User talk:Geogre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essays

It's new! It's exciting! It's an idea whose time came months ago: The Tags and Boxes Player's Guide Continuation: The Demotion Idea. If RFA is "broken," let's not make it FUBAR: The RFA Derby It's newer! It's not exciting! Essay on Wiki Cults of Personality My attempt at impersonating Marshal MacLuhan: IRC considered Blocklogz, A Wikiwebi Comix: My first attempt at hip artwerkx. Oh, more IRC bashing from an IRC hater, etc. You know -- just whining from a luzer.: People are still getting blocked by "unanimous" IRC consent. So You Wanna Be An Edit Warrior? An essay on how to tell if you may already have the qualifications to be an edit warrior and not even know it!

New: User talk:Kosebamse#Current affairs explains pretty well why Wikipedia lost three of its most serious content contributors to salve the egos of some few people and save the playtime of those same few people. The long winded analysis of "civility," with a short and succinct page to follow

New Messages

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

[edit] Good point well made

[1] - I entirely agree. "Teh Internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers" as they say. I recently wrote WP:ONUS, I think I might add a reference to the "mercilessly edited" clause in there as well. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's again the same mentality that we found objectionable with the "Personal Attacks" hysteria. "Help, I've been offended" is utterly tiresome. There is a way to write a "civility" guideline that makes sense, but no one is interested in that. There is a way to uphold politeness sensibly, but no one is interested. The fact that no one, but no one, has worked on refining and making useful these vague terms is proof, to me, that they're used not to ensure good function, but simply to give anyone the chance to raise a hue and cry.

Civilization requires vituperation at times. It requires defensive measures short of force. "The first person to hurl a curse instead of a rock founded civilization," Sigmund Freud said. Well, the connection there is important: rudeness, with or without the lazy "dirty words," is a function of politeness. I.e. the harmony is only ensured by the ability to deviate.

My comment, though, was purely in response to the flatly, howlingly absurd and risible, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to praise people" from Ottava Rima. That's the rationale of the hippie hug. Geogre (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this guy's behaviour over the past few days with increasing disbelief. He needs a dermatologist, he's so thin-skinned. He reacts to the slightest criticism with an avalanche of complaints about "incivility". Last time I saw him he was alleging an editor had called him a "bastard" when the user had simply written Basta! ("enough!"). Maybe assume bad faith is the new policy round here. --Folantin (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And now we're back to the usual soap opera. It has long been the case that people could turn to the "help, they're being mean to me, and everyone's out to get me" and get some traction. It's one of the silliest things about Wikipedia. In the older days, it got traction because we were worried about wiki-love. Now, it does because of the soap opera of Wikipedia -- the factions and the rivalries and the people looking to get even -- all that boredom. If you do anything, someone will think it better not done, and then, in the future, that person will show up to give hearing and support to the otherwise negligible person who complains that you're mean. Geogre (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a way to write a "civility" guideline that makes sense

Why don't you give it a go then? Gatoclass (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I could. No one who invoked "civility" would pay attention, of course. This is my criticism all along: from the introduction of Snowspinner's NPA years ago, the whole issue has never to be clear, but to be as unclear as possible, to give license, not liberty. However, yes, when I next have some time, I will analyze the topic and show how it can (and cannot) be used. Geogre (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would be good. I'd certainly like to see some clearer civility rules, because it seems to me that perfectly good editors often get punished under the existing rules while passive aggressive types thrive. Civility is important, but as things stand the policy often seems to be employed more like a weapon than a protective mechanism, and that concerns me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Geogre, I would like to offer you a suggestion. I would like to suggest that you summon the Awesome Power of the Geogre to write an outline of a civility guideline that you think would work. If you can write a guideline that will work, practically and with judicious application of Clue, for me, for Giano, for ScienceApologist, maybe even Mikkalai and others who are prone to outbursts of "rhetorical exuberance", then I will undertake to follow it, and also to advocate it as hard as I can to everyone who will listen. In the list of people who will listen, I think I can safely include several arbitrators, Jimbo and a decent posse of admins. You are the best person I can think of to write such a guideline - so much so that I cannot believe I did not come and ask you for your thoughts much earlier. I am one of those dunces of whom you speak - but this is not new information. WP:NOT#Kindergarten might be a good first step :-) Guy (Help!) 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will, indeed, and I will collect up all the auxillaries pages I am able to find. The way I see it, it is impossible to consider "civility" without the civitas, without the community. If a convention of wounded pirates were in town, saying, "Pardon me" would be uncivil. If a convention of constipated nuns were in town, saying, "Damn it, my edits didn't go through" would be a matter for caning. The society determines what is and is not within the body, as it were, but this is true only so long as the body is healthy. Anyway, more on that when I get done with the piles and piles and piles of papers before me (and behind me, and next to me). Geogre (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Giano II has had a lot of pixels spent on his talk page, and he has to keep archiving, there's so much. That's fine, but I wanted to save this of mine, as it expresses my views (and it's a nice turn of phrase, and I am a little proud of some turns of phrase):
  • ""Civil" is not a policy. It has no sanctions. It is not longstanding. People who volunteer here are longstanding. "Civil" is a vague idea poorly expressed. It does not license this school marmish finger wagging, and it does not allow Mary Whitehouse campaigns, and it does not sanction people driving off or blocking their argumentative opponents. It is the inane interpreted by the insane." Geogre (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments

It's a bit confusing to see how you construe any of my recent comments as personal attacks. Walton One pointed out the inappropriate mockery of a tragedy. After several days' restraint, hoping that Bishonen would reconsider, I thanked him. Several people had already asked her to exercise the appropriate decorum. I am very sorry to learn that you lost people in the World Trade Center; perhaps you can understand: my father died three months before 9/11 and his brother was the nearest relative I had left. He was one of the very last people to escape alive, and although I don't post the full details online, I assure you they were harrowing. I went to war because of that day; I never would have joined the armed forces except that my own family was nearly killed. I'm not embarrassed by that in the slightest. Nor, I think, have any of my comments surrounding that given anyone reason to blush. If they somehow were, then obviously my closeness to the actual events deserves a little leniency. I have endeavored in every way to have no need of excuses.

Your comments frame the discussion as if it were a matter of personal Wikipedia allegiances rather than a matter of right and wrong. If you'll look at my comments to RFAR and AE and ANI, you'll find a simple application of site standards without regard to politics. I've recused myself from the part where I know I cannot be neutral: the merits of the underlying dispute. Yet I think - and I hope you'll agree - that 9/11 is no subject for partisanship. Durova^Charge! 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments for asessment for William Melmoth

Dear friend, I am from WikiProject Christianity and this is regarding my assesment and your reaction to the article William Melmoth. Please dont take this as an insult and assumme good faith. Article assessment is to not steal any value to the article. The primary aim is to categorize articles on a identified quality scale and collabrate with intertested people to improve them to the highest standards of wikipedia. You may refer to this for the guideline for assessment. Please see the examples for Start and B class given and analyze where the article William Melmoth falls into. I request you to kindly revert your edit for the class of article. If you differ in my opinion , you are welcome to discuss on the project Talk page. Happy editing and Have a nice day - Tinucherian (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear: that's very touching, Geogre. Do you see why I felt you needn't have intervened? Verbum sap. --Wetman (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

They seem very -bot written, but I hate getting accused of being all "I'm an administrator." That strange Ottava Rima case was one such. At DRV, he said that he couldn't win against an administrator, because I had deleted his Swift's printers as a duplicate and a fork. The hell he couldn't! I deleted the article by administrative discretion and scholarly knowledge and analytical foresight. (It was utterly impossible a topic... printers? so Bernard Lintott, Edmund Curll, George Faulkner -- all of whom printed Swift -- are the same as the otherwise unknown John Nutt, and all of them are "printers?" And who on earth is going to say, "I want to read about Swift's habits of oversight of the press, so I am going to Wikipedia (instead of, say, Arthur Cash's book), to read about it, and, instead of looking at Gulliver's Travels, which is the book I'm concerned about, I'm going to type in 'Swift's printers' and hope there is something?") Could I lose at DRV? Sure. If I did, then I hope it would be to AfD, where I could try my best to explain to non-literary types why the article was a hopeless idea, regardless of performance.

So, to be short, I was taking extra steps to try to be humble. Look at the weird fortunes Buckingham Palace has had with a stupid infobox. No matter how many people who write say that it's ugly and unnecessary and bad, someone comes along every few days to insist that it go there. The -botting of the project (and the drive-by assessment is a part of it) is only one of the ugly and destructive trends that all shall lose to, sooner or later. It will be an adolescent clubhouse and web forum, and complexity will be reduced to a set of forms and mandates, and we're just whistling in the graveyard and waiting. Geogre (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Film adaptation reversion

Please identify your issues with recent Film adaptation changes here. Thanks. 66.167.141.167 (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There were tons. The fact that massive swathes of text were deleted was pretty bad. The improvements were nice, but the "fact" tags and such were obnoxious, and cutting well-thought-out stuff is utterly out of bounds. Geogre (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Impressed

Just been reading over some old RfCs and other things, and based on your comments, I think you're the most sensible person on this whole project. KathL (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you. I try to avoid the soap opera of personality and stick to the principles. A bit more boring that way, but, I hope, a bit more sensible. Geogre (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, Geogre and Uncle G have long been my top two people on WP. Sadly Uncle G is now MIA. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's odd how well-written, reasoned and thoughtful commentary sticks out in Wikipedia's morass of knee-jerk "omg-its-on-the-Interwebs" fever, Wikilawyering and civility police. FCYTravis (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys are making me blush (unless it's just those darned gin blossoms again). I have only the inoculation of misanthropy to protect me. I also have a longstanding love of the art of argument (not arguing, but the construction and functioning of arguments). The pinnacle of that art is getting the other person to agree without coercion, and I don't think I've ever gotten there. The best I've managed is to silence the other, so every argument has been a failure. When you read Plato, there are all these people disagreeing entirely, and fifty pages later, they're saying, "Wow, Socrates, you really showed me. Fair's fair, and the logic leads us to your position." I have yet to see anything in life remotely like that, and on the web it is even less imaginable. In fact, "Plato on teh intarwebs" would be a good satire to write. At the end, Crito of Phaedrus would say, "But, dude, UR totally pw0ned!" Geogre (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The best gambit is to encourage one's assailants to be more revealing of their covert motivations and unfamiliarity with the territory than they intend. Deadpan is essential. --Wetman (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

- Tinucherian (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St Geogre's Day

Congratulations on your canonisation with respect to dragon slaying services etc. Although given that you have since become the patron saint of about 9 different countries I do worry you might be spread a little thin. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dude. Sometimes I get the dragon, but today the dragon got me. "Labor is the curse of the world, and no man touches it but is brutified by the process." Today, the dragon won. Tomorrow, I look for hyssop and moly. Geogre (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Her Majesty's Indian Service

Was finishing off a stub on Henry John Carter, and came across the phrase "on Her Majesty's Indian Service". I tentatively piped a link to East India Company, but since we talked about this the other day for Mr Broun, I was wondering if you knew anything about this? If not, I'll toddle over to the Ref Desk. Carcharoth (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it, actually, but it's one of those important things. I really don't know when and how the company fades out. I believe the reference you have, though, would be properly aimed at Raj, because I think they're referring to 'the administrative unit of the civil and military service that is the army and government of occupation of India.' I can't be sure, though, because my knowledge of the commercial interventions in India is sketchy and confined to the 1720's - 60's. Geogre (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll ask at the Ref Desk and see if they can help. I think we need an article on Bombay Establishment, or at least on how that ties into everything. See William Cornwallis Harris for one example. I checked Honourable East India Company, and it says: "Following the 1857 insurrection, known to the British as the "Great Mutiny" but to Indians as the "First War of Independence", the Company was nationalised by the Government in London to which it lost all its administrative functions and all of its Indian possessions - including its armed forces - were taken over by the Crown." So it seems it was nationalised at that point, around the time Carter went out there. He published his work in 1857, and it seems he arrived in Bombay in 1859 (the dates are a bit confused). Anyway, keep an eye out on the Ref Desk if you have time. Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think that refers more to "the Bombay government." This Carter is quite a character. See it. Kill it. Pose it. Paint it. Move on. You can practically hear that "whut whut?" as you read. 1857 is later than I thought, but it means the difference between "free trade" (profit, profit, profit) and "fair play" government. I should imagine that there was good reason for it -- a reason that the Belgians did not see in the Congo. I should imagine that there was an equally good reason domestically in the UK for it, but at that point the company had as much power as BP, Exxon, and Aramco combined (politically). I would think that "nationalization" would be a flat-out fascinating history to study. Geogre (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You must be reading different things to what I'm reading! Are they open access sources? Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I was just being impressionistic about the biography I was reading here. It was standard practice through Audubon and beyond to kill the animal, then pose it to paint it. I.e. great artists traveled with or depended upon great hunters. It wasn't really possible, otherwise, to paint the thing. So, if this fellow is a major painter of wildlife and a major hunter, the two are naturally together. Or were you referring to the empire/corporate split? That's one of those great truisms of colonialism: all the powers screwed it up terribly, but the British were better than most, largely because they brought that Eton fair-play-old-chap standard and Victorian maze of laws with them. The worst was the Congo, of course, but whenever corporations ran the show instead of governments, the exploitation and payoffs and corruption tended to be much, much worse. Geogre (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. I get more of the hunter vibe from William Cornwallis Harris (were you reading that one instead of Henry John Carter, by any chance? Carter sounds more of a microscope and hammer guy. Rocks and sponges don't run away, unlike those pesky higher order animals...). Anyway, see the ref desk thread here for more, though not quite as eloquent as what you wrote above! The history of the East India Company and the relationship between Crown and Company is actually really fascinating. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reading William Cornwallis, not Henry John Carter! Cornwallis looks like "bang! bang! bring my paintbox." I will now look at Carter. Geogre (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Henry John Carter is quite interesting. He seems like the model for the surgeon/scientist in Patrick O'Brien's novels -- although, of course, Cook's surgeon was also a naturalist. He is, absolutely, one of those gentleman scientists. All his training is medical, and yet by collecting and reason and reading, he was able to be a major person in geology and zoology. Those were the days when Wikipedia wasn't necessary: an intelligent amateur with wide reading could accomplish things in the real world. (There was a New York Review of Books article in Feb. that put the success of Wikipedia down solely to the lack of recognition of talented amateurs in today's world.) Geogre (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There is now a post on the talk page suggesting British Indian Army, and that sounds about right. He was an army surgeon, it seems. Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the you've got the link right to the British Raj. The East Indian Company was quite remarkable - Imagine Microsoft being given the power to raise armies, taxes and wage war? My understanding was that the Rebellion and establishement of the Raj just made explicit, what the 'company' had been doing for some time - ruling India. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. East India wasn't necessarily evil, but they had one objective, like all corporations with shareholders: profits. Once they were so big that HM Navy was protecting them and wars were fought for them, and once most of the British civil service came up from them, and once they represented a huge chunk of revenues for the nation, "corruption" was complete: the political masters couldn't act, back home, and there were no checks abroad. If only we learned lessons from episodes like that. Geogre (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Her Majesty's Indian Service" would refer to one of the many bureaucracies of the Raj, the paramount of which was the Indian Civil Service. In the absence of articles for most of them at this point, a piped link to the ICS would be appropriate. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Bombay Establishment? I didn't see that at first. That would mean a military service, though not necessarily the army. Being on the Establishment meant that you were attached to the cantonment - in Bombay, because of its peculiar geography, the military area itself was also- and is also - known as the Establishment. Otherwise, more generally, the various commands were known as establishments. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this meant that all those attached to one of the military services, including the Indian Medical Corps, were, if serving in the Bombay Presidency, supposed for purposes of their pay to be in Bombay and thus "on the Establishment". --Relata refero (disp.) 09:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There was also "Madras Establishment" and "Bengal Establishment", as pointed out here. See also Talk:Henry John Carter. Would you be able to comment at the Ref Desk thread, explaining some of the examples found there? Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Please do not violate WP:NPA as you could be argued to have done in your edit summary here. Also, your removal of the tag without consensus could be, in an extreme, counted as an act of WP:VANDALISM, which is also a potentially blockable offense. Please do not remove it without addressing the concern which it expresses.

Also, I feel obliged to mention to you that, for all of your at least possibly apparent arrogance regarding how excellent you believe the article to be, you have yet to substantively address any of the points raised, simply writing it off as undue criticism of your work. Please read WP:OWN, which clearly indicates that, whatever you may personally think, you are not the sole expert on the subject. For what it's worth, I am also the primary assessor for the Christianity project, whose assessment you, a party with a clear conflict of interests regarding the subject, had adjusted without consensus, so that the assessment's can be of a consistent standard. I am restoring the earlier assessment. I suggest that you very clearly review some of our core policies, including WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPA, and WP:OWN. Your conduct to date has been at least potentially in violation of each of them.

I also urge you to at least consider that, despite your all-too-apparent opinion that you, having read one single work, are now the sole judge of the quality of the article you wrote, your refusal to address any of the concerns raised about the quality and content of the article is a clear violation of etiquette and possibly at least one policy.

If you seek to alter the standards of assessments, please feel free to do so. I am to date one of only three people that I know of who have signed on to clarify the existing assessment standards. However, I would very much urge you to become familiar with the reasons for existing assessments being what they are, rather than continuing to make judgements about a subject regarding which you have a very clear conflict of interests. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Join or die, and asking if there is a tag for hissy fits is a personal attack?" Wow. That looks... emotional. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note the above statement is completely irrelevant to what I said, seemingly ignores most of it, and is once again seeking to impugn the motives of others based on snide comments. Personally, dear sir, I have to question at this point whether you are even constitutionally capable of making a clear, reasonable, reponse to the comments of others, or whether all you are in fact capable of is the sort of self-serving, accusatory, inaccurately judgemental, comments above. Actually, at this point, I regret to say that there is unfortunately no real question in my mind regarding that subject. If however you were to ever demonstrate a clear capacity of addressing the legitimate concerns expressed by others, that might change. If that were to ever happen, that is. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

John, unlike this [2], Geogre's edit summary was not a personal attack. It was, however, a comment from which you should learn - pointless tag wars are just that: pointless. Wat Geogre said was not an attack, but your characterisation of an edit made in good faith as "vandalism" because you didn't like it, well, that's definitely not acceptable, so please don't do it again. Most n00bs get out of the habit of calling everybody else's edits vandalism after the first couple of months, I've no idea why you made such an elementary error. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Now here's a thought...

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008

I'd vote for you. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but Guy... I know Geogre is great, of course, but you only get one vote; you need to spend it on this guy, my favorite. Fantastic candidate! (best edit ever here; context here.) Bishonen | talk 15:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC).

Takes some gall to run for the Board when you're that... way. It's funny, because when Meta started, I was supposed to go in and do something or other, but I declined, and now it's a huge deal. Board is going to go the way of everything else, I imagine, if it hasn't already: "volunteers" for power (= power seekers). If I catch a whiff of people wanting to be in control, I know instantly of someone I don't want in charge of anything larger than dust collection. Geogre (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely why I want you to stand, sir. The Adams Principle: "Anyone who wants to wield power should under no circumstances be allowed to". Guy (Help!) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

as he proved.DGG (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we have an article on the Cincinnatus Society? George Washington, John Adams, and loads of others of the first leaders of the US had Cincinnatus as a hero. I know that some of them (Jefferson) didn't in any way live up to it, but the point is that Cincinnatus was a hero -- that was a goal. Today, the average politician comes closest when he or she mumbles "term limits" but otherwise thinks Cincinnatus was a chump. The problem with people who think they're right is that they're apt to want to tell other people about it, and then to order other people. Geogre (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Society of the Cincinnati ? Guy (Help!) 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the one, although it appears that one source (TV documentary or the article) is misinforming me about the members and the goals. I suspect one for the one and the other for the other. Geogre (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Easter

Mykola Pymonenko, "Easter morning prayer in Little Russia", 1891, Oil on canvas, 133x193 cm, Rybinsk Museum-Preserve of History, Architecture and Art, Rybinsk, Russia.

Hi Geogre, as you probably know, this Sunday the Easter also arrived to the Eastern Orthodox world. To mark this event and make a small present for you, here is the great piece of one of my favorite Ukrainian painters depicting this event in my homeland, as he saw it a little over 100 years ago. Enjoy! --Irpen 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Printer Benjamin Motte

Swift's printer must be a man you know, Geogre. Do see my exchanges on Benjamin Motte Snr and Jr at User talk:Wetman#Benjamin Motte, because you may be able to throw light in my dim corner. --Wetman (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Benjamin Motte was what I was going to research next (in terms of biography). I know his intersection with Swift pretty well, but there are many jagged edges left over, if that's all one pays attention to. It's like Pope with Lintott: he loves him, then ridicules him, then seems ok with him, then hates him, etc. Imagine a Hollywood star and his or her agent. They fall into and out of love every time a deal is made. Geogre (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably you should work elsewhere for a couple of months and come back to Motte when the heat is off. --Wetman (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would I do that? What heat? You mean a single user whose distemper is rampant? Why would I wish to stay clear of adding content because of the inappropriate reactions and actions of that user? Did you read that person's "excellent" Swift's printers? Talk about an unnecessary fork! At any rate, my point was that I had intended to add a biography of Motte. Note the tense. However, if there is going to be a maladaptive user screeching and warring over every edit, without the benefit of research (except for Ehrenpreis), without benefit of understanding how to write well, without experience, then I was in no mood to help. Ehrenpreis's biography inspired a good many people in the 60's, when it came out, but it irritated as many. It was the first scholarly biography in quite some time, and a life of Swift is a big task. However, it had severe limitations, numerous mistakes, and a great deal of credulity to it, either way. Ehrenpreis not only trained doctoral students, but he endowed the Ehrenpreis Center in Munster, Germany, where Swift Studies is published. Thus, he has continued to be a holy cow, but his biography is not where anyone would now go for the last word on anything.

He took a psychoanalytic approach to biography. As Richard Ellman says (in Golden Codgers), "no doubt many of our greatest authors would benefit from some posthumous psychotherapy, but I doubt that we will cure any of them." Indeed, after Ehrenpreis, it was impossible to turn around without finding "anal eroticism in Swift's" this and Swift's that, "revulsion of the body in Swift's" that and this. It was utterly reductive, terribly neat, and completely facile. None of that stuff has had any longevity, and with good reason.

Yale's Eighteenth I position went, mysteriously, to someone still versed in that stuff. Even as the scholarly community has shed its fascination with practicing psychology without a license, it has hung on at Yale. I would prefer any number of Angus Rosses, with all their old fashions, to the best of such a vintage. In particular, none of them are useful to people who are interested in establishing baseline facts and history. Take away Ehrenpreis and the old DNB from Ottava Rima, and you have nothing at all. In fact, watching him continually make naive mistakes has been a horrible side show. (For instance, he missed John Nutt, who was the publisher of eds. 1-4 of Tale of a Tub, can't figure out Sr. and Jr. now, and won't be bothered to find out about the printers themselves.)

Start with Read's notes and go from there. You'll be better off than allowing a dilettante to tell you anything. Geogre (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charlotte Charke

Hello, Geogre! Thanks for your message about the Charlotte Charke page. It may take me a while to track down what I can on her (presumed) second husband as I have to pull together a lecture on 19th century French puppetry (Mon Dieu) as well as build a passable Guignol-style proscenium over the next few days and weeks.

I have had publishing experience with unreliable narrators, but an autobiography, if one exists, is still a good place to start when researching a biography. (Though in Charke's case I didn't start with her work, but ended with it.) I've noticed a few recent authors, using her autobiography as a source, making, as statements of fact, some errors... and not, apparently, because of a contradictory source of information, but, it would seem, a simple misreading of the autobiography itself. Well, that's not hard to understand; Charke is chatty, and breathless, in the memoir, and often vague or misleading, sometimes deliberately so. (The mistakes I've noticed in papers about her concern the person of Mrs. Brown.) It is certainly possible that I have missed or misunderstood something myself.

The bit about her second husband, however, does not come from her autobiography, where he is not named, as I mentioned in an earlier edit. My most recent changes concerning him were actually to soften what struck me as opinions about their marriage, rather than known facts. For instance, the page formerly said their union was neither full nor long lasting. Well, we can agree it was short, but, since, as you say, we don't know anything about the fellow, we can't presume their relationship wasn't full, or was a marriage of convenience, or what have you. Further, the page had said all she got from the marriage was a name under which she could perform; a harsh assessment indeed since we know absolutely nothing of their relationship. So that was redacted to keep some of the idea, but make it less an unsupported statement of fact when it was really a theory.

Now, it could be that she was never married to the fellow, or that he didn't die (and perhaps never existed)... and that he was a cover for her for some reason, a "Bunbury," if you will. But, as his name comes to us from other sources, rather than her memoir, that seems less likely, though it is still possible. Once I get through the upcoming lecture and performances, I'll head into NYC to investigate those other sources. (It may turn out to be only old playbills!)

It's been a pleasure to read some of the pages you've edited, and I look forward to seeing the page on Aphra Behn when you're done. --Sean K.

SeanKeohane (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A (possibly vain) attempt

I would appreciate you taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Reducing the impact - I'm attempting to reverse the direction. Perhaps I'm a starry-eyed idiot, but perhaps the trend can be halted and even changed. Your input would be much appreciated. I realize you have already spoken about the policy and its use elsewhere, I am hoping you are not completely burned out on the subject. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to. I really want to. I want to get out from under a certain real life work burden that occurs this time of year every year, though, and I've got endless things to do there. It's off to work by 7, work to 4, then crash. It's why I haven't been doing much useful at all lately. However, it lets up soon. Given the scale of wiki-time, the whole thing will be over and decided the wrong way before I can find the time to even offer an argument (or it won't, and it will never end, and everyone will be referring to it as "drama"). In other words, as soon as I can, I will, and I have to hope that the "civility patrol" dunces lose out. Geogre (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Whenever you can, and good luck surviving that r/l thing intact and even triumphant (this is possible, yes?) KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: given how many are going to need further attention and the numbers of unhappy people.... Being shed of it would be enough for me to count as a victory. Things may be better tomorrow. Geogre (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lazarus and Dives

Please assume good faith. It's only the two of us, at the moment, and we disagree. I'd like to get a consensus, so I requested the move. StAnselm (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It had been four, and we couldn't get consensus. I asked for evidence that any other permutation is more common. Without that, it is only the one of you wanting a change to a particular form, and without good reason. Going off to a noticeboard is a bad, bad, bad idea in that case. It looks like coercion and wiki-lawyering. Geogre (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Going off to a notice-board? That's exactly what one is supposed to do if consensus cannot be achieved on the talk page! StAnselm (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Four? You need five variants of Dives and Lazarus... Guy (Help!) 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I sense (begins to tremble) mathematics being used (sweats copiously), and perhaps (begins to black out) probability. Oh, n (collapses at keyboard but manages to type tides anyway). Geogre (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] De doctrina Christiana (Milton)

Geogre, I know you're busy right now, but I wonder if you could have a quick look at this article, which is currently up for DYK, and comment on it. I have said to the author that I think there is a disconnect between the first part of the article, which says the authorship is uncertain, and the second part, which refers unequivocally to the author as Milton. I've asked the author to either refer to the text in a neutral way (ie "the work states" rather than "Milton states") or else to tone down the prior bit about the controversy, but he seems reluctant to do so and a second opinion might help. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem appears to be resolved as the author has now made some changes to address my concerns. However, you are still welcome to take a look at the article and make a comment or tweak it a bit if you are so inclined. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some very unsatisfactory bits to the article, no doubt. Where the author could allay your suspicions would be simply to say, "According to the letters included with the text, Milton used" just before that whole description of how Milton did it. My biggest problem is at the end, where suddenly Mr. Hobbes shows up. John Milton hadn't a kind word for Thomas Hobbes, and there is no reason to believe that Milton's Christian doctrine would owe anything at all to Hobbes's philosophy. What the reference is trying to do is compress a longer philosophical discussion. In the 17th c., are spirits entirely non-physical? No. Are they entirely physical? For some thinkers, yes, others, no. Remember that they would, a hundred years later, refer to electricity as a spirit. A "spirit" was akin to a "force," with both its physics and metaphysics meaning. From Paradise Lost, book one, we get God creating out of the material of Void and Chaos, and that supports the idea that Milton thought that God was a physically active force, a more physics-inclusive force. However, yoking Hobbes to Milton to make this point simply screams a question. Geogre (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean, Hobbes is suddenly dropped into the discussion without any apparent logical progression. But that's really an issue beyond my brief, as long as the article is reasonably intelligible and meets the DYK criteria, then my basic concerns are met. Anyhow, I figured it was a subject in your general area of interest, so thanks for the helping hand :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWBs

I apologise, I do actually read through them and have usually noticed when it is editing a foreign language or middle English page. Naturally, however, everyone makes mistakes. Apologies. asenine ^{say what?} 20:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. De nada. I just didn't want to have it look like a battle or have the -bot return to those pages with their unique orthographies. Geogre (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Your interpretation of "drama" as "took a position" was very insightful, and I will bear it in mind as time goes on. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In popular culture

Once created, we should float it and send the damn thing out to sea. Or maybe fit it with rockets and point it towards the sun. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Memories

See dear old friend on my page, Geogre? Bishonen | talk 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC).

That's good. I don't recommend hitting "Random Page" unless you want more reasons to leave Wikipedia. The amount of utter garbage is well over the tops of the readers' heads now. Bad writing has never been in higher favor, nor the lovers of pupae pages in higher dudgeon. It now looks like the simian pile of childishness it was supposed by outsiders to be at the start. Geogre (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice. :-) I noticed "not to be noticed, not to be read, and not to commented upon" on an edit that popped up on my watchlist, so I tried to distract myself by reading other stuff on your talk page instead... Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pupae pages"? -- Hoary (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, shit! That explains it. I've done 'random' a few times and hit these stupid villages, where the "content" is a line saying that X is a village in Nation, and then a huuuuuuuuuge box. I.e. -bot content. I.e. "auto content". I.e. villainy and insult to all who write articles everywhere. It is time for a Human Defense Force. WikiProject Humans? Geogre (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to want a billion comments as soon as there's something there to comment upon. I have a construction plan for the page. 1. Social structure large & small, 2. Failures of social mechanisms without physical presence (& the ad hoc analogs people come up with), 3. Distinction of out-behavior, 4. Determination of violation. The shortest short view of all is this: the community determines what the community is, and no member of the community may, and therefore there can be informal or formal processes, but the latter have to be multivocal. Geogre (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KingLog.jpg missing description details

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sung To The Tune Of

OK Go's song "Here It Goes Again"

Nandesuka (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that band, but I do know Oh Ok, or did. I also knew Billy Brag, at least briefly. I've tried to use logic. I doubt it'll work. Geogre (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Adminship is no big deal, but civility is"

Geogre, this RFA is very interesting in my opinion, as an illustration of your Civility essay. I don't know the user in question—never heard of them—but if you scroll to the Opposes, you will see the unedifying spectacle of a would-be admin being solidly opposed because s/he considers "Civility" difficult to define. And because s/he thinks admins need to cultivate a thick skin, rather than use the tools to punish people for failing to show them, the admins, personally, the veneration they consider they deserve. Perhaps it would make a good example for you? In any case, it's a scary attitude, IMO. And it shows how urgently needed your analysis is. Bishonen | talk 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave a very scolding Neutral. Everyone knows that you can't define civility. I think even the jackanapes who first wanted to have that policy knew it, and I feel pretty certain that the people who support it like the fact that they never have to prove it. Geogre (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Melmoth

I have restored the Christianity project rating, which you, in very likely violation of WP:OWN, removed. If you want an explanation of the reason why the assessment was given, then you are free to request an assessment. However, I would suggest that you follow your own advice from earlier, "Don't try to argue, and don't try to win". It was explained to you earlier, although you chose to ignore that explanation, why the rating was given. But, if you wish to have the reason for the assessment given, it is because the article is, by several people's admission, missing a good deal of information which is readily available in other general-interest encyclopedias, such as the DNB. If and when the data which was found appropriate for inclusion in other general interest biographies is included in this general interest biography, then things will change. However, I acknowledge that is one person's opinion. If you do want a formal justification for the assessment grade given, you are free to formally request an assessment at the assessment page of any assessing project. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you stupid, or are you merely pretending to be? The DNB is a "general interest encyclopedia?" Anything you could say would be undermined by that howler. The assessment was in violation of the "start class" description. Since no qualifications are needed to assess, I assessed. You assessed. I assessed differently. There. Now, given that, wouldn't we be better with no assessment at all? I think so. However, you keep trying to win. You keep coming back, keep trying to say that it must agree with you. I don't say it has to agree with me. I'd just as soon have it have no rating at all. I'd even more rather have you miles away, myself, as you have demonstrated, repeatedly, that you believe that Wikipedia is supposed to reiterate published sources. This only confirms that you do not understand what an encyclopedia is, and the fact that you think that the DNB is an encyclopedia (and a general interest one) is the only proof anyone could ask for. Now, please go find some photographs of William Melmoth for the Infobox that's missing. Geogre (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not indulge in personal attacks, as you did above, as they are grounds for blocking. Also, your reversion of sourced material is itself, combined with your long history of WP:OWN problems with the article in question, grounds for discipline in its own right. There is in fact now a thread started regarding your unwarranted, undiscussed removal of sourced material from the article in question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#William Melmoth. Regarding your assessments, as you have been told repeatedly, we would be best served if you ceased your apparent unending attempts to WP:OWN the article in question. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

John, there are over 2 million articles in this encyclopedia, and over 250,000 biographical articles. Is there a particular reason why you feel driven to have the last word on assessing this specific article? Risker (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with the fact that it isn't me who has the last word, but rather Geogre, who has now reverted the assessments of three assessors over time, such that the other two assessors have both left comments on the Christianity Project talk page, Tinucherian some months ago and GRBerry earlier today, both of whom also considered it a start. In short, I think it is more honest to say that it is, in fact, Geogre who is refusing to have anyone but himself have any input in the article, and has recently, as I added on the AN/I page, reverted sourced material on what I believe is a scurrilous basis. I regret that this tendency toward OWNership of the article is one that the editor has also indicated he displays elsewhere as well, as per the article's talk page. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to these discussions, please. Risker (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Most are on the article's talk page. I also regret to say that I made a mistake regarding the latter claim. Seeing GR post to the project talk page about "assessments" shortly after I saw Geogre, on the Melmoth page which I have watchlisted as well, change the assessment, I jumped to a conclusion and regret that mistake. Tinucherian's earlier posting was here. I regret that hasty and ill-judged accusation. However, I do believe that the unwarranted accusation of copyvio, and I believe it is unwarranted, with the editors own history of, as per the talk page on April 18, 2008, changing the assessments for the project's based on his own opinions here, making such changes unilaterally and without even bothering to indicate why in seemingly most cases, if not all, is I believe cause for concern. After the fact, I wonder where Tinucherian got the idea Geogre was an administrator, which he states in the diff linked to. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

John, you have to stop and think for a minute. Even I would rate that a B-class article, based on the criteria established by the wikiproject (note: not the MILHIST one, the one on the WPP:Christianity page). It's about a man who is known for a single book and died 265 years ago. There is very little written about him, and most of it comes from a single source. It is about as comprehensive as it can be without entering into sealed libraries and research grants. Unless the assessors have reason to believe that there is a lot more information available on this specific individual, then by your project's own definition it rates higher than start class. Short of replicating the nDNB entry, which obviously is unacceptable, the article is as complete as it is going to get. Oh, and...just about anyone can look up the rights for individual users. Risker (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Best place for looking up user rights here. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

Better link is to set "limit=1", like so. Now, I have the rest of this thread and an ANI thread to read, so I'll do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I noted at the time he wasn't an admin. Also, the publicly available sources include a memoir by the subject's son, which is not in use. On that basis, I tend to think that the claims about it being exhausted are somewhat false, as I can access his son's book in the library I'm typing from, which is not a sealed source. Regarding the Christianity assessment grades, which I honestly don't think Geogre looked at, I've been forgetting to change those criteria for some weeks now, stupidly, what with the various things that keep coming up. I'm about ready to call it quits for the day, but will probably be adjusting them tomorrow. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You misspoke in what you "noted" at the time. That's why I gave you a link, above, that shows he is an admin. Hard to get information into little user head..! Please click on links when get them! See my note on ANI: Geogre admin since 2004. Time to call it quits for sure. No more insults please. Take deep breath, get sleep, drink cold water. Something. bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

I have to insert, here. There is a memoir by his son? There is a memoir by his son? John apparently read the nDNB, since he started inserting irrelevancies from it. Did he really read it? If he did, then he would know there is not a memoir of the father from the son. There is a memoir of the son by the son, with some slight talk of the father in it. Fortunately for us, the authors of the nDNB read the relevant sections. Other than that, there is an unreliable obituary. This is why I keep asking for people with some knowledge to assess, rather than a drive-by. To have a drive-by and then a fight over it is just an illustration of the vacuity of the entire effort, and now I see that John meant to change the rules to fit his desire for a while. Well, that inspires confidence. Geogre (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Geogre has been an administrator since December 2004. He has been reading and assessing articles on Wikipedia for a very long time, and he knows of whence he speaks; he also knows how to click on wikilinks and read the criteria. You now say you're going to change the criteria. Does that mean that, now that your colleagues have finished their assessment drive, all those articles will be reassessed? Of course not. You say you have access to another reference source. Do you actually know that there is relevant content, or are you assuming that as it is a book by Melmoth's son there *must* be relevant content? Criteria for B-class says more info may still be available, only FA-class articles are intended to be exhaustive. At the end of the day, the Christianity Wikiproject will not suffer from the article being rated B-class. Risker (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually since Aug. of 2004, but who's counting? Dureo (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! I couldn't find that, so I went by his logs. Thanks for correcting me, Dureo. What an interesting read that made. Risker (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, the book is apparently a biography of his father, entitled "Memoir of a Late Eminent Advocate", intended to accompany an edition of his father's chancery reports. The son was not himself an attorney but a translator, so it couldn't be his own memoir. And, I regret to say, I have had personal experience with DNB before, with the Arthur Bryant article, where I found that the content it presented was, dare I say, perhaps more than a little unbalanced. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Why don't you check it out of the library, read it and then add new information to the article? The objective of the encyclopedia isn't to have assessed articles, it's to share information. Before you consider changing the assessment standards, I strongly urge you to concentrate on bringing all of the stub-class articles in the Wikiproject up to B-class. Then you'll have a reason to change standards. The Bryant article is a mess, in style, formatting and content; there's an article that really needs work. And you're worrying about this one? Risker (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

May I also strongly suggest to you that you consider allowing projects to conduct their own internal workings, and, perhaps, cease in defending someone who has, to date, three times reverted the assessments, and in this case now substantiated internal assessments of a single project, has provided as his only defense a weak, unsubstantiated claim that "it's complete", and insists that that unsubstantiated opinion carry more weight than other, substantiated, ones? Or is it now the case that one editor, who has regularly reverted any changes to what is clearly his article, will now be given the right to continue to dictate to everyone else? John Carter (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that projects have any standing or authority? They don't, and never have. As a place to organize work, they are helpful; but when they become so entangled in their bureaucracy that they fail to do their primary task—developing and improving articles—then questions arise as to their value. Assessing the quality of articles has absolutely nothing to do with improving articles. Projects don't own articles either, although I'm seeing a stronger sense of ownership from the project than I am from Geogre, who at least has written the article and done the research. Go back to basics, John. Why is this article being assessed? I assume that the intention is to identify which articles that fall within the scope of the project most need attention and development. Well, then...it should not matter if it's Start or B-class from the project's perspective, because there are a massively large number of stubs that are in far greater need of work. Becoming indignant because an editor disagrees with your project about the assessment of a single article, to the point of practically begging on AN/I to have the editor punished, is completely out of proportion to the purpose of assessing the article. What about if another project comes along and decides it's an A-class article? and a third decides it's a stub? and all the different projects want different points emphasised? Don't think it will never happen, because it does, and almost invariably the primary editors throw their hands up in the air and walk away from the articles because of this useless bureaucratic infighting, so everyone—most especially the encyclopedia—loses. Wikiprojects should be supporting editors, not berating them for failing to adhere to an arbitrary and capricious bureaucracy. And I still hold that, based on the project's own published article classification system, this is a B-class article. Risker (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Such civil questions. One, I think, having assessed about 40,000 articles all told, and having done many of them on biographies, that, perhaps, I have some more acquaintance with them than others. Two, I do think projects have some authority over their own bannners, including what is included in them, particularly when they use that information for internal workings of the projects, in this case selection of articles for inclusion in the portals they work with. And the published classification system is due to be changed, within a few weeks, on the concludion of the C-class debate, to include that grade, and reflect the criteria of MILHIST. If you want to accuse me of having the members of the Christianity projects have their decisions regarding the assessments contained in their banner, guilty as charged. Tinucherian is one of the two assistant coordinators of the project, I'm somehow the lead coordinator, and Berry seems to be among the more active editors with EO. And , frankly, I object to your possibly willful mischaracterization of what is happening. What I see is that one editor, somehow on his own, based on no presented evidence, decided that, based on that opinion, the assessments of a project regarding its own internal functions could be hijacked by him. The only defense I ever heard was "it's complete". I beleive that statement can be, somewhat demonstrably, proven mistaken. On that basis, I believe it does not comply with the "comprehensive" requirement for B-Class. Why, I am curious, is it so vital to this editor that his opinion of the quality of the article, which, as I say, can be seen as being according to what I indicated above inaccurate, as it is not "comprehensive", so much more important than that of seemingly just about everybody else? John Carter (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

40,000 articles assessed. I'm sure that there was very deep reading, careful analysis, thorough research, and consideration aplenty for each and every one. The fact that anyone is fool enough to boast of having done 40,000 assessments invalidates the assessments by itself. It's quite simple: accurate assessment requires time, lots of it, and knowledge, lots of it. Inaccurate assessment only requires a -bot, or someone paying just as much attention as one and of as much value. 40,000 assessments shows that you have done a lot of something, not that you have ever done even one thing well, except show hackles. Geogre (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is to advise you that your recent comments on the Talk:William Melmoth page, and above, are at best clear violations of WP:TALK and WP:CIVILITY, and possibly WP:NPA. You are now formally cautioned against doing so again. And, for what it's worth, it really isn't a lot of effort to assess a stub as a stub. 20,000 or more there, right away. In fact, anyone who had done many assessments at all would probably know that. Yet you, apparently, did not. Curious. As stated on the talk page, I very sincerely urge you to both observe the conduct guidelines of wikipedia regarding incivil, and possibly insulting, comments, and, as stated on the article's talk page, if you once again, despite the clear lack of completeness of the article, wish to have it reassessed, that you seek someone other than yourself to do so. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes! The person who is engaged in trying to have his way feels that I'm being incivil! Whatever will I do? Is there no defense against the fretful porpentine of an acronym on my talk page? I have been labeled, now. I have been assessed, and I am "incivil."

John, you're making yourself look an ass. You jump up and down trying to puff up that you, in your majesty, have assessed 40,000 articles. I'm sorry that I'm not impressed. You say that the article is "incomplete" because it isn't the same as a copyrighted source. I'm sorry, but you're wrong about that, and your efforts at trying to say otherwise are making you look worse by the minute. You are sacrificing your reputation for what? When I don't play nice, and I do not play nice with some aspects of the meddling Projects, you start trying to again go with intimidation and majesty.

The problem is that you've undercut yourself with errors of fact, mistakes in outlook, enunciation of incompatible goals, and now trying to reach for official power to remedy the situation. That's hideous, and it marks you are temperamentally incompatible. You should not behave in that way. A good administrator knows better than to threaten silly things like "you are insulting me" when they've been in multiple reverts. In fact, the utter triviality of the stakes involved make you look even worse. They make you look like a troll.

This is simply disgraceful. Go away, please, and assess other assessings, but the assigninity is simply overwhelming here and now. Geogre (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

John, Geogre may be offending you by what he is saying, but from what I can see, your approach is also inflaming the situation. Your tone and "formal cautions" are two examples of what is not helping. You are trying to be formal and correct, and come across, to some, as focusing too much on the behaviour and the reverting, rather than the true meat of the argument (what it means to write an article and what it means to assess an article). Geogre is trying to be forthright and frank, and comes across, to some, as incivil, but in fact he is focussing on the genuine issues here, which in the long run is more helpful even if he could tone it down a bit. You both need to cut the style and just talk slowly, carefully and calmly to each other about article writing and assessment, rather than about each other. You probably won't agree with each other, but you will probably get somewhere rather than the arguing you are currently engaging in. Carcharoth (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why waste words on someone who is "lying about being an admin?" I do wish John would at least look at my user page. It's at user:Geogre. I don't often do this, but I will this time suggest that he look at the brag list. I know that a paltry 250 articles from scratch cannot compare to the vital work of 40,000 assessments, but it took me a long time. Geogre (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I am left with this thought. A while ago, I had a conversation with a very well-respected Wikipedian, one whose commitment to the project is unquestionable. He told me about the first article he had submitted: he registered an account specifically to add it (having edited as an IP to that point), it was on a subject he had thoroughly researched and knew well, and it was relatively short because there wasn't much more to say on the subject. A year or so later, a wikiproject dropped in to assess the article as Start/low importance. Even after a full year of extremely strong contributions, knowing and understanding the assessment system, he was stung. He said quite simply that, if the assessment had come shortly after he had begun contributing to Wikipedia, it would have demoralized him to the point that he probably would never have written another article, and might well have left the project.

Assessments by people who know nothing of the specific subject of the article, and do not carry out sufficient research to determine the adequacy of the content, are not helpful. Worse, they have the potential to be wildly inaccurate and to demotivate content providers from participating. We cannot afford to kick good editors in the teeth this way. Wikiprojects were intended as gathering places to improve articles and identify gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of a topic, not to argue with the content writers. They have, however, become overreaching hierarchies that claim victories they have played no part in (every one of them has a brag list of featured and good articles, whether or not anyone signed up to the project was involved in the development of the article), develop inflexible rules that often clash with each other (which wikiproject's infobox should be used?), and lose sight of the fact that only editing of the articles can improve them—all the assessments in the world will not turn a poor article into a FA.

In answer to your question, John—no, the projects have no greater right at deciding the content of an assessment template of an article than any other editor, with the possible exception of articles that have undergone a formal assessment. It's a wiki, and anyone can edit it. It would have been of more value the encyclopedia if you had taken the opportunity to read these additional sources you found to see if there was really something of value in them, and then had added that information to the article, instead of arguing over an assessment grade; but, being a volunteer project, it's your decision where you want to focus your attention. You've chosen your priority—project administration over content—and there are a fair number of us who disagree with that idea. It shouldn't be a surprise that every once in a while, a dedicated and highly proficient editor will take exception to your opinion, with good reason. Go back and read the comments from Geogre on both this page and the talk page of the article; he does explain his reasoning and does discuss these other sources you talk about. Parse his sentences to eliminate the tone and the phrasing that you find offensive, and you'll see that the answers are there. And consider what it is like for content editors, who've long kept an eye on their work to address vandalism, now finding themselves having to deal with formulaic and bureaucratic processes from inside the project that have no demonstrated relation to improving the content of the encyclopedia. There are no winners in this debate; but the party that stands to lose the most is Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete, sufficient, and whole

One of the arguments that arose (but which did not give rise) to the fight over poor, boring, old William Melmoth was completeness. The objection raised was that there are more things out there and there is more information. Oddly, this is an argument that shows up otherwise only in the radical "inclusionist" rhetoric.

1. So, is an encyclopedia the sum total of all that may be known?
2. Is it all which would be best for people to know?
3. Is it a limited presentation designed for a particular goal of illumination?

Number 1 is the argument we hear from the people who want all articles kept. They want every episode of every television series. While the argument in this context is much more sophisticated, it is still the same basic view: all which may be known should be stated. The problems with this should be instantly discernible. No, it isn't server space. The problem is the jumble created. Has anyone used Ask.com? It's a neat search engine, but you notice the repetition? Using Google is worse in this regard: that which is shiny gets on top of that which is dull, but the list is a jumble. Is Wikipedia to be Google-with-prepositions? Is it to be a paraphrasing of other sources? Is it to be a clipping service? Is that what an encyclopedia is?

Consider this: You want to know about the poison dart frog, and there are no computers. You're in that foreign place called a li-bra-ry. You pick up the Journal of Neurology on the issue of the poison? You pick up the encyclopedia of amphibians (and get plunged into genus, species debates, morphology details)? You pick up the 1911 EB (because it's public domain!) and find no entry at all? You pick up a recent EB and get a little of the history, a little of the morphology, a vastly abbreviated discussion of the poison? How on earth could that be "good," when it isn't everything?

Number 2 is the ancient argument. It is actually Diderot's argument, if you read his prefaces all the way through. More to the point, it is the philosophy behind the Anglo-American tradition. This is now a relegated point of view. Because these encyclopedists sought sweetness and light, they imposed moralism on their articles. They explicitly praised "good" things and explicitly condemned "bad" things. Despite what we might think of the lovely prose used by the authors, 1911 EB is wretched for this very reason. Nutall's is awful. These sources are frequently embarrassing to us today, because they have high handed, pointed, and provincial articles. They selected for what is "really good," and they excluded naughty things.

Imagine reading an encyclopedia about Korea, and it has a big discussion of North Korea and says that they have been lead by "despots, largely confined to an unofficial royal family, who have allowed their people to languish in the middle ages rather than to liberalize and enlighten them." That's how a contemporary article from the US would be, if it followed the 19th-20th century model.

Number 3 is my mode, and I think it's the only one. Yes, things are excluded, and that means (gasp) that the author must exercise judgment. What is excluded is that which does not serve the encyclopedic purpose, and the encyclopedic purpose will differ by author, but, for me, it is "to explain as well as possible ('well' meaning balancing the twin needs of completeness and conciseness) how this lemma functions in the wide context of history and culture." I, personally, am not interested in all descriptions of the object. I reject phenomenology in encyclopedism. Instead, I believe that the subject and object of all we do here is culture, and culture and history are tied to each other like Janus's faces.

I've been consistent, by the way. Folks can see my comments from 2004 or 2003 and see that I was saying the same things. You can see my old votes on Votes for Deletion (now AfD). Geogre (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I tend towards position 1, especially when I don't know a lot about a subject and I want to know everything there is to know about it! But I can see why position 3 is sometimes better. I was doing a search recently on the atom bomb tests on Bikini Atoll, and I was struck by how searches in military databases only needed the search term "Bikini", while searching on Google and Wikipedia required more precision to exclude the clothing item and holiday destinations. BTW, I've said more at Risker's talk page on the other issues. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)