name. I'm definitely going to the DNB to investigate him. This fellow looks to be not only a popular reminder of several types from popular literature (the rapist master was a standard figure) but perhaps a shadow for Lovelace. Bishonen needs to check it out, and I want to research him. Geogre 10:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The period is a bit late for you, but you may also like Royal Surrey Gardens, with real volcano. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I just did DNB research on Charteris. I have some material to add and some facts to correct from the article as it is now (as the new DNB disagrees with the old DNB, and print wins over the web every time there is a reference battle). Also, I have, finally, scanned Hogarth's Harlot's Progress, plate 1, which shows Charteris and "Handy Jack" leering at the new country lass (and Charteris fumbling in his pocket suspiciously). See below. Geogre 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Plate one of Hogarth's Harlot's Progress, with Charteris on the right and Handy Jack on the right extreme.

Dammit man, I was going to create A Harlot's Progress. Oh well. I snooze, I lose. (You didn't add the picture to the article? Whyfornot? Want a scan of Moll's sickbed with Misaubin? I've considered scanning in the whole series, as well as the other "Progress" series Hogarth did.) (Do not go get one of the web versions. They're all hideously low res.) Geogre 02:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, I created that stub almost 6 months ago! And you edited it yourself in February! I have looked around for images a few times but there were none here or on Commons that I could find - compare A Rake's Progress , Marriage à-la-mode and Humours of an Election - but I have added the new one now. I look forward to your additions to the Colonel - could we get to FA-quality? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll edit away with DNB additions. I'm not sure, except that the materials to make it FA certainly exist. Finding the primary source comparisons should be easy enough (I have Fanny Hill from my work on John Cleland, but it would be better to get the e-text and just search for "Don Francisco" and "Colonel" and "Handy"), and those would buff it up in addition to the facts. I kind of want to scan in the whole series and then Commons at least can have a gallery. Geogre 12:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. It is rather incredible that the paintings were "lost" (I suppose they may have offended Victorian sensibilities somewhat, but I'm sure they would have found a place in a billiard room somewhere - perhaps they are hidden in someone's attic?). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few Hogarths have had that fate. Because Hogarth was a didacticist, the Romantics are our culprits. He was simply devalued as nearly a cartoonist. Anyone who looks at the prints, though, knows how stupid that assumption is. The Romantics also discredited Godfrey Kneller, Hans Holbein, etc. The Victorians ressurrected those people, however, as properly patriotic for the Empire. Anyway, the code name for Charteris in the 18th c. is "Don Francisco." This is due to John Arbuthnot writing a truly memorable epitaph on him (at the time of the trial, not the death). Arbuthnot's epitaph is.... Well, good luck. There hasn't been an edition of Arbuthnot since 1852. :-( He's absolutely stark raving brilliant, but we can't read him. I'm trying to get my hands on some of his works now and just went through Alibris to find a 1920 sampler that has his Treatise on Political Lying, which is one of the funniest things I remember reading as an undergraduate (I had a prof who photocopied it for us). Geogre 14:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This alleged copy of Ψευδολογια Πολιτικη refers back to [y]our "excellent article" on Arbuthnot! -- ALoan (Talk)

Woo-hoo! I'm famous! Someone noticed! I got praised! I got a cookie! Did you read the treatise? It's flippin' wonderful, and you're wonderful for showing me a web source. I'm so glad to find it! Geogre 16:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

<g> Well, there was a "collected works" republished in 1892[1] and there are biographies here and here too. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

QED. 1892...I wonder if there have been any advances in our understanding of the biographies, attributions, and histories of the Scribblerans since then? There is a career to be made by any clever doctoral student living in Oxford or Cambridge, if only someone would learn textual criticism again! Geogre 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merryland

The British Library catalogue tells us that the author of this pseudonymously published book is in fact Edmund Curll. Why do I have the feeling that there is a story behind it that someone familiar with the era might be able to tell? Dr Zak 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Now I must read the article, and I might be able to tell you. Curll as "author" is .... Well, he probably didn't write it, per se. The man wasn't all that literate. However, he had dozens of starving authors who produced upon demand for him, and then he'd figure out a name to give them, if any name at all. He was his own time's Rupert Murdoch. You gotta love him: he had no ethics whatever and never claimed to. He got rich and felt glorious about it (when he wasn't getting whipped). He loved whatever the common people loved, whether that was porn or religion. Geogre 15:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Charles Cotton, too? I knew the man was hard up for cash later in his life, but I had no idea he wrote porn. Curll would be the only traceable name on Merryland, because he was a cover for anyone. The book was surely done on commission. It's too refined for him, though. He could never have managed the sustained analogy to the Song of Songs. Further, the microcosm turned to pornography suggests a classical education, and Curll had no demonstrable education at all. As for a likely real author, the list is large. For one, John Cleland was desperate for cash and already associated with literate eroticism, but Cleland's likely homosexuality and pecularity make him unlikely. Others, such as one of the Cibber children (there were a lot of them), or even a real woman, are possible. Curll was associated with Whigs generally, although not comfortably so, and 1740 is in the big gap. Hmm. Let me think of other likely authors, and I'll get back to you. (By the way, 1740 is too late for Curll himself, really, although his son, Henry, was operating at the time.) Geogre 15:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Roger Pheuquewell - snort. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. If you're not going to Pheuquewell, you might as well Roger her. Geogre 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Grr - look at the recent history of Gresham College... -- ALoan (Talk) 17:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On what basis is he doing that? Weird. I don't want to block for 3RR, but.... Geogre 17:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Made curious, I looked at his recent contribs. This really looks like a bot to me. Every edit, edit summary "copyedit" is made up of one and only one spelling correction. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See also User:Modulatum/archive3#Bot operations. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think most of his edits are good, but the second (obviously unthinking) one to Gresham College annoyed me a little, and the third... Hopefully the block will draw a response. There is also a comment at the top of the talk page about "blindfold" editing... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the block hasn't drawn much of a response so far. I got one very non-informative one-line email from him and have urged him by email and on his talk page to explain himself on his page. I feel bad having this hang in limbo like it is now, but I'm not sure what choice I have. WP:BOT is quite plain on unattended spell-check bots being a bad thing, and this probably-a-bot has done actual damage. Hmmph. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It has got to be a -bot, which is why he doesn't care much about its being blocked. Geogre 03:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but he's made non-bot contributions like [2] from the account pretty recently as well. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should mention this on AN or AN/I to keep folks appraised of the situation and see if there is other input. Having just looked there and seen the horrible mess of Gmaxwell and others wanting to tweak people using the Christian userbox, I'm in no mood to play. (What the hell should a non-Christian care what kind of box a person puts on his page? I don't like the boxes and don't use them. I think all of it makes us too close to a home page site. However, if you like userboxes in general, then leave well enough alone with someone else's beliefs. Moronic. Me, I think folks can tell I'm religious and which religion by my articles. They don't need to know about it otherwise, as this isn't a web forum or a social hall, and I don't want special friends because of a box or special enemies because of a box, and seeing people war over the content of a box testifies that that is precisely what they're there for. What a cess pit is mankind!) Geogre 03:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

(I think the course of action with Modulatum is clear enough to not need AN/I input, so long as a few people keep their eye on his talk page.) I didn't want to poke my finger in that latest piece of userbox pie there, and I last checked the thread yesterday, but I was surprised to see how many people were leaping to the defense of Cyde's and Gmaxwell's trolling. I don't know what else you could call it, really. It was an action done with intent to annoy. As far as userboxen go, well, I suppose my hatred of them is well-known enough. At this point, if I need to get a quick read on a user's worth, I just check their user page and assume their value as an encyclopedist is inversely proportional to the number of userboxes they have; seems to work pretty well in most cases. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that you're working on your own Bunch's Rules: "An encyclopedist's worth is inversely related to the number of userboxes on her or his page." It's a good one. Of course it was trolling what they did. I'm sick to death of people who feel the need to show their petulance about religion. No other taunting would be as permissible. Geogre 15:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for addition to "Merryland" article

Thanks for adding the interesting note concerning the publisher. Gpscholar 11:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)gpscholar

No problem, although it was Zak who notified me that it was by Curll's shop. I just happen to know Curll. He's a fascinating case. He's a vulgarian, but he's a man making a living, and the question of whether he was desirous of destroying public standards or just looking for a way to make a pound is open. Geogre 01:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminders...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, oh, the shame the shame! look upon your transgression, and weep! openly weep, in the presence of the warning box of chastisement! Hair shirt, anyone? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. This is what I get for trying to do some damn good around the place! See, I was cleaning out CSD, and I found schoolboy vandal articles -- "Melanie is a stinky fart and nobody likes her" and the like -- and I decided, instead of just deleting the articles, I'd warn the vandals and even block them for an hour, if they were creating multiple "FaRT" articles. Well, I'm not one for vandal blocking, generally, so I just did the test. And I didn't want to track the little knuckle draggers back here, either, so I just gave them an imperious "We're watching you" test. Then I get some automated warning that I've been a bad, bad user. Sheesh. Triumph of forms over content again. Geogre 02:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Not signing newbie warnings makes a lot of sense, thinking about it. I had a look at IanManka's talk page, and I guess he's doing more good than harm... I think. He's taught a few people about the whole concept of subst: at least. I was disappointed that we didn't have a picture of a hairshirt. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'd sign, if I were warning an established user, but an IP belonging to a school lab? As for subst.... Yeah, maybe. Makes my head spin, though. If I were a programmer, I wouldn't be so poor. This stuff is supposed to be easy for an English major. Geogre 04:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erich Heller

Maybe not your period or language or anything, but it's literature, and a long article by an author who has added a lot of other stuff to other articles on German literature. The author is asking for input on the talkpage. Should s/he be recommended to take it to peer review? up+land 08:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Review" on ANI

Oh, c'mon, review! I ask for review and what do I get? Theology! How about you as a big, sensible boy setting an example for the little kids and actually saying something to the purpose, and maybe they'll take their cue from you? I know you have better things to do (and I'm delighted to hear it :-D) but it wouldn't take many seconds to review the Lamb's contributions, I promise. Bishonen | talk 12:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

Mebbe I did review. I don't think it is Wolfstar, actually, but I support the block on the basis of the contributions. I didn't want to introduce the need for more process, though. (And it wasn't theology, actually. There is a reason I'm making this joke. Since you tip my hand, here it is: what I've noticed is that there is a community of real-lifers surrounding "Maggie." This community not only has generally crypto-fascist political views but very, very peculiar religious views. So, let's suppose for a moment that we're not looking at just your run of the mill white hood political coalition, but rather one of the web sects. If that were the case, we could understand seemingly random people with generally acceptable edits calling TWS. It would also explain how some members are convinced that Satan's conspiracy is throughout Wikipedia, while others don't. The username choice is one that no orthodox Christian could have chosen accidentally. So I don't think this is a sock or meat "puppet." I think this is an associate, just like the user claims. The question is how someone like TWS has such associates, when other abusing users don't.) (So there!) Geogre 13:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm of my own plain blunt opinion still, which is that you're exercising your supersubtlety in preference to having a mere read. Have you gone to log's talkpage and looked? For instance at the thread of amusing corruptions of my nick running from tws to log, or the telltale "maggie says"? Bishonen | talk 13:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, I know: I'm a cryptologist. No, I didn't look at the critter's talk page. Say, are we on for 2100 (lessee, 1200 + 600 + 300 = 2100)? I'm drivin' Miss Daisy to go buy plants & get lunch. I'm kind of in a cheerful mood about it, too, but such is always the way when I have to inject myself with expensive medicines. Geogre 13:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, TWS had better spelling than Log. Geogre 13:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) O RLY? Oh! Good job you asked about 21:00, the week had been totally getting away from me. I had a general impression this was Thursday. Yes, we're on, sure. Don't hurry with the driving, if I find nobody home at 21:00 I'll just call again a little later. Maybe you could bring the camera to the plants? I'd like that. Geogre! No! I said bring camera, not buy camera! Bishonen | talk 14:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

You're suggesting that I bring a camera? You're right, a medium format range finder would make the photos clearer. (Nah, a camera isn't on my list. Lots of other goofy things are. I even have a wish list set up. I just ordered 8 CD's and a book or two, and all of this is in anticipation of when my check actually gets credited by my bank.) Geogre 14:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare

Geogre, long time no talk. How are things going? A group of us are trying to get the William_Shakespeare article included in the Wikipedia Article Improvement Drive. Since you have an interest (to say the least) in literature, I thought you might be interested in checking out the page and casting a vote. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Doing alright. I'm hardly working, though. I feel like a slug: I haven't written an article in two weeks. Any way, I'll take a look. User:Bishonen would also be a good pick, as I think she already has Shakespeare on her watchlist, and she is largely responsible for Shakespeare's reputation. She didn't write it first, but she took it from an embarassing skeleton to a slightly uneven (meaning only that not all centuries are evenly documented, not that the writing is uneven) but good article. Geogre 03:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

De novo. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC).

Well, I didn't want to deny credit in either way. I could have gone through the history, but that would have required effort, and I was already replying. Anyway, we're all unfunny on this page. Geogre 23:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Embarrassing skellington yourself! Bishonen | talk 23:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC).

I know you're all upset at us and everything, but you can take comfort in the fact that I got some splattered on me, too. Just see below. Geogre 23:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not upset at you! But you're embarrassed for me! Don't deny it! You're sorry you ever married me! I'll just take my Shakespeare's reputation and go! Then you'll be sorry! Bishonen | talk 23:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC).

And then you can marry FreplySpang too! That's what you want isn't it? What a popular girl she is! Bishonen | talk 23:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC).

Good night! Bishonen | talk 23:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC).

I'm getting worried.... should I be building a new wing onto Stately Spang Mansion? FreplySpang (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh, the eyes! ^__^ Bishonen | talk 23:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC).

I think Shakespeare's reputation is excellent. I also think it's impossible. No one can cover 1600 - 2007 except glibly, and you're too good to do that. It's like "The metaphors of James Joyce, a Preliminary Study" or "The Concept of Shame in Nathaniel Hawthorne, an Exploration" or "Typology in Spenser, an Opening Gambit until I Make Tenure." Geogre 02:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I might have just been insulted, or do the 63 missed years save me from a Matt Laueresque glibness? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Ok, I admit it. I think everyone's work is trash except mine. Mine's great. My feces emits no odor, too. There. Happy? (Bish's article is excellent and better than I could do, but I wouldn't try because I'd get all obsessive and want to cover every minute. The article was uneven the last time I looked, which was a while ago, because she had been waiting for input from other people, and no two people produce at the same speed or in the same ways, and so some sections were longer than others, some more detailed than others. I think Bunch's article is excellent, too. I think it could spin out to four other articles, and we'd beat every damn theatre history in print or web, and as a single handed assemblage of a vast stretch of history it's staggering. I also don't write about drama. I don't study drama. Drama seems to study me, though.) Geogre 03:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Relax, Geogre; I should have put in a ";-)". I'm just needling you and I doubt Bish ever felt slighted either. Now you can go back to being not funny ;-) (PS I played Zork, Zork II, and Planetfall. And I tried that detective one -- can't remember the name -- but it was too much for me. Infocom's games were marvelous, and another example of technological limits encouraging rather than hampering creative fertility. See the old vs. new Star Wars movies for a canonical example.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not so sure. (Marital spats, you know.) Geogre 11:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (The couch is lumpy and uncomfortable!)

Oh, and I never regret marriage, but I think the Mormons might be onto something with this plural thing. Geogre 02:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't they mostly live out where land is cheap? <wonders if the City of Cambridge Assessor's Office might not notice a new wing> FreplySpang (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pish posh, a woman's got to relocate to where her man lives! He's the bread winner, after all. (Hey, I won a loaf of bread. It was a raffle.) Geogre 02:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As a fellow Cantabrigian, she wouldn't have to relocate for me ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

How many loaves have you won? I won the one, but that still makes me the bread winner. I'm also a bread baker, and I know they don't do that at Cambridge. Besides, the Cambridgeans capitulated to the Roundheads! Geogre 20:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You may win the bread but do you bring home the bacon? Paul August ☎ 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, sometimes. It depends on how much I buy. At 100 kg, not all of the bacon makes it home. I have concentrated on becoming the bacon. Geogre 17:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I had no idea a simple request would create such discussion! Glad things are going well with you, Geogre. I haven't had the time or inclination to dive into any big literary articles lately and have been having to satisfy myself with little ones. Take care. --Alabamaboy 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Thanks for trying to help out. One problem is that there is sometimes a content dispute, and the other person, usually an administrator turns round and calls me a troll or vandal or the like. This time, this Administrator got annoyed when I was editing New Zealand articles, in his local territory, and then I mentioned John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister as being called "Honest John", and backed it up with a citation. I know that this has probably annoyed him, but he is a student, and may only know about recent events. I lived in Australia for many years, and at that time John Howard was known as a particularly honest politician. What can I do now? An administrator has taken me to task. Am I in trouble? Do I have any rights? What is the best way forward? wallie 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're not in trouble. Like I said, it seems like, if there is a real misunderstanding, a content RFC on the article would settle things immediately. There are some 200 or so active administrators on Wikipedia. Folks wear the editor hat some of the time, the administrator hat some of the time, and I think Gadfium was speaking as an editor, not an admin. He didn't threaten to block, did he? Certainly he made no reports at WP:AN/I or AN, so I think he was just an editor wearing an editing hat. Geogre 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind advice. Wallie 05:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nordic humour failure

Have you seen this "As for you, Giano and Geogre, just cut it out, you're not funny. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)." Well! Cheek! I shall never ever post on her page again, unless I am insulted there, or immagine I am insulted there, it is coming off my watchlist from this very minute onwards. I shall only watch it to see if I am mentioned, then I won't post replies, only comments on my thoughts. It will be an empty salon from now onwards - oh yes it will - I won't be there, unless I don't post there, in which case I won't comment. I've garnerd lots of friends here, who are sincere in there belief of me. I shall probably marry Freppie by the way - then Bishonen will be sorry! Giano | talk 21:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As will be the current Mr. Spang. FreplySpang (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh you wicked woman - how could you have lead me on so - have you no shame. First Bishonen and now you - My trust in womankind is totally destroyed - I shall probably develop a problem and need counselling Giano | talk 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we're in trouble for the crime of encouraging, when we all know that it was Bishonen who was encouraging, and Freply, too. Just look at that demure expression on her face in that picture taken by the nice William Hogarth! Geogre 23:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be something. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Harlot's Progress

Nice images, although the descriptions are a bit long for the gallery! What happened to Image:Hogarth-Harlot-6.png? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

At 2.5 MB each, uploading takes an eternity. #6 will follow later, maybe tonight. I got through #5 and did a detail for the John Misaubin article. There are tons of things in these prints that can be detailed to illustrate anything one wishes. I even put one of them up at Mistress (lover). I think the Gallery format isn't quite right, but I haven't a clue how one adjust the sizes of the thumbs used. I suppose one could actually thumb each, but, well, I'm one to toss files up, not to make them look good. Edit boldly. Geogre 13:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And now #6 is up. It's one of the busiest and most scandalous, if you look closely. Geogre 14:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, lots of clever folks are working on the article. Very cool. It looks better and better. You know, I'd love to look into Paulson's book on Hogarth's prints and get more information on each plate, but Paulson isn't necessarily the last word (unless he sees this, in which case forget my saying that -- please don't hurt me, Dr. Paulson) and find some other information, as Hogarth is a strange middle ground. It isn't exactly art history, and it isn't exactly literature, and it isn't exactly flat social history. Still, one can dream one's dreams for future days. Geogre 14:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Geogre, (and not forgetting you ALoan), that is a great page, congrats you both are too clever for words etc. etc. etc. BUT;(I do like a semi-colon every now and again) One thing is shouting at me, in Plate 6. that deliberate and prominently displayed coat of arms - it is enigmatically telling us something ...what? This is not one of my trick questions I don't have the foggiest idea at all. However, I think the vicar may not be a man at all but another woman in costume. The woman over the coffin seems to be checking some-one is there, there appears to be no-one in it. Have you missed the point of Hogarth's whole exercise, which was an elaborate escape from jail and burial. While in truth Moll escaped to live on her ill gotten gains in the Caymen Islands. Finally, as a catholic it grieves me to say it.....that child........perhaps, just possibly there is a case for genetic selection. I'm sure those heraldic arms are important to the plot. Giano | talk 19:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Above the scene stands a plaque showing three faucets with spigots in them, the ironic coat of arms of the company." -- Shesgreen. I.e. the coat of arms isn't a person, but a "getting drunk" emblem. Geogre 21:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah I knew it was important. Why doesn't it explain it in the page? Giano | talk 21:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because I'm trying not to plagiarize. A reference doesn't excuse theft. A footnote would be a receipt, but I'm not going to insert footnotes. Geogre 02:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The arms look something like "?argent a chevron ?sable between three ?lilies proper" but the ?lilies could be taps. There are lots of similar arms - for example, Gresham was "argent a chevron ermines between three mullets pierced sable",[3] and 36 of the 95 Livery Companies bearing arms in 1986 use a chevron as a main charge between three minor charges.[4] - the Carpenters are "Argent a Chevron engrailed between three Pairs of Compasses Sable"

Is it me, or does the label on the (silly) goose say "to my loving cousin in Tom Street in London"? Tom Street? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

1. The coat of arms: well, it's just a sign of the house where she's dead. The spigots signify the drunkeness, but they also signify "spilling" (the clergyman's spillage is obviously ejaculatory in a degraded sense, and so are these spigots, as well as spigots of money).
2. The goose: "For my Lofing Cosen in Tems Stret in London": that being either Tom Street or Thames Street, and the cousin is unknown. It's not Moll, but the point is that it's on the right side of the engraving (Moll's sinister), so the lures of the dark side are sex, money, clothing, and food, while the lures of the dexter side are piety, drudgery, and drabness. Moll faces the sinister, of course. Geogre 02:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of a "Thames Street" in a sensibly central place these days (although names could have changed) - could it be shorthand for "somewhere in London"? The cousin has abandoned Moll to her fate, like the mounted parson. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. The cousin has abandoned her, or been nicked, and she may have been sent to a fictitious address. What's probably is that the cousin was the prostitute agents. Fanny Hill starts with a fine lady coming out to the countryside, and she's a servant, but there are others that offer up a recruiter in London spamming the country by getting poor Londoners to recruit for them for a small fee. In other words, the "cousin" is Handy Jack or Mother Needham, and it was a lure. Geogre 11:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff on Misaubin, ALoan, as ever. I've done the full scan of plate one now. Are there any higher resolution scans out there? I didn't find any. Geogre 12:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

James Dalton is on my new redlink list.

I am a bit concerned that the new images on A Harlot's Progress, excellent though they are, are a bit cut down from the originals - compare the ones on the first external link. For example, our ones don't have the hatbox in Plate 3! -- ALoan (Talk) 09:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Folio book meets flatbed scanner that is .25" away from catching all the surface. There isn't anything I can do about that, so you can choose between getting the .25" or getting the very high resolution, and I won't be at all offended if you choose the former. The latter's main advantage is that, if you download it or view it in its natural resolution, you can get into some very serious detail. The book and the scans show things that you can't see with your naked eye, and the high resolution is wonderful for revealing those. Geogre 10:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that is a pain. The detail in your scans is excellent - far better than any others I have seen online. There is no right answer here - either way, the images will be missing some details... Unless you can get (or get access to) a larger scanner? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

At work, there is a literary magazine that uses a scanner. I recall its bed being no bigger than the standard HP bed, but I'll check. The alternative is to use a copier to reduce the size, but the copier is, in fact, a scanner, and it is a scanner with very low resolution, so scanning a copy is rarely going to capture the details of an original. I'll see if our library has Paulson's book. Geogre 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFAr workshop response

Don't you find SS's response to me a little ... personal? I do. (The several replies to you seem to me more reasonable, but perhaps you don't agree.) Apparently the whole RFAr, and the whole fact that Sam has not yet become a harmonious, collegial editor, is my doing. If I'd used my superpowers and simply asked him not to revert so much, the trouble would all have blown over by now. Had I but known! All these editors urging, begging, arguing with him not to revert so much, for years and years--and at the RfC itself too--the patient Killerchihuahua! the eloquent Silence! the scrupulous Daycd!--yet accomplishing it lay solely with me. I've relieved my feelings by typing a reply, but I don't think I'll post it. Sam's message speaks volumes, and I think the impression it makes can only be weakened by, really, any reply. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

I had wanted to leave his "I'd rather be deleted than be on probation" alone. I thought it spoke volumes. I think you got the personal response because yours is Name #1 on the RFAR, which is solely an accident of lassitude and good faith on the parts of all the people who actually had complaints against Sam. I'll detail more when I can consider each line. I just got online now & must procure dinner. Geogre 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Procurer! Not sure that's a word... we both know "procuress" is. Yeah, I didn't just initiate it, I spammed 13 talkpages or whatever it was, asking people if they were still interested. That was probably my belligerence and so on. Actually I believe Sam's just trying to get me mad and showing a nasty sarcastic side. But I shall remain as meek and angelic as is natural to me. (Or I'll shut up, at least.) Bishonen | talk 22:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

A procurer is a male procuress, I think. Yeah, he's taking aim at you because, if not for you, he could have come back out of the weeds the same old sam(e), but you had to go and get old folks with memories involved. I'm pretty sure he's been up before the bar with a previous RFAR and that that's why he went on a campaign to get on it, but old folks like me can't trust their memories, especially as I never keep track of the conflicts. Geogre 02:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pimp. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pimps get paid and walk around with big hats on. Handy Jack served one John solely and didn't manage street walkers. He procured girls (preferrably tall and lower class ones). He's more of a recruiting agent. He doesn't act as a male madam, doesn't take a cut of their profits, doesn't employ them, and that's why I really don't like that term for this guy (who was, after all, a servant and wasn't prosecuted, as he was ostensibly doing it all under orders). Geogre 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wile E. said it best. Without reading his comment, I accidentally said the same thing, but in a more verbose fashion: "poor pitiful me" is another change of topic. It's another form of ad hominem, when you get down to it. Another explosion as the magician switches hands. Thus, the best response really is no response. (Yeah, I was feeling a bit pissy when I made the octopus comment. The simile was so apt and yet unavoidably insulting the way that I stated it. Had I not felt pissy, I could have kept the simile and made it less personal, but, well, I wasn't.) Geogre 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And now Sam's exploded. Oh well. Geogre 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we're Skrewed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As they used to say on Celebrity Farm Film Blowup: "He blowed up good." Geogre 17:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little something for dear Geogre

I know how you like a little color and style on your pages, so I hope you enjoy the Welcome banner I have placed at the top of this page, to make guests feel both special and comfortable! Your own Bishonen (always thinking!) 01:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

Oh, good golly, no! Constant weeder fwowed up. Besides, I have an image to maintain, here. (Yeah, I know, then I should never have allowed a photo of myself on my user page. I'm sort of like that alien in Star Trek (Balok who has that horrible monster dummy that he uses to communicate, because, when the Enterprise people beam on board, they see that he's a kid played by Clint Howard.) Geogre 02:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I do feel welcome now

Re: Liberties of the Savoy; I actualy tried to research it on the net a little, maybe six months ago (note the article there is new this month) and failed to come up with anything that really convinced me it wasn't in fact a piece of POB fiction. The new article *seems* maybe to have some OK sources, but I'm still a little uneasy about the reality of it, actually... Of course, I'm probably just paranoid. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Correction: I just re-checked. No, no the article doesn't seem to have decent sources. Would you have a look? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I will, but I suspect what it really is is a code word, an in-joke from the Napoleonic era. I.e. it's another anomalous district (which would have to be the Mint, as that was the last one in operation that I know of) and he's grimly joking by calling it the Savoy, like when people who buy clothes at Target call it "fashions by Targét." Still, I'll see what I can find out. Debtors aren't my thing as much as debts are. :-( Geogre 15:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

F/u: the narrative is plausible enough, as the ducal/manorial/ecclesiastical anomalies are how the Mint, Clink, and Alsatia got to run, and there was a bit of oddity with Lancaster in the 2nd half of the 18th, but that doesn't mean there really was a real place. After all POB does his research and is a clever lad. Geogre 15:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This magazine from 1846 would seem to confirm it as nonfiction [5]. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, the 1911 EB tells us that the right of sanctuary at the Savoy was abolished by The Escape from Prison Act in 1697 (along with Alsatia, The Minories, The Mint, Salisbury Court, The Clink and Stepney). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, neither of these sources mention when the status ended. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1911 is wrong about the Mint, right about Alsatia. Alsatia was a functional debtor's holiday until 1697, but then it was incorporated into the legal force of London's Board of Aldermen (hence cops, after a fashion...see the Charles Hitchen article for what kind of cops they were), but The Mint remained anomalous until nearly 1780. I have no idea about Savoy, though. I hadn't even heard of Stepney's being used, but, as I wrote in The Mint, each district attracted its own type of scoflaw. Geogre 19:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I misquoted 1911EB - there was a second act in 1723. See Alsatia for a full list now and a link to the EB article. There is a nice paragraph here too. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added specific dates to The Mint, but there's still something queer about that. It may have statutorily lost its status in 1723, but I can't help but think it still functioned as a hidey hole for debtors even when it "shouldn't" have. Geogre 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh - someone has accused you of OR in Licensing Act 1737! -- ALoan (Talk) 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am so on the verge of being pissy about this. I don't mind a question on the talk page. I don't mind a question on my talk page. But these pinheads go around slapping templates on because they haven't done any reading in an area. It's graffiti. The article -- all of it -- goes into doubt because some anonymous coward has learned about templates but not about history, literature, or any damn other thing! Screw that. We need a policy that NO TEMPLATE SHOULD EVER, EVER BE PLACED ON A PAGE UNTIL IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE, FIRST. Villains! Ignoramuses! Geogre 23:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (Ok, so I'm over the verge.)

Wait. I'm not done. Pigs! Pigs with keyboards! Shaved apes! Koko types a template! Grrrrr. Geogre 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you and Raul654 could join forces; I know he thinks all such meta-data templates (including the stub templates, in fact) should be on the talk pages, not in the article. Which might help a little. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[Soothingly] I know what YOU need! I could tell you were pleased with my thought, before, but still not quite happy, somehow. You wanted the welcoming banner a bit more ... vivid, didn't you? Admit it! No worries, I've prettied it up now! And, if I say so myself, I've COSIED it up. Enjoy , dear! No, no, don't thank me! Bishonen | talk 00:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

My god, I'm itching to improve that, but I just can't see how; it has reached perfection. I'll rv it for you for $5.00, Geogre. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have been thinking of some wording changes for it. I have a postcard somewhere (copyrighted, so...) that is of a torn down house in South Bronx. The resident has spray painted on the outside, "Come in my house. I want to kill you." (It's just vandalism to drop templates without discussion, especially ones that say, "This needs to be improved." That's bullshit. It insults the authors, and the person dropping it simply dances away "improving" things all over by putting stickers on everything, and all based on the education and understanding of a half-wit. Furthermore, I agreed with whoever it was who wanted to stop all this crap, as you should fix the damn thing, not put a sticker on it saying, "Someone should fix this." There are armies out there spending all their time racking up thousands of edits, and all they do is put stickers on things. They don't know what they're littering on, and yet they say they're making things better. How? How has anything improved by the presence of a disruptive piece of text that is just a testimony to the idleness of some jackass with itchy fingers?) Geogre 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I see Bish's soothing banner still isn't working its magic properly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychedelic!

Eeep! It's getting bigger and gaudier! Help! Help me someone. I am powerless to revert the mighty Bishzilla. Oh, why, O why can't she go stomp on the IP editor who suspects that I'm making stuff up about the Licensing Act instead? Geogre 00:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

With names like Gay Walpole, Wild Johnson, Sterne Shakespeare, not to mention Fielding Brooke and Goldsmith Smollet, who wouldn't be suspicious? Paul August ☎ 03:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And now even your silence speaks volumes. Suspiciouser and suspiciouser. Paul August ☎ 15:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I must type accounts of boring Scottish nobles and even more boring Samuel Beckett precursors. Those will put me to sleep. (Without a doubt the two most boring articles I've ever written.) Geogre 00:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And now it at least says something accurate. I have to find somebody interesting to write about today. Those two from yesterday were just dreadful. Even when I was taking notes, I was thinking, "Gosh. I don't see the point to this at all." Aren't there nationalistic Scots around who want to document every place's history in their fair and thistle burned land? Geogre 13:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

John Waller? Famous perjurer; killed at the pillory by the brother of James Dalton (note colour)? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for him. The criminals are at least interesting subjects. Their money grubbing is at least colorful -- not like decayed nobles (like Hamilton). Geogre 13:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dalton looks good. BTW, there is a great term from the era, "knights of the post." These were people who made their livings by being sworn witnesses to pretty much anything. They were "knights" because they would puff up all dignity, and of the "post" because that was where one swore that one's evidence was sound. Geogre 13:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits - I am not entirely happy with Dalton (unlike Brno chair), but the internet sources on him are a touch flaky - it is hard to marry up the long narratives with the case reports at the Old Bailey. I am assuming that the latter are likely to be more accurate as a historical record, at least in so far as the verdicts that were found, and that the former are more likely to be somewhat fanciful.

Like Wild, it seems that Waller made accusations for reward. But he seems to be a commonly-cited victim of the pillory - presumably death at the pillory was not all that common. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, I struck out on Waller and John Highmore (who I was looking for for his purchasing of Drury Lane) at DNB. They have some big holes. I'm going to write two short bios today, though William Wall (theologian) and Susanna Highmore. I can't figure out why the DNB has an entry on the latter, or why I'm bothering. (Actually, I can figure it out.) As for the pillory, no indeed. The Sheriff was usually there, and he would prevent killings (again, see the Charles Hitchen article, where the man was accused in the press of tempting fine young boys away and buggering them, so the public was in a lather about it; I suppose he did have some social standing, but still...). Killing a person was, in fact, against the sentence. If they'd wanted the criminal dead, they'd have made that the sentence, and even when people like Defoe had an ear cut off during a pillorying, it was considered exceptional barbarity and a sign of great anger. People died of injuries received while in the pillory, but actually killing a person while in the stocks was very rare. Geogre 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'll do Waller from my dodgy internet sites, then, like Exeter Exchange. My new redlink list is concentrating my attention wonderfully. I even managed to do fill one on the Main Page yesterday (Schloss Blankenhain). Nothing on Dalton either, I suppose? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, and that was amazing. Seriously, that's a hole a mile wide. I knew about Dalton, outside of Hogarth, which is why I was able to tell you that he was a Sheppard-like story, and for the DNB to miss him is rather shocking. I can negotiate the native sources pretty well, but it requires online time that I don't get in present circumstances. More and more good things, like the Old Bailey records, are coming online, and I have less and less ability to use them, unless I fork out for DSL, which I truly wish to do. Maybe after a publication or two.... You have to be cautious with the web sources, if anyone has found romance or political utility in the figure, because that's when you get lies and distortions presented as fact. E.g. Sarah Fielding is misreported pretty regularly, and I'm sure the Susanna Highmore I just did has someone distorting a bit (or will). The queen of distorted web information, though, is Aphra Behn. There are people who should know better who glibly repeat lies. Helps the "cause," I suppose. Geogre 22:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You didn't LIKE the banner?

I can't believe it! WAAAAAAAH! OK, have some flowers instead. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

I'm mean. Don't forget that. I'm vicious. I bite newbies and gristled old timers alike. We have an image we need to maintain, and we do not keep flowers alive for long, for our breath and aura suck the life out of them. Geogre 19:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Administrators open to recall

SPAM WARNING - quasi form letter follows! (#1)
I'm attempting to open the biggest can of worms ever. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the category I've just created.
brenneman ^{L} 07:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PS - I hearby also vow to think thrice about applying any templates to an article without actually improving it.

Wow. That's.... Wow. Uh, yeah, you could say it's a big can. I'm not sure the benefits are well enough defined, nor that they can overcome the negatives. (BTW, a "this article should be improved" category wouldn't bother me; it's at the bottom, it allows quick search and find, and yet it doesn't glare from the top; top templates are for NPOV battles, for tinfoil hat warnings, for religious disputes, not for "I didn't know where this came from" (which is "needs references") or "I couldn't understand the sentences, so that means it's badly written" (which happened when some pinhead was lost by my long sentences).) I'll look and give a more measured response, but I've got to say that I think it's going to turn up the temperature and not necessarily give us anything. Geogre 11:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Bah. *filling can with nails* Bunch of worry-worts. *adding blasting cap* What can go wrong?
brenneman ^{L} 15:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Suuuuure. I'm sure that folks are going to love it. (Hmm, why does this remind me, in advance, of the Kelly Martin debate?) Geogre 15:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counterexample

Geogre, hi. I've been using you as a counterexample, and it occurs to me that it would be polite to ask whether you're ok with that.

When people say that userboxes are necessary to allow Wikipedians a creative outlet, or that removing them will take away our individualism, I sometimes mention that the most interesting and "individualistic"(?) user pages here do it without boxen, and sometimes I cite your page as an example. If you'd rather not be dragged into it, I'll stop – in any event, I'd like to mention that I think you have a great userpage, and thanks for the excellent work you contribute to the wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's no problem. Bishonen, too, does it without userboxen, although she did use one for a brief time. I'll offer up my opinion on the box question here, but I've stayed out of the fray.

My feeling is that Wikipedia splits sometimes between "community" and "encyclopedia." I have nothing against community, but I came here for the encyclopedia. I feel like we ought to attract our communities by what we do on the encyclopedia. Other than Bishonen, whom I know in real life, I've never met the people I 'talk' to every day on Wikipedia, and I met them because of my articles or their articles or some policy debate or another. Because Wikipedia is neither MySpace nor Geocities nor Everything2, everything should be subordinated to the encyclopedia; once it is, it's great to have a community, to have friends, and to banter inanely (as I do). The problems with userboxes, for me, are

1. They put the person before the work. They say, "This is all about me." I have on my page, "My personal details are unimportant, even to me." I somewhat mean that. I will be dust soon enough, but the ideas may last longer.
2. Their "personality" can move us into the 'free web hosting' direction. After all, we only have user pages at all so that we can exchange notes and queries. Decorating them is an accident of design, and when the decorations take precedence over the notes and queries, we've become Angelfire or Geocities.
3. They ask visitors to become friends because of who the user is rather than what the user does. For example, I am a Christian, and I take my faith very seriously, but I want people to want to know me because of what I do and what I say. I don't want them to go through a category scan and seek out 'SWM seeks CSWF': there are other places for that, and I have friends.
4. If people get to know me because of what I say and do, they may become my actual friends. If they get to see my actions and words because of some attribute of myself that they found from a sticker, the odds are that I'll like them as little (and they me) as everyone else in the world.
5. The joy of meeting real people is that they don't wear stickers and t-shirts with labels. There is a mystery there, and in that mystery is the pleasure.

So, that's how I feel about boxes. Bishonen used a box that was just a literate joke (the Godot box). That, to me, is one of the old style boxes -- a joke, a quip, a little visual entertainment.

Now, as for why I stay away from the fray. First, I'm pretty sure everyone can guess how I feel. :-) Second, the people who take the other side are not arguing the matter rationally, any more than I am. Their position is one of belief and passion, just as mine is, and it is motivated by a different set of psychological needs than mine. (I need more brainwork in my life. Some people need more friends and acquaintances and self-expression.) The two sides can never, in my opinion, persuade one another, because there is no shared assumption from which they can proceed. Barring a unilateral announcement from on-high or a very, very carefully worked out set of guidelines on "This is self-expression, and this is masturbation or Friendster," we're probably not going to get anywhere, except by dint of numbers and volume. I get too depressed in those sorts of debates.

Sure, though. I'm happy to be a counter-example, and I'm delighted that you think my page does have creativity. Thanks for the compliment. Geogre 15:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears we are of similar minds regarding boxen. You're right that it comes down to points that are unarguable, having to do with each individual's disposition and psychological needs. I guess, ideally, we would find a way to attract people who are more interested in writing an encyclopedia than in advertising their various club memberships. I often wonder what we could do to make Wikipedia culture come across more clearly to new users. Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have one shifty argumentative ploy that would lay bare some of the assumptions. Iff people say that the reason they want boxes is to find people who can help on projects (the first and legitimate reason for them), then let's have categories for user pages, instead. Those are just words, sit at the bottom, and can be easily checked. That way, I could have Cat:Christian:Theology: Ancient on mine, so that people would look at the subcats when they needed someone to work on a heresy article, for example. However, it would be no fun. I.e. it would force people who suggest that they're looking for help to admit that they're looking for baubbles and ornaments, and there's nothing wrong with that, except that one can do it without boxes (and one can do it better without boxes). Geogre 18:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Geogre's views concerning userboxes. However there are two things which make me uneasy about the campaign being waged by some against them. The first is the tactics sometimes employed — ends do not justify means. Second is the issue of "vote stacking" i.e. that userboxes makes it easy for editors to organize themselves into like-minded groups — limitations on freedom of association always benefit those with the most power. Paul August ☎ 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I think the people who messed around with the Christian box should be RFar'd, myself. That was trollery, pure and simple. It would be vandalism to change Jesus Christ to something inappropriate, and it's vandalism to change the user box similarly. That said, I totally disagree with your concern about vote stacking. I don't like the presence of factions at Wikipedia. It's been one of my longest (and most comprehensively lost) campaigns. I hate meta:inclusionists, meta:deletionists, meta:eventualists, meta:school watch, etc. Any group rallying around to do anything other than cover topics and build articles is, in my mind, forming a faction to try to get their will on some element of policy or another, and I loathe vote busing. The most dramatically sad episode was over schools. There were 15 or so people who could be counted on to show up at VfD and say "Keep and RFC the nominator" whenever an article with "school" in the title was nominated. Many of these people were unashamed to admit that they didn't read the articles, either. "My school is a school with 400 students" was getting "keep! you are all trolls for nominating this," when it was a candidate for speedy deletion under the new rules (empty). Anyway, if user boxes are used for busing voters, I consider that a very bad thing. I really would like to propose a couple of new uses for categories, though, that might help people and satisfy the main legitimate use of boxes. I'm working it up, now, and plan to announce it on the pump soon. Geogre 21:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship

Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! - Corbin ^{Be excellent}

[edit] The Metropolitan Museum of Art

The cool best pen has a new cartridge and two spares! ^_^ Bishonen | talk 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC).

• Far out! I'm glad to hear that the pen wasn't requiring some Yankee ounce and pound thing that you Europeans just couldn't manage. I figured that it was something universal, as our pen makers have silently become Euroized in secret over the last few years. Even Bic is now suspiciously French. Geogre 02:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • ...see, Americans think "Bic" is an American company. That's why it's funny. They want to "boycott the French," but they don't know what nationality anything is, and they sure don't know when the company takes pains to appear "American," the way that Bic USA does. Geogre 02:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy delay

Very fair point by Fred! Bishonen | talk 18:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC).

That is good. What boggles my mind is that the current delay is simply waiting for two more voters. Surely more than two others have some knowledge of the matter. Even if they only agreed on the already-voted-upon sections, that would be something. Sam's left, etc. etc., but the decision should still be due, IMO. Geogre 18:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, drop a little post on 'em, then. I have to do all the nudging and poking? Bishonen | talk 18:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC).

Having sat through the infinite wait that was Freestylefrappe's RfArb, I'm tempted to say the present delay is no big deal. I did like that comment by Fred as well. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I'm just worried about inertia and the "he's stopped, so let's stop too" line. Geogre 20:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Eventually they get tired of having it in their little open-tasks template and get around to it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That little vew thing on the template box? I guess. (Meanwhile, the world hasn't beaten a path to my door with my new category, but it's early yet.) Geogre 20:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well don't look at *me*, my general antipathy toward giving Wikipedia more pages is well-known. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, well, either people don't keep redlink lists or they keep them private. It's ok. It's just a solution to the problem of requested articles. Or I needed to announce it a better place. <shrug> I'll give it a few days and kill the category myself if it doesn't work out. Geogre 12:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Um - what category? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I created Category:Red list. The idea is that people who keep pages of redlinks that they don't care who fills out could slap the category tag on them. If they name the list appropriately, it should be an easy way for people to request articles without going to the silliness and taxonomical mess of Requested Articles. Geogre 12:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've got a little list... -- ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I need to discuss it on the Pump, I suppose, but there really isn't a front page for announcements that people look at. (Oooh, Wikien-L... where all the cool cats are!) (I will not subscribe to the mailing list.) Geogre 17:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a little something...

...to cheer you up! We have not talked in quite some time, but I never, ever forget my friends, dear G. I promise to knock at your door again soon (when I'm not this sleepy!) Have a beautiful day! -- Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I got kissed by a beautiful woman! Woo-hoo! <running off joyfully...or waddling off anyway> Geogre 02:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help - User EurowikiJ keeps removing warnings and ignores them

Hi. Could you please help - User:EurowikiJ keeps removing warnings from his talk page. He was warned several times not to blank sourced sections, but he neither wants to discuss it and ignores policy warnings. Now he even removes warnings from his talk page. Could you please help?

Thanks. Mostssa 11:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Later

I'll call a little later than usual, OK? Bishonen | talk 18:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

Oooh, I'd better get word to you somehow. I blanked. Is tomorrow ok? Geogre 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict Lambre

You uploaded an image relating to an article about a supposed 18th century saint. Could you possibly discuss the image at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints#Saint Benedict of Handbag? Clinkophonist 21:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you might have been too sarcastic. There's something oddly 20th-century looking about that image; requests to know more about the sources of images are reasonable -- even if its only to make sure the PD tag is appropriate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the question, though. I'm fine with inquiries on the provenance. I did my best when I got it. I got it from a source that claimed that it was early 19th century, which would make it PD. I cannot be responsible for whether or not they lied, but it is always possible. The question was that the bag looked funny and the halo was pink. Sarcasm seemed the only sane response. Geogre 02:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm very, very displeased by taggers. All I ask is that people read the articles before they paste tags on, that they seek to understand before they plaster their templates everywhere. I felt that it was beyond my ability to investigate the provenance of the image beyond the web source I employed and felt that it was enough that I performed in good faith, but if you look at the other things going on at Wiki-Saints, you'll see that there is a fair bit of unprofessionalism rampant there. Geogre 12:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patriot Whigs

I have explained at Talk:Patriot Whigs why I made the edits I made. I would like an explanation for why you reverted them [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriot_Whigs&diff=prev&oldid=55788209 here]. Ground Zero | t 21:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Easily done. 1. Most of them were fine, except that this is not a "MOS trumps editor" date delimitation argument. The years linked in the article were not compulsive, but rather pivotal. 2. Your edit introduced a typo ("Patriot" became "atriot"). So, without the ability to go through and hand pick one by one by one to preserve the edits that were neutral but not vital but eliminate the one that introduced a typo, I did a rollback. It wasn't elegant, and I know it seemed brutal, but I saw little to no necessary improvement and one necessary revert in the lot. Geogre 03:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Behn, poor old Gould etc.

Hi Geogre, Time to - dammn it what does "zurückmelden" mean in English (if you've been away and disappeared from the screen and then you give notice that you are back again, Leo does not give a clue). Anyway, I have left Munich, moved to Oldenburg, a small German university town in the north to teach English literature again (having taught German literature over the past years). This is to remind you of the Gould project we had and to inform you of the liitle projects which will appear with your Gould-texts (if I can still win you as an editor of some of them):

http://www.pierre-marteau.com/html/editions.html

The edition of Aphra Behn's Love-Letters I began some months ago is finished, a preface will come later, I do not like to influence my students with my own thoughts, so I offer the text rather without a preface till later this year. The far bigger project is that of a critical edition of Robinson Crusoe based on the text of the first edition [6]. An American colleague has joined me on this. The preface is the thing I am looking forward to - the web is such a beautiful place, there you can still do things without any big formalities as if you were the first. You are in fact the first, that is the beautiful thing! And you produce something searchable, something you can quote with copy and paste. Regular web-editions are still so bad! Tell me what I can do, do get you on board with Monsieur Gould. If my offering my previous little Satire on money is an incentive, hereby it is offered again. If you can integrate it into a bigger Gould-edition I'll be delighted to see it getting this wider context.

You reminded me of the need to have something on Behn's Love-Letters at Wikipedia. I have moved my students to this little task. They need, however, I feel, still a kind of idea how to introduce a text at WP. Yet I'll not try to move them too openly. The rest of the Wikipedia-audience will have to give them ideas of what work is needed here. So if you feel like it: take a look into their work at

• Love-Letters Between a Noble-Man and his Sister (1684)
• Love Letters From a Noble Man to his Sister, pt. 2 (1685)
• The Amours of Philander and Silvia, pt. 3 (1687)

you can handle them as new wikipedia-authors, I have to handle them as my students... And do not think that I might forget Mr. Gould. --Olaf Simons 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's the right way to do it, too. We need a single article on Love Letters, but the two volumes are so entirely different that few people today could regard them as the same work, so we really need two treatments in one master article. Love Letters is such a frequently cited and poorly understood work that having fresh eyes from outside of the Anglophone chatter might be a signal service. (My own pet peeve is the "impotence" scene in vol. 1. I tried to point out to a presenter once that it was wrong to be so certain that it's impotence. She, never having had an erection or erectile dysfunction, was positive, however, that the passage was about impotence. I didn't want to tell her that she was wrong, as she might not be, but the same ... phenomenon... is treated by Behn in one of her poems, too, and it sure seems to be a case of premature ejaculation to me. After all, when the lover has been teased and worked up for a year and 500 pages of ardent letters, the sudden revelation of the "victim trembling upon the altar" might lead to such an event. Further, if it is prematurity, the rest of the feminist critique is still implied in the passage, but with some interesting attenuation.) I'll respond more to the rest of yours soon, as there is a lot there to reply to.

For my part, I have an article that I've got to fact check before it goes to print, and I have a new class, but none of that should or will stand in my way. I shall (for Americans, "shall" carries more of a guarantee than "will") get Gould over to you.

I'm very excited by the possibility that we might do some real good for the old guys. Geogre 18:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Impotency-Scene - we discussed that in the Seminar as well, Silvia's reaction - not the kind understanding you'd like to have (well there was no discussion of that point), yet another question: Imagine the first night would have been a success - what would we know about Silvia (and the consent - which she proves with her arranging the second night). The plot wins immensly with this detail. (Ceterum censeo: Monsieur Gould, tell me what I can do to get your editorship...) --Olaf Simons 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. The readings that have begun to bore me are obvious ones: "the male gaze, when fully satisfied, cannot perform, because it must be aggressive, and that is why he is impotent when Sylvia .... puts on women's clothing and is symbolically castrated by...." or "masculine gender requires seizing and a form of rape, and when Sylvia gives what he is meant to force, he is impotent... symbolically castrated by putting on the maid's clothes...." The symbolic castration is a repetitive feature of these readings. Again, I'm not saying that all of that isn't present, but these readings require impotence very specifically for a kind of gleeful viciousness that I find nowhere in Aphra Behn's writings. Behn seems generally amused, not vengeful, and I think the "symbolic castration" so much sought by a particular type of reader of the book is achieved even more fully by prematurity.

You don't need to do a thing. I need to do some things, like get my head straight, and my campus technology folks (they came in third in the two-handed posterior search contest) need to fix some things. Otherwise, I shall be on it. Geogre 11:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm... well yes (we share a dislike of these proto-feminist and pseudo-psychological readings). But Silvia's reactions surprised me (and you, so it seems - because we are men??). There is no understanding, no sympathy, no "let us have sex together", she just expects him to perform - there is most of all a feeling that her Beauty is neglected, when he can't. There is this constant idea, that Beauty should just be worth something - attention, a desire to rape the beautiful person, or simply to marry him or her (and Beauty is the very same in men and women! - remember Octavio standing before a mirror and wondering: Am I beautiful enough to get deserve that girl...). The value of the person is again and again brought onto one level with "Beauty" as magic concept (charming, my beautiful charmer). My second reading of Love-Letters (my first was done 10 years ago, and I then wondered: how did readers in 1712 and 1718 read this text - we have materials to answer the question...) - my second reading this year suddenly focussed on some words and concepts and the moral balance. Among the words I kept track of is "beauty" and I do not know yet why I focussed on this word and what to make of the impression that the word is a clue to something. The moral balance is something that strikes me as a problem between pt.1 and pts 2+3 and between politics and the readers positive identification. Pref. vol.1 ends with the wish that the Tory dedicatee should mary a woman like Silvia (who is introduced as "true Tory"), it also touches the question whether it was good to write about these Whigs and to offer the novel to a Tory. Now: Imagine Behn loves her heroes (at least in pt.1). Imagine she wants to say: Do this, young folks! pay disrespect to all moral ties, to religion, to marriage, to politics, to the state - as soon as you fall in Love: do it with your sister (or the sister of your wife or the husband of your sister...), imagine Behn wants to make this statement. How could she do that without being told that this is beyond all religion and morals? How could she make such a statement without ending on the scaffold? I feel, she was well advised to put that dangerous statement into a political novel and to make it the thing of her adversaries. She can distance herself from anything these people do which is a very comfortable position. Here I am no longer sure whether I can read the novel with Janet Todd. Is it a Tory novel against Whigs? Or is it a novel with an interesting moral standpoint - a standpoint the author defends by making it the standpoint of her adversaries (but of adversaries we come to identify with). I just like this novel - especially the style, the number of dashes, the wild language, the careless edition with all those strange spellings, done as if things only have to sound right...

Tell me when I can help you with the Gould-edition, techically. (I'd otherwise enjoy to see you give it your own html-design - ..do not know whether you enjoy such work.) --Olaf Simons 12:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Extremely interesting reading. I would have to re-read to be able to keep up even with the baggage train, there, but what struck me was the amount of inherence in Behn's prose. If we forget for a moment the externals of Whig and Tory and instead see part of their enabling ideology as an argument between imanent and emanent qualities, as between the natural value and the achieved value, then the debate's shape changes a bit. One of the most important missing readings for Oroonoko is that of regicide: Oroonoko is a king, and kings are naturally imbued with a quality of divine approval, whether their skins are black or white. So, let's think for a moment that Behn sees false and true nobility, people with titles who do not have the natural quality and others who do. What I think goes on in quite a bit of her writing is that a natural quality is beyond the rules. I don't want to say that these people are "beyond good and evil," but it's close to that: these individuals must express their natures. Beauty is an external mark, but it is an external reflection of an inward and natural quality, and the author of this mark is God. Therefore, it is moral for the beautiful to be sexual, just as it is moral for Charles II to have lots of mistresses. (I think the debate over Charles's actions is always back there, and I think Behn is bothered by the licentiousness of his court and her own actions and must reconcile these things.) Beauty is, therefore, like the generosity of Charles's sexual spirit: it is good that it be expressed because it wouldn't be there, otherwise.

The sincerity question is entirely beyond my little powers. I get dizzy wondering whether Defoe was sincere in Roxana, and I absolutely can't be sure of Behn. She's not very good at hiding her political views, but she's an expert at hiding her moral views, it seems to me.

Oh, and I think that Sylvia is upset because she, too, has been worked up to a state. She's frustrated. :-) Then again, she simply can't understand how he can't perform because she's an innocent (where Behn was not). I had thought that was a bit of realism for an actual virgin's confusion.

Besides, the part of the scene I like best is Octavio in the garden and the lord of the manner offering to make "her" a whore, "I can you know -- I have my tools about me." Geogre 12:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I whish I had you in my seminar - you'd be an inspiration (have to dash off - is not it night in America? No my miscalculation. It's 3pm over here and I still have not quite decided what to do with the final session on Love-Letters beginning at 4. --Olaf Simons 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)

Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, how'd it go?

Hi, how'd it go? Did you improvise? Bishonen | talk 07:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

It was weird. I did improvise, but the real kick was that there were more administration people there than students, and one who actually *is* a student. I hardly had time, with that student-administrator rattling on. Geogre 11:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Er...

Er... so were you able to see my house? Or not? Bishonen | talk 19:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

I had to wait for the download, which was after replying. Yes, I think. It's not all the way over, and it's not the tallest. I keep meaning to take a picture of "my house" around here. Geogre 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Thanks

I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review of List of tongue-twisters

I'm notifying you because you voted recently at Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of tongue-twisters. Since your vote, additional information (merely, the fact that the content was transwikied to Wikiquote) has emerged. I'd therefore like to ask you to revise (or confirm) your vote in light of this additional information. Thank you, and sorry for bothering you about his. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)