User:Geogre/Talk archive 26

Don't ask, because I'm not asking. It's just that I don't need it, and it doesn't need me. It isn't benefiting me, and whatever benefit I give is too little to overcome my distaste.

Coming to the oasis? --Joopercoopers 12:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's what I think it is, no. I do not lack empathy, but they are not the same concerns I have, and even talking about them is to reiterate all the things that have generated this wave of irrevocable nausea.

I have removed that vile banner, as I don't approve of strikes - smacks of Bolshevism and Arthur Scargill (revolting little man) - Geoge I am surprised at you, even making allowances for your "transatlantic" blood - this is dissapointing. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And I restored it. His page. His choice. And it certainly is attention-grabbing. Jd2718 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we thumbnail it, or would that interfere with his choice? I mean, the image is huge, and causes my bar to scroll horizontally. hbdragon88 06:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage is this way....... --Joopercoopers 09:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I'm only on a work stoppage now, so I've made it a smaller strike. Geogre 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Even smaller now. Geogre 02:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, she dosen't approve of Strikes, isn't that precious! El_C 19:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

:(

Paul August ☎ 13:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Come back Geogre, Bishonen's getting all schoolmistressy again! --Joopercoopers 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that Cathar-ine diBergi was trying to repress the proletariat! Geogre 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Slowly, I turn

Albeit with a grimace and scowl, I am returning. I can't promise a long fuse. Here is the question I have for people: Did you agree to work for ThatPerson or ThisPerson? I have a job already. If I'm volunteering my labor here, it's for the world at large, not a boss. Geogre 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hip hip horray

Fireworks for ze return of ze Ogre!

Alright! Geogre is back! Welcome home, sir! --SGT Tex 21:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. I shall endeavor not to post a manifesto of why I went on strike and leave my terse summary above. When someone folds a newspaper in half, puts it on his head, and announces it's his captain's hat and we must all get in line, I will content myself with ignoring him, and not knocking the hat off. That's my goal, anyway. Geogre 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Step by step

;-) Paul August ☎ 01:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And you've seen the manifesto, so you know what happens if I finish taking those steps. :-) Geogre 01:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Niagra Falls! Paul August ☎ 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Puzzling question

Suppose an editor with 100 edits in 6 months goes up for RFA and that editor says that his only desire is to get around autoblocks and see deleted content. Now, what would that suggest to you? Who needs to get around autoblocks? AOL users do, of course, if they have little choice in ISP (as once I did). Who else? Who needs to read deleted articles? What would be in them that would be worth knowing? These seem like rational questions we would ask ourselves, don't they? They seem like questions that the candidate would even anticipate and offer to answer. I search and search for a benevolent explanation, but I come up empty. Geogre 21:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see deleted articles to see if there is anything in them worth undeleting. Occasionally I undelete them and expand. (B-Movie Film Festival; Air Force Amy; Leena). Sometimes I decide the article needs writing, but nothing in the deleted version needs to be restored (Heart Attack Grill). Sometimes other users ask me the same thing. (User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 6#Deleted Cocktails). Now none of those are going to make the exalted heights of Wikipedia:Featured article soon, but we little mice humbly propose they're worth their few bytes of server space. Really, there's plenty of room for assuming good faith. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked for the mop in large part to see deleted articles without having to bother people to send them to me, & to participate more usefully in Deletion Review, and the argument was accepted. Of course, I also promised to speedy delete those not yet deleted ones I saw while screening proposed deletions, and so I have been doing. But those are the two main things I do with it, an equal amount of both, and I think it's worth the having for me and for WP operations too. I delete about a dozen a day, and look at perhaps 2 or 3 dozen , and undelete or userify or email perhaps 2 of them. DGG (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I look at deleted articles for their unintentional comic appeal. (The intentionally comic seldom rises above the leadenly jocular.) Even those few among us who aren't yet admins can now sit back, relax and savor the wind breaking from this; but that ungrateful prod notice (see next section) suggests that non-admins may soon be denied this whiff in their nostrils. Since this nightsoil is anyway clogging up the hard drives, let it be spread around. -- Hoary 10:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My question was not entirely innocent, of course, but neither was it a request for anyone who looks at deleted content to defend their actions. I look at deleted articles as well. As one component of an admin's work, it's perfectly normal. With no aspersions cast, I'm not sure that DRV is really a great reason for going to become an admin. It seems that we have something broken with that page (either its scope or its mechanisms) if only admins can participate. The critical thing in my question is the first part: a user with 100 edits in months. This seems to discount much of the rest, as it doesn't look like that hypothetical user would be participating in deliberative pages. It's the whole picture that looks very odd. Geogre 10:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about DRV -- it should not be necessary to be an admin to participate fully. But in practice it helps, given the unwillingness to change the rules to provide for the routine temporary undeletion of material discussed there (excepting libel and copyright violations). I hope I never become complacent enough to use my own access as a reason for not faciitating that of others. DGG (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Vanity of vanities, all is vanity

Oh, man, this is funny. Gives a whole new dimension to the term "vanity page." The only reason I didn't speedy it is the Sheik claims he wrote two (ahem) books (ahem). Going by the history, my PROD is likely to be contested. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

Oh, that's quite something, alright. A bright light in the firmament, a great intellect among lesser minds, and, as Ruby Turpin (from Flannery O'Connor's "Revelation") would say, a sweet disposition to boot. Now, let's get the boot and do the honors. (There is a real reason for deleting: all those red links are plans. If we kill the stub holder, we kill the future stubs. If we don't, the rationale for each will be, "But it's populated by this guy.") Geogre 01:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, he only went to a silvery kinda garden. Small potatoes. -- Hoary 10:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglican collaboration of the month

Wassupwestcoast 02:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice on articles

Just dropping by again, and glad to see you are back (should the strike notice still be there?). I was wondering if I could ask for advice on two articles I've picked out from those I've got most involved in, as they are the ones I would like to try and improve still further: Serge Voronoff (though most of this was by others) and Astronomische Nachrichten (the other ones, Ptolemy (name), La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial and Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture have less potential for expansion, and two of those are oddballs anyway). I guess my question comes down to whether effort is best expended on working further on those two articles I initially named, or on expanding and improving stubs and start articles. It might seem a bit of a strange question, but any general advice, or advice on the specific articles, or pointers as to where to get good advice, would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth 10:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. To address some of the issues you raised - I think looking back it was perhaps unhelpful that I reminded that user of the civility policy on the talk page. It was a mistake. However, I dispute your claim that because of that one edit I am "overtly interested in mandatory "civility" on talk pages" - as the edit has not been repeated. I do agree with you, however, that I should not have made as many comments in edit histories as I have in the past. I think my most recent edits show that I have completely stopped doing so, however I can easily see the rationale behind the argument that it has not been long enough that I have stopped. And, lastly, as to the private conversations comment - two users raised the issue of private conversations about the GA article. I am sorry to say that I do not see why the private conversation I had with Piotrus was somehow detrimental to the GA review, and I also am not aware of any policy that dictates that any private conversation is detrimental, however I will try and avoid these discussion per your bringing the issue up, as in no way do I intend to disgruntle any user and if that means I have to change my communication ways then so be it. Again, thank you for the feedback and hopefully if I ever decide to run again I will have improved enough to gain your support! Thanks again!--danielfolsom 22:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My English suffers

Geogre, I am choosing to contact you since you sometimes write in most complex and beautiful English of all Wikipedians that I know. Could you please do me a favor and decode this message I received from one fellow? I am lost as to what he could possibly mean and he did not elaborate upon my request. Cheers, --Irpen 03:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the kind of petty nastiness, childishness, and blind viciousness that would hardly work in a high school lunch room as "humor," but, at least for Chairboy, it seems to pass for proper behavior. It is disgusting, and frankly it, at least, confirms that this is a person who needn't be an administrator and who fundamentally fails to understand how cooperative editing works. It's a long and stunningly stupid attempt at an argumentum ad hominem, and it reminds me much more of the deep thought of someone like Phil Bosworth than the comments of an respectable user. It's the sort of rhetoric usually reserved for Hannity and Colmes. It has the virtue and truth of pantsing, the maturity of smearing feces on the wall.

At least that's how it seems to me. Geogre 10:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A Novel of a Tub

Bah. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Ok, so "novel" doesn't exist as a term. It pretty much doesn't exist as a phenomenon, although it's about to get going. The Tale is an anti-novel. "Other works by the same author include a mystical dissertation on the number three," etc., suggests tells us that this is a pure satire, that satire is a form that includes narration (how could it not). Geogre 10:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Haukur vs. The Bot

Losing badly, of course. Haukur 23:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just rolled back one. When the people behind PowerPoint (tm) were bought by Microsoft, Microsoft marketeers called them up and said that they wanted the opening screen to have suggestions already for slides. The engineers sarcastically said, "You mean like 'Auto-Content?'" and the marketing guys said, "Yes!" Therefore, for two years, the program came up with "auto-content." You see, it isn't possible to have automatic content, just as it is not possible to have "automatic assessment": it is a contradiction in terms, an insult to logic, an affront to people who make assessments, and people who write articles. It accomplishes nothing, and its author is one of the less savory people at Wikipedia. Geogre 02:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you got much the same response I did. You just don't understand, see, it's part of a system. Never mind whether that system makes any sense. Oh well. Haukur 21:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What's more, though, the Project is a Project, and if a Project asks you to do something, everyone else has to just shut up. If I ask you to not do it, then I'm just a person, but a Project is a Project, and that's way better than people. (It's the fundamental end of all. When the committee to standardize measures comes along, the individual baker is out of business.) We are seeing the invention of the Wikipedia aparatchik. Geogre 12:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as the issue in hand is concerned, I'm actually pretty much on the fence - I can see both the pros and cons of what BetacommandBot is doing. However, one coment I certainly can make is that remarks such as "...from one of the shabbier folks about..." certainly aren't called for, and certainly not from a sysop. This shouldn't need to be done, but I get the feeling that I need to point this sysop in the direction of WP:CIVIL. _TheIslander 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Lord, yes! If it hadn't been for your giving me that link, I might have formed an unfavorable opinion of Betacommand! Thank you for spreading sweetness and light and making everything better. I now see that he hasn't been sanctioned by ArbCom! I now see that his -bot hasn't been reported repeatedly on AN and AN/I! I now see that he doesn't rely on IRC to form opinions! Yes, yes, it's all terribly clear now, and I was simply not being civil for thinking him one of the shabbier folks around. Now, since I was on my own talk page, talking to someone, and expressing a considered opinion after much experience and not going to his talk page to provoke any conversation with him at all, I can't fairly see how any part of that cited policy applies... but, then again, I've only read the stinking thing. That, I'm sure, isn't anything as good as citing it. Oh, and do come along again any time to instruct me on policies that I had a hand in. I'm looking forward to more correction, but not for a few days. I still have to be sure to understand the profundity of that last one. (I don't suppose you've heard of not throwing alphabet soup at experienced users?) Now, this is all I'm planning to say to you. You weren't part of the conversation and won't be part of the future conversation, so you actually have no rationale for hectoring. Geogre 02:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, on "civility"

This is a duplicate of something I've said elsewhere. Jonathan Swift reminds us that the ancient Greeks would allow a satirist to name any particular bad actor, as it was a public service to do so, but they expressly forbade generalized attacks on cities or classes of person or, worst of all, mankind itself, as that could never do any good and could only provoke rancor. The facile and amazingly pompous accusation of "incivility" is precisely the sort of thing that cannot do any good. First, it tries to say that another person being "incivil" (the word should be "uncivil") is an excuse for its own finger wagging. Second, it throws "civility" around as if it were the paramount crime, when, in fact, there are times for drawing a hard line against specific individuals who are doing things that specifically harm the site, and "civility" must never, ever be understood as "politeness" or "niceness." Third, "civility" is an action of cooperation or lack of cooperation in action, not a comment that is either appropriate for the drawing room or the toilet. Saying, "cocksucker" is not uncivil. It is indecorous. Saying, "Jimmy is a cocksucker" is not uncivil. It is insulting. Now, refusing to work with people, showing oneself to be antisocial in editing, pushing a monomania on others, or insisting on a homogeneous form is uncivil, because each of those is an action in respect to social action. It is, in other quite literal words, failing to behave within the civitas, the citizenship. I regard it as both proper and useful to single out the people who are being uncivil by the use of -bots, by selective deafness, by pushing their visions over the rest of the community. I regard it as uncivil to try to suppress the manner of expression of people for being merely impolite. Geogre 02:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this comment. Pardon me for kibitzing, but let me just say that I fully agree with you, Geogre. Here's my account of my own botty nightmare, about which I have been, and continue to be, grotesquely overcivil. And here's a refreshingly sane view of "civility". -- Hoary 00:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're gonna like these stats

Bishonen | talk 00:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC).

It's way too generous, because that sliver of useful stuff is the only part that most of the editors wants to "improve" by messing with. If those with a rage for standardization, projects, punctuation fights (see the Gimmetrow RFA), etc. devoted their energies to any of the other cells on the chart, they would have to actually do something. Instead, every mosquito with a computer wants its own drop of blood from the articles that are useful. (The chart's also out of date because we now have thousands of sub-Rambot articles on villages in European nations that consist of only a verb and an object. They will soon outnumber the US Census data driven cities in the US, which at least have some content for the few people who actually want to know about them.)

If I had time, I'd start adding more Classical stuff, but I don't. That and the untrustworthiness of some people means that I really am limited to considering content on my few off work hours. That leaves me with... disputes... and the idiots wanting to tweak and tweak and tweak, just so their names appear in the edit history. Geogre 12:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky ^Talk

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

Civility

Small collection here. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. I may want to edit some of the edges off, but we really need at least a single stance to help explain to the people with the label guns going up and down the aisles of Wikipedia. Geogre 12:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be a total ban on any user rebuking another for being incivil to himself. It is always counterproductive.--Doc^g 13:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that those who are always in the heart of the encyclopedia editing in main-space, talk and Wikipedia are always going to come encounter more stress than those who are admins on the sidelines merely counting the amount of times they consider one editor has been uncivil to another. If I was an admin who did nothing all day but chatter on IRC and watch others talk pages breaking the tedium only to watch "recent changes" for half an hour I too could have nice pretty manners 24/7. Giano 13:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a caricature? Sometimes admins are dealing with obnoxious trolls or trying to sort our serial libels - whilst FA writers sit in libraries with no stress but their own intellect....but that too is a parody. Let's all just appreciate each other's contributions, with empathy in our our stress.--Doc^g 13:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not say all Admins, did I? Giano 13:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're both right. The more you do, the more likely you are to get accused of something, and the more likely you are to actually be brusque, rude, hostile, or the dreaded "incivil" to some person by someone's standards. The more article edits you have, the more they get monkeyed with. Now, half of the edits are indifferent. A quarter are obvious reverts. A quarter are idiotic or malicious or based on some asshatted project. One needs to know the subject to write the article, and then one needs to care to bother to do it, and then you are supposed to be flaccid and indifferent? No. If you were worth the bytes in the first place, you're going to have to say something. That is inevitably not cooperative, and the facile and nefarious will no doubt, very soon, call it "incivil." The more you write, the more exposed, and the more you have to watch out for and the more likely you are that some dork will holler and some over zealous "vandal hunter" will fly to AN/I. It's about worthless. Geogre 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Random interjection by an outside party not to do with any of this "civility" talk, but I just love that among some of Geogre's beautiful writings one can sometimes find hidden gems such as "horse flop" and "asshatted". The man has a way with words, I tell ya! --SGT Tex 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

P. S.: feel free to edit the page all you want to, Geogre. Everybody else: please feel free to make additions. New interesting diffs would be much appreciated. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

Purgatory

Hi George! Thanks for peeking in over at Purgatory-- we could use all the eyeballs can get.

The question of the days is-- New Version an improvement on the Old Version, or would it be best to roll back to the old version? I like the new, but of course, I'm biased. :)

And then, how can we improve the article even more? Any advice greatly appreciated. --Alecmconroy 13:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I kind of prefer the old one. It needed some tweaking, no doubt, and it had some really stiff language, no doubt imported from some benighted source or other, but the topic simply is one of the hot topics in historical theology. It's not that the new version is bad or wrong, but I think a somewhat technical coverage is called for, due to this being one of the more malleable concepts in Western thought. Geogre (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe Thompson

Hi. I believe your deletion of the article Joe Thompson is unjustified. The article passes WP:BIO as the subject has played in a fully professional league. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Same for John Burns (footballer). If sources is the problem, I can add some. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for both was A1. The articles had no content. "X played sports" is not an article. Articles should be biographies or at least career biographies. Stating merely, "This guy played a season" is neither of those. I stand by my decision, and, had there been content at either location, I certainly wouldn't have deleted. At this point, however, we have armies of little sporting substubs that would never stand were there not a community dedicated to the sports. Imagine painter articles that said, "Bob Roberts was a painter for a year." It's practically unthinkable, and yet, "Bob Roberts played cricket in two matches" is an article? Again, no objections to recreation with content, but article space should not be used for single lines that could be held in simple tables. Geogre (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I will expand the articles if you could bring them back, with RS. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

user page deletion (not mine)

If you have to ask why: it is per private e-mail request from the user. I trust no one will challenge that. Geogre (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

William Again

Hello. I noticed you deleted the article for William Again. I understand that it had neither context (A1) nor an indication of importance (A7); however I'd like to ask for its reinstatement because:

• All of the short stories in this book were adapted for BBC Radio 4. Here is the audiobook release of them on the BBC Shop
• Having found a list of the exact short stories in this volume, it becomes clear that one of them ("The Great Detective") was the basis for an episode of the Just William (1970s TV series).
• Since its first publication in 1923, this book has been reprinted several times and is still in print today.
• As part of a very successful children's series it has additional notability:
  • The books sold eight million copies during the author's lifetime [1] ... and she died in 1969.
  • There have been several other TV and radio series based upon it besides the ones mentioned above, as well as three films.
  • The Martin Jarvis readings are highly regarded. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
  • It's difficult to find independent sources contemporary to the books, but modern ones certainly exist. [7] [8] [9]

If you'd undelete the article, I would gladly add in this information so that it shows both context and notability. (Theoretically I could recreate the article myself, but as I'll use the deleted text as the foundation for my edits, I feel it would be useful to preserve the edit history.)

-- KittyRainbow (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: I suspect that some of the other Just William articles might also need a similar bit of expansion. I'll fix these up too quite happily.

• I can undelete it, but, given how little was there, I'm not sure why you don't just recreate it. I certainly would not oppose the recreation, if it has contents. I wasn't claiming that it was terrifically insignificant, but the article didn't give the reader an idea of the significance, because it was pretty much empty. What you have above is more than was there. If you feel that there are issues of contributor history that are vital to keep, I will do the undelete, but, honestly, it was just, as I recall, a predicate nominative. That's easily overcome, and there would be no speedy deletion as recreation of deleted material (that only applies to things that were deleted by an AfD). Geogre (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Applause!

"It's really, really, really, really obvious. There isn't a controversy. Administrators are not special people. We do not rule. We do not get to cite Franz Kafka as our founder. I don't care what they do elsewhere: it is the death of democracy and the death of the project and the whole demotic mess that is Wikipedia to have Star Chamber prosecutions and executions."

clap clap cLapclapclAp clapcLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP!

You have my highest regards. Sorry it doesn't mean more. If you weren't such a noble abberation, this would be a far finer place. sNkrSnee | t.p. 04:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have only a few issues, but I am consistent with them. Wikipedia is interesting because it was initially designed to be a flat hierarchy. It was going to demonstrate the truth of the cathedral and the bazaar. Of course that's not how Wikipedia has worked out. Everyone who says that smaller groupings are necessary is right, but the question is how they emerge and maintain. It's clear that we have two choices: we can impose leadership, or we can trust ourselves to have leadership based on trust, persuasion, and consensus based on what users have done. Every time we do anything but this last, we get misery. Whether it's trusting in "real world qualifications" as was absurdly done with user:Essjay, trying to get self-appointed "experts" as user:Phil Sandifer wanted for web comix (with himself as one, of course), the IRC admins channel filling with self-selected "clueful" people, or the current projects (though those are the right manner but simply have improper execution), all of these have been disasters that have hurt Wikipedia and hurt Wikipedians. This is my one issue: trust can only be given, for it can never be taken. Trust has to exist because of free opinion, never coerced.

If we are going to have the groupings that can effectively manage the development of the project, they can only ever be selected by other people and never by the group members. Thus, they must never have inherent power. The power of Wikipedia is in the volunteers, and only ever in them.

Anyway, I cannot abide the idea of people getting "in charge": The People are in charge, not persons. I will get involved any time I see an effort to create a cadre. Geogre (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Timestamps and Evilbots

The archivebot at ANI will put away the section that contains the subpage link if you add a comment with a timestamp. I am assuming you don't want to archive that discussion yet. :-) If you want to comment in that section, please use three tildes instead of four. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ... interesting. I like people much more than -bots, who seem to be the minions of the duller sort. I had thought that it would not get archived if it was still receiving new posts. If it's purely "the moment it's created a clock begins," then the -bot needs to be fired. Geogre (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is only archived if no new posts are made. So any new posts reset the clock. The only downside really is for people who don't check ANI (or AN) more frequently than every 48 hours. And cases where a thread is archived with no answers. I remember one of the first posts I made to ANI was archived 24 hours later with no response! (The bots were faster then - they are a bit arthritic these days). Carcharoth (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hubert-François Gravelot

I wonder if you'd find time to look over Hubert-François Gravelot for any egregious gaffes and lacunae. --Wetman (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be delighted. Thanksgiving intervenes, but I will look. I don't expect to find any gaffes. Lacunae are all about us. (A whole lot of holes.) Geogre (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry

I just couldn't seem to help myself. sNkrSnee | t.p. 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw. My goodness, but Jimbo does sometimes commit his comments without reading up on the matter. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that he gets "summaries" from IRC, and getting a summary on IRC is like getting someone doing an abridged version of a Reader's Digest version of Remembrance of Things Past on a bubble gum wrapper: it might be easy to read, but it's not going to make you well informed. Geogre (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'm tempted to add a {{fact}} tag to the above. Actually, I seldom see Jimbo in IRC. If he spent more time in there, I'm sure some of us would keep him better informed that he woefully is at the moment.--Doc^g 11:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Seldom" is one of those relative things. I've seen him there quite often, by my standards. He always pops in and out, but one gathers that there are many private tabs opening. It could be selective deafness, or it could be choosing friends poorly, or it could be being too busy, etc., but it's one of those things where you need to either get all the way in or not get in at all. He came along with a similarly wrong footed assessment of Kelly Martin as well. We're all entitled to be wrong, but it's just not a good idea to think that there is a single sentence that can be deduced (or imposed) on something as long and involved as the old Kelly/Tony thing or the current Durova thing. Also, telling people that they're wrong to talk just doesn't work. It never has. Geogre (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to rake over the Tony/Kelly thing with you. But on the wider point, I'm an unabashed elitist. I've always thought that a clued and focused God-king, who rose above factions, and could, when necessary, deliver thunderbolts of "this is how it will be" from on-high, would serve the project better than the barbarian hordes and their interminable squabbling. Ave the Pax Jimba. However, an ill-informed figurehead, who when stirred from globe-trotting, hits us with dynamic bolts of "Mr Fluffy-esque" wikilove, doesn't really cut it with me. I like my deities to be rather more godly: Bring back the real God-king!--Doc^g 12:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

See above, in the "Applause": smaller groups are functional, but Wikipedia is founded on "anyone" (i.e. "everyone") and a flat idea of many amateurs being superior to few who are selected. The small groups are simply a fact of any large organization, but they will always attempt to self-select, and that's death. They will also want to bring in extraneous marks to distinguish themselves, and that's death. Operative and functional groupings will emerge, but they must, must, must, must, emerge from deeds, from election rather than selection, if they are going to have any authority. Authority rests in the volunteers, and they have to voluntarily vest authority in a figure. This extends even to the man with the checkbook. There are many well funded servers out there that didn't become and will never become Wikipedia. There are many more volunteer server endeavors out there that have fallen into echo chambers of "clueful" people talking to themselves, as the users wander off to invest their time and conversation elsewhere. Look: I'm one of the clueful. By most measures, I'm one of the old timers, one of the strong users, etc. I have had no interest in structures, and I would never have volunteered to work for someone. I have a job. The moment someone acts like a boss, you can count on push back, and then people wandering off. Every one of the little gestures in this direction has resulted in some people leaving, and a Jimbo as a person as opposed to as a concept does nothing but evacuate the authority lent him. A US Sect. of State told Woodrow Wilson, of going to the first summit of world leaders the US attended, to be aware that he was about to lose much of his power: "A US president at home is a king, but one in person is just a man." Jimbo as a figure (even as a Jimbo Jones) is useful. A Jimbo getting it wrong wherever he goes is just a guy. Geogre (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, it is also true that many incredibly capable volunteers have withdrawn their services because they tired of being forced to argue on an equal footing with self-opinionated unqualified idiots - in discussions that are no sooner finished that the participants change and we start again. That's the rub. Democracy works because I am a citizen like it or not, and caves in the hills are too rare. Having said that, I sometimes wonder whether wikipedia should bow to the inevitable and move from its failed attempt at Athenian democracy (rule by the "who turns up") to a representative democracy. Here at least we'd have a group with both a mandate and (hopefully) some limited ability to say "shut the fk up, this debate is over - here's what we're doing - and if you don't like it, you can run for office next time". Some sort of open hierarchy. I'd then put directly elected groups (or appointed by an elected authority groups) as the final arbiters on RfA, DRV and high level policy. The problem with the present system is it takes small groups to efficiently do anything - yet every small group is an evil cabal. I mean Raul picks the mainpage FA right now - it isn't ideal (its an unelected dictatorship) but would we rather replace him with with some awful vote/"not a vote" process?--Doc^g 13:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotation and limited terms would help. Raul's position is effectively until he retires or hands over or messes up (not that I think he will). Sharing workloads and moving between different areas avoid ruts and cliques developing. As for God-king - would random selection work? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is an "encyclopedia" ruled by a "god king" that thinks he's a "constitutional monarch" - and yet constantly micromanages affairs of state and banishes villains from the "kingdom" - is precisely what prohibits me from getting behind the project. I am here to interact with others civilly and as presumed equals. Or not at all. The common thread in WP's many embarrassments seems to be a product of a culture of deference and heirarchy I find appalling. I also think it promotes self-censorship and a reverse onus of "guilty until proven innocent", ie "wikichill". Encyclopedias are expressions of the ideal of knowable truth, not some sorry cyber-medieval f[s]ox-hunting "forestes".

The Miracle of the Stag

I'm not Catholic, but I hope Wikipedia's patron saint is Saint Hubert, and recommend Jimbo meditate upon him.

...and Hubert retreated from the court, withdrew into the forested Ardennes, and gave himself up entirely to hunting. But a great spiritual revolution was imminent. On Good Friday morning, when the faithful were crowding the churches, Hubert sallied forth to the chase. As he was pursuing a magnificent stag or hart, the animal turned and, as the pious legend narrates, he was astounded at perceiving a crucifix standing between its antlers, while he heard a voice saying: "Hubert, unless thou turnest to the Lord, and leadest an holy life, thou shalt quickly go down into hell". Hubert dismounted, prostrated himself and said, "Lord, what wouldst Thou have me do?" He received the answer, "Go and seek Lambert, and he will instruct you."

sNkrSnee | t.p. 02:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I think that this particular figure adhered to the ideal of Cincinnatus but has since just gotten used as a weapon. I don't think that Jimbo micromanages at all, nor banishes people. I think he gets pushed forward, handed a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, and then gets asked to say whether the whole picture is art or not. For my part, I hold a bit to Desideratus as a goal: "he worked as a secretary for King Clotaire ... (but he) wanted to retire to a monastery but served Clotaire in order to put the needs of others ahead of himself." I do not think that Jimbo micromanages, or manages, or that there is some great villainy, except that he is willing to go along with the myth of the corporate executive.

The Prednisent of the USA (spelled phonetically for his benefit) campaigned on being the first "CEO president." The myth of the executive is that there is this creature who can walk into a meeting, listen to thirty seconds of it, and then issue a list of demands -- all accurate, perceptive, and clear. This person is the mighty Executive. The Executive doesn't get "bogged down" in reports. Doesn't get "tied up" in history. Doesn't do useless things like "read." The Executive doesn't need to do those things, because he is imbued with magical juju that allows him to glance at a finger and from that tell the diet of the beast and the cause of death. It is a mixture of emperor and detective -- a genius of great will and insight.

I fear that the founder of Wikipedia has fallen for this myth, and the amount of repetitive bull scat involved in most of our disputes makes it seem like truth. When it is not possible to read up on an issue, it becomes attractive to believe that one need never try to read up on the issues. Geogre (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That jigsaw analogy is hilarious. Well, it would be if I didn't suspect it of being depressingly accurate. I think the myth of the Executive is examined in some comic strips. Not precisely Dilbert, but similar ones. Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I adore Cincy, and maybe you also (but mostly because your name ends in "ogre"). But I think you're giving someone too much credit. Sticking with Hubert, check out those links sometime, it's possibly my finest analogy ever! Also, by "micromanage" I meant "pointlessly sticks his beak into trivial squabbles, with questionable results", rather than "pays attention". But your deconstruction of the executive mindset is quite brilliant. I think it's hilarious you can imagine your prezlnit would read something this long. Finally, your link to Leni sadly violates Godwin, so I am the winning! sNkrSnee | t.p. 01:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My link was supposed to be to Nietzsche, so I'm still ahead. The embedding was deucedly clever, because I meant Nietzsche's concept of triumph of the will <--> social Darwinism, the American silent adoption of the social anti-Gospel of social Darwinism, --> American business's projection of its own ubermensch --> Ayn Rand's paean to this figure (and caricature of social responsibility), and, finally, a reminder that some people are avowed fans of Rand and that these people occasionally show it inappropriately. Geogre (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm calling it a draw only because I'm so impressed with your carpet-munching (see below). Be advised that I typically take a dim view of historical revisionism [[10]], from any era. sNkrSnee | t.p. 13:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: there has been yet another metaphorical instance of truth revealed on the horns of an ungulate. See my talk page for details. sNkrSnee | t.p. 06:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. Well, they started it -- by invading Poland. I gather that folks have missed both Fawlty Towers and Life of Brian. I wonder if the citing of the stoning segment will be proof of antisemitism, too. One will have to prove that one is half German, half Jewish, and probably half Norwegian Blue and obtain a fish license before having an opinion that isn't a dreaded "personal attack." (It really is like the Spanish Inquisition, and not the MP form of it, that people are rushing about, pouncing, and shouting, "Con-fess! Con-fess!") Geogre (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And so, dear reader, we have at last truly come full circle, and the serpent is satsfied. sNkrSnee | t.p. 10:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Although we all feel that Wikipedia is too tiresome, that's a function of choosing to participate in the tail-biting arguments. You stop doing AN/I for a while, come back, try to figure out why the debates keep happening, see if you can figure out the underlying principles. If they're inherent points of tension, then there needs to be negotiated methods of dealing with them. (Example: image geeks and article geeks are busting each other up. Some people devote themselves solely to copyright and tag status of images. Others write and put in pictures, doing the tags and documentation once and not noticing whether new tags are now part of the system, etc. This is because two contradictory but inherent directives are at work, so a method needs to emerge.) If the debate is because of a habit that emerges naturally because of our structures, we need a rule of some sort. (Example: It is the habit of people to think that they alone know what's going on and to think all IP editors are bad, or to think that all the counter claims are stupid and unworthy of discussion. Thus we have to set up rules for dispute resolution to prevent this natural habit from destroying the function of the whole.) If the problem is human psychology, you have to resist the "natural" urge. (It is psychology to feel nervous with open democracy. Open democracy makes everyone scared. It's "natural" to form cliques, and it's "natural" to have friends. We have to resist, by word and deed, all our own desires to exclude or to assert power.)

The fact is, though, that "Wikipedia will collapse under its own weight/success" is something I said in 2003. It was the common mantra of everyone on IRC at the time. We all thought it was doomed, that democracy was impossible. The fact that we're still here shows that we were wrong then, and we're wrong now. I can't argue that it's too big for dullards to entangle the clueful, but I felt that way since the beginning. I would also say that my "clueful" is a very different set than yours in many instances. If I end up owning the field, or you do, then I want out. It's the conversation and the process that's interesting, not the document. Geogre (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not doomed - just not efficient. And perhaps not the best way to build the document which, rather than the conversation, is why I'm here. I guess though, I mostly agree with you....on alternate Wednesdays anyway. As for power, I'm less concerned with who has it than with how it is used. No, wikipedia works in its way, the problem is often with its intense conservatism, and the effort it takes to effect change, which is positively odd for a new-generation on-line community.--Doc^g 15:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Miles Prance

Hi! I got your message (via edit summary) re the changes I made to Prance's article. I think there is one thing you are taking for granted, which is the New Advent (Catholic Encyclopaedia) site's neutrality. That site is clearly not a neutral site and fact tagging questionable or removing inflammatory items is allowed and, should be encouraged, on Wikipedia. I did delete the (fl 1678) on the first line b/c I don;t know what it means. Sorry, I should have checked it first. Bearing in mind the above, with a mind to not make wholesale reversions to prior edits when by your own admission "some of the changes are fine", I am going to re-edit. Please peruse and let me know what you think.

Thanks, Chow mein, hold the MSG (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I generally didn't have a problem, but the New Advent wasn't used by me for this article, except that it had some bit about how he wasn't really, really Catholic. I.e. it's more of a source for "recusant Catholic." The material you had fact tagged had come from the DNB. It's in there that a summary of why Prance was elected came about. They are the ones who say that he had called Jesuits, by report to the investigators, "good fellows." The point they were making, of course, is that this probably is a man who was wrongly arrested and then, under torture, would say whatever they asked. New Advent, as I recall, wanted to make out that he was a nobody, and there were no Catholics involved, etc., etc. I rejected them straight away. I think I had gotten one supplemental remark from them or merely linked them as an external. For these articles, I use only the print sources. I'm growing to deplore the reliance on websites that Wikipedia articles are showing. Geogre (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive edit

Hi Geogre. Not sure if you noticed, but this edit was to an archived page, so I'm not sure how many people will see it. I saw it on my watchlist, so maybe others did as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I knew it was archived. My view is that, as I've said elsewhere, when you sweep things under the carpet, the room isn't any cleaner, and when you archive issues that have the community enraged, they don't get calm: they get angrier and more agitated. The way to fight against the carpet archiving (my term for archiving the moment something becomes embarrassing or when someone wants everyone to stop being upset), in my opinion, is to show that its fundamental objective (silencing people) doesn't work. In other words, to continue to edit it. I have always opposed the practice of "whoopsie" archives. I hope that I get some credit in the big book for being consistent about things. I'm not against this or that person so much as I am against any attempt to silence licit discussion or to tell people what they should think. Geogre (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That is priceless! You're like the Andy Kaufman of "performance ethics". sNkrSnee | t.p. 13:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Question for you

Your edit summary here: [11]. How is this not to be taken as bullying? There's no, zero, nada, zip requirement at Wikipedia I register before I edit. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

treatment of anons

This edit summary and this "warning" are out of line. It isn't ok to make threats to IPs that would not be acceptable to logged-in editors...especially since the material you re-inserted has stuff in it that clearly is inappropraite for Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear. It's "clearly inappropriate," is it? Quite clear? You're sure? You aren't just reading emotionally? You have discussed this? You have considered it carefully? You have assumed good faith on my part? You haven't declared that I had a "wrong version" and used that to explain that that is why my summary is wrong?

Man, but you're way, way, way, way, way off.

People who revert multiple times, especially while saying that they are experts at "how things are done" at Wikipedia, damn well should log in to their regular accounts, Guettarda, so as not to evade 3RR. Furthermore, if they do not have accounts, they should not be at rolling IP's. Furthermore, if they wish to remain IP editors alone, they should know that they lose standing as long time users and can be easily mistaken for trolls. This is especially true when they begin lecturing people on Wikipedia policy.

I think your attempt to stand up for the IP editor here is remarkably quick and vehement, myself. Let's just let that go, eh? Let's stay logged into our actual accounts and abide by the rules of reverts and not allow revert wars to start. I intervened to support 3 signed users on the talk page. You have intervened within 2 minutes to support a logged out user. That's bad, bad form. Geogre (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: that should be "within four minutes." I'm sure that you don't know the anon at all. It's purely a coincidence that your language, tone, and assertions are identical. Geogre (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hylozoism

why did you remove the wikify template from Hylozoism? the article direly needs style editing —Kymacpherson (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is fully wikified. "Wikify" refers to using [[links]], and that doesn't apply to that article, as all relevant terms are linked. If you believe that there are stylistic issues (and with recent additions there may be), then be specific. It would be more fruitful, and probably more efficient, to address on the talk page what issues seem out of style. At least then people can know what, precisely, you feel will help the article. The "wikify" tag was, I believed, a mistake. Geogre (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision#Giano banned for 90 days

I'm speechless. Which in my case is saying something. This currently has five of the required six rubber-stamps, I presume you are aware. Is there no recourse?
CygnetSaIad (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Come scream on the talk page like me. mmmmm therapeutic! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's passed now, Flo just switched over. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it takes 4 more Approves than Disapprove, with approve/disapprove offsetting each other, though that could just be to 'close' the case. Lsi john (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john - you are thinking of the (old?) rules for case acceptance. Once accepted, a majority suffices. However, the case clerk just noted that there are now 12 active arbs for the case, so 7 is a majority. Blnguyen hasn't contributed to the proposed decision page at all. Charles Matthews has contributed minimally; the other 10 are reasonably thouroughly active. GRBerry 01:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was mis-applying the rules for closure stated at the bottom of that same page. Lsi john (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already said it: if there is a block of Giano for posting an e-mail legally, then I will strike as well. It's absurd. I can't believe that Flo would support such a thing. Aside from that "ban" for 90 days? Does no one understand words? A "ban" is not for any limited time. A ban is a ban. A block is for a period. People are unhappy with Giano's mannerisms, and yet there are no bad manners to point to in this case. People are unhappy that he has called bluffs before, and yet every one of those cases has been a bluff that revealed bad actions. He has antagonized people threatening him, but they were threatening someone who knows at least as much about Wikipedia as they do. The motion is about emotion, not reason, not fact, and certainly not about dispute resolution or justice. Geogre (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, will you share your "strike" banner from the top of your page? I have a feeling if this passes, quite a few of us would like to borrow it...--SGT Tex 02:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You bet. I took the slogan from the Wobblies, so "all things in common, all people one" (quote from my buddy The Bard of Barking, who was singing someone else's song). Striking is the only thing I feel is ideologically pure: no one works for anyone on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is volunteers. If the volunteers cease to work for free, for good will, for personal interest, then Wikipedia slowly becomes 100% "in popular culture" sections, substubs, and rumors. The "vandal hunters" will remain, as they're the ones claiming to be "clueful" and in charge, the ones who want to reveal things, but only so long as they're revealed only unto them, and they will ensure that articles do not have "is gay." Of course, they'll have nothing to say in the articles, won't be able to tell good from bad content, won't know who the researchers are and who the rumor mongers are, and won't be able to agree with each other about how much "how often featured in Anime" belongs in Sylph, and Wikipedia will become the geekpedia that some of its initial critics thought it would be. ("But, duh, we ported over a 1901 public domain dictionary of literature, so it's good. All the articles are two lines long, and that's as much as anyone needs.") I struck because I was sick of "personalities." My reasons didn't strike a chord with others (yet). However, the only actual power on Wikipedia is the power of working or not working, because no one is getting paid, and no one has a boss. Geogre (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

...and just to make sure !! stays down...[[12]] and [[13]]. Class. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the last post!

I'm posting this now because I could be banned when I return later today and here because I expect they will delight in blanking my page so you may not see it. At 1 am this morning I looked into Wikipedia and saw Tony Sidaway and others manically posting rubbishing and vilifying me at every thread and response and thought "Giacomo what are you doing with this lot?" I have just looked in and seen !! being attacked and thought "FGS what the fuck are they doing to this project?" I had a flying lesson at 9 this morning in a helicopter, its something I've always wanted to do and decided if I don't do it now it will be too late in a few years time ( I recommend it to everyone) hovering above the fields of Dorset I thought what a beautiful world, I'm so lucky and it really put Wikipedia into perspective. If I am banned, which looks likely, don't all cut off your noses to spite your faces by leaving, or causing massive disruption. You enjoy being here (some of the time anyway!) but don't ever get so wrapped up in it that you need it. The world is a beautiful place. Anyway, let's look on the bright side - I shall never have to wear one of Durova's peculiar crown awards. Now, don't all go and get yourselves into trouble. Please. Giano (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On strikes and arbcom posturing.

I don't think striking is the way to go. Whilst I disagree with the way arbcom are handling this, and frustration is quite understandable, we really can't have a situation where arbcom remedies are influenced by the number of FAs someone has written or, worse, how influential their friends are as writers. Threats cannot be appeased in any meaningful community. That way lies elitism, double-standards, and the stranglehold of vested contributors. Anyway, talk of people leaving is always hollow. Good editors are content-addicts and fortunately will always come back: bad ones are drama-addicts and will unfortunately always come back. Wiki-meltdowns, and large exoduses, are like the apocalypse - perennially prophesied but with no actual eschaton arriving. Anyone remember badlydrawnjeff, userboxes, pedophile cases, or Daniel bloody Brandt? Armageddon came and went, and we are still here.

As for arbcom, I'm not without some sympathy. They are in another damn wiki-box, and this one of their own making. My suspicion is a feeling (growing over a number of cases) that "something must be done" has erupted into a desire to do "something", even when that "something" will not produce any useful result. Hearts are ruling heads. My remedy is for arbcom to sit in a circle, hold hands, and sing my favourite didactic nursery verse.--Doc^g 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said. (I only wish it were more true, though ... Badlydrawnjeff did not come back. Brandt did. :-() --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My point was not who came back - my point is that, in the larger scale of things, it didn't matter. The wiki is so big now.--Doc^g 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of top-posting Geogre (sorry G)... Doc, I read two things from your eloquent statement:

1. Editors are like Doritos.. block all you want.. we'll make more.
2. You think quantity trumps quality.

Respectfully, we disagree on both counts. Lsi john 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've truly no idea what you are talking about, but I think that makes two of us.--Doc^g 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see your civil side. Or was that an uncivil jab? I'm sorry if I was unclear:

My point was not who came back - my point is that, in the larger scale of things, it didn't matter. The wiki is so big now. - Doc

You appear to be claiming it doesn't matter if someone leaves or not, because wiki is big enough with sufficient replacements. Thus, the dorito's commercial with jay leno: "munch all you want, we'll make more" and Quantity of editors is more relevant than Quality of contribution. I, on the other hand, think each individual editor is significant and of value. There is no excuse for running them off, regardless of the volume of replacements you have waiting in the wings. Lsi john 02:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Doc, this really is not quite posturing. It may be highly rhetorical, but it is not an empty gesture. In fact, I would say that nowhere but Wikipedia is the Lockean notion of the inherent power of the people true. This is also the last clear, clean example of the labor situation, the nearest thing to socialism that we have (without money). The point is that Wikipedia is solely its contributors, and the users in question here cast long shadows. I would like to think that they do so for legitimate reasons, or reasons that I find legitimate, anyway, and that's why they attract such attention. However, we are all here because we want to be. We cease to be when we no longer wish to be. The loss of Filiocht still has me irritated. Few people know just who they lost, when they lost him. There have been others. Really eminent folks. We were endlessly enriched by their volunteerism, and their withdrawal due to personal pique and adolescent games was grievous.
• For my part, I'm nobody, and I work hard to remain nobody. But I know who the somebodies are. I get near enough to them. I also know that human beings fall into psychological traps. Of these, fear is a killer and pride is an anti-social stain. When people puff up out of pride, I run the other way. When they decide that abridgments of the rights of others are necessary out of fear of the BADPEOPLE, I realize that such fear implies power, power differentiation, and differentiation a battle that I'm not interested in. Geogre 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that. We need to enable people to feel valued if we want them to contribute and we need to find a way to accommodate as much as possible - yet ultimately with thousands of users, any individual contribution is terribly small (although, granted, some microns are larger than others). trust is at the heart of this, and it seems to me that the whole problem here is a massive failure of good faith - and paranoia which is the mindkiller. That's both the paranoia that sees demons where there are none (or incredibly few), and also the paranoia that imagines dark conspiracies and backroom plots where there are none (or at least not many, and not sod ark). Transparency generally flushes out paranoia (and here I tend to agree with you) - however, for reasons of efficiency and necessity transparency will never be absolute (and it's patently unenforceable). And we can never be naive enough to imagine that there are NO demons/stalkers or NO nefarious cabals. But people who work behind closed doors might be advised to install a few more windows, and people who see closed doors to consider that there might be good people working hard behind them.--Doc^g 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cynical?

See this at the top of every page "Put your money where your mind is, not where we tell you to" - wonderful, you can put your money there just not your mouth! Giano 13:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I would rather not put my mouth where my mind is. There are germs there. As for my money, it already flies to that location, and yet it never seems to do good. The curious thing is "not where we tell you to." If there were ever a refutation of Forrester's claim that writers at Wikipedia are no big deal, entirely replaceable, and unimportant, that's it. I wonder if Sandy approved of that grammar? (Before one puts something up on every page, it might be a good idea to parse it. Should I offer an online class on sentence diagramming?) Geogre 13:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I'd like a good online course in learning to parse a sentence. My English language trajectory through the schools multiple courses was never anticipated by those designing the curriculumn, and I got none of it! That could be why I'm prone to using convoluted sentence structure that can be very confusing to my readers. Or it could just be me. As my content writing focus is the gap between not-an-article and solid-start-to-B-class article; it isn't ultimately critical, but getting better would be good. Any pointers ready to hand for this poor admin? GRBerry 16:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're talking policies and junk...

I just posted this at user talk:WJBscribe, and I don't want to volunteer anyone else's page for threaded thoughts, if any of you have any.

Quorum and the RFA

I'm a strong adherent to the idea of many of our mistakes have occurred because we never address the issue of quorum. I can branch out with this criticism a number of ways, but I think one place it is clear is with RFA. Having just been too involved in one of the great knock down shouting matches in recent memory ("Durovagate"), and consequently not following your RfB properly, I'll first congratulate you and then explain what I meant.

The "RFA is broken" phenomenon occurs because 1) "bad" people get promoted, 2) "good" people don't. These are separate matters, as some folks complain because of disappointment, others outrage. No one can fix that, because we will never agree on the bad or the good. However, what I find more common, as an old timer now in the midst of a giant project, is that more and more people are blundering about with their bits. They may be nice, not nice, well intentioned, or shadowy agents of dark powers, for all I know, but when I look at their RFA's, I see that, aside from being recent, they seem to always be sparsely voted.

Badlydrawnjeff and I probably never agreed on a single article. He wanted all of them revived and preserved, and I think all but the most highly polished are wastes of space. I'm an extreme elitist in that regard, and he was an extreme inclusionist. Because he was passionate, he argued his position, generally well, always consistently. He also had nearly a year, it seemed, of demonstrating calm and, when not calm, of staying within the lines proscribed by policy. He always favored more discussion, less bullying. I was surprised at how well he managed to be as passionate as possible and yet stay clear of policy violations. I voted against his first RFA and voted for his second. If you know my deletionism and his inclusionism, you'll see that that really is saying something about how well he impressed me with his character and his restraint. I knew that I was voting for an admin who would oppose me at nearly every turn but agree with me that we work by open rules. However, he had had a year of vociferous argument.

His RFA #2 generated hundreds and hundreds of votes, incredible amounts of pettiness, and lots of threatening.

On the other hand, I can look over at some recent RFA's that have passed, and they have a total of 34 votes. Such was user:ChrisTheDude. I have no opinion of said dude. He may be the finest admin since Wile E. Heresiarch or Secret London, or he may be as troublesome as Everyking. I don't know. Apparently, no one else did, either. I know he's newish. Because he is new, and because he has done nothing substantial, he has had few views. In other words, he has not, almost de facto, demonstrated sufficient experience with the project due to having done so little to draw comment. RFA as it is now, with no quorum, promotes milquetoasts and the newbie over the passionate, involved, and experienced.

We've all heard the "if I had to go through RFA today, I'd fail" sentiment (or "if you had to go through..."). In fact, ArbCom tacitly acknowledged that when it moved the goalposts on Carnildo. If being active, engaged, and experienced means giant vote totals and being passive, particular, and new means low ones, then the only way to be sure that the same standard is at work throughout is to have some form of quorum.

I feel very uncertain about any admin with 40 votes, total. Such a person may turn out to be fine, but I rather suspect it's easier for the shadowy BADPEOPLE that Durova and others worry about to get themselves to such a position by bland gnomery with low vote counts than it would be if we had quorum.

When I passed, it was 35:1:2, and it was one of the busiest RFA's in ages. If we had a requisite 100 total votes (neutral is not a vote), we might at least be sure to filter out the new users and those who are doing so little as to have gotten no notice.

Anyway, such are my Thoughts upon this matter. Geogre 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (Another one of "The Fifteen Thoughts of Chairman Geogre")

Hm. I think I had the same attitude to badlydrawnjeff as yourself. Indeed, before our massive falling out over BLP, I even offered to nominate him for a third attempt. RfA isn't broken, it just malfunctions at the margins - it is inadequate for screening out nice new guys who've earned their edits gnoming, have not yet offended anyone, but will probably turn out to be useless - and it really doesn't give established users (or ex-admins) a fair crack. Indeed I've advised users not to delay their RfA, because if they are any good they will end up upsetting someone eventually, and it only takes a few people and their IRC mates to cook your turnips. That many admins would fail an RfA is patently true - some deservedly - but any who have spent their time enforcing unpopular policies, or being vocal in some 'partisan' area, are also going to be toast. I'd never thought of it in terms of quorum, but maybe their something to be said for that. Require people to get a minimum of 50-60 support votes (and I'm not doing that bloody "!votes" - let's call them what they are) as well as the requisite 75-80%. However, I'd go further at the other end, and state that if people can gather a really high number of support votes, then we'll allow crats to sysop at a lower percentage. Yes, that will lead to some people I don't like getting a bit (back), but on net it will stop the ability for a disgruntled minority to block someone for ever (and it has the advantage of fair transparency).--Doc^g 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"His RFA #2 generated hundreds and hundreds of votes, incredible amounts of pettiness, and lots of threatening." Wouldn't a quorum bar be an incentive for candidates to be more interesting, and noticed? Wouldn't that escalate drama? All the best with that. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. It would not, I hope, invite people to be controversial, as he was, but it would impede the weak and wandering. My point is that if that's going to be the case with the highly involved, the answer is not 30 votes and you're in. The field should be leveled, and quorum does at least that. The other thing -- people wanting blood for the slightest insult -- is beyond the power of this proposal to address. Geogre 19:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't really disagree, aside from our usual optimism differential. And I don't think it would be a bad thing, just that it would cause "drama", and I think if there's one thing I've learned lately, it's the subtle definition of that word. "...passionate, involved, and experienced..." = "...disruptive, ongoing, knows German...". And that's the problem that you are powerless to address. Just my opinion. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, this is warming up for my grand policy proposal Wikipedia:Anyone who cites "drama" non-ironically and without reference to literary and performative traditions of playwriting should be banned. I also think that the default on RFA should be to not promote and that we are scaling up the problems we had when we had few admins to a brave new world where we absolutely are forcing ourselves into committees. Anyway, because of the Conradian horror (not drama) when we get a bum instead of a ball player and a team player instead of an umpire, we're better being slower. Now, if we could also make sure that the voters have character, wisdom, dispassion, and a clear idea of the qualities that make a good administrator, it would be well, too. Geogre 13:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What is this? A discussion that deliberately avoids using the appropriate policy talk page, keeping the greater community in the dark about the discussion? Isn't that like a blockable offense or something? ;) NoSeptember 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Me and my buddies all agreed to the WP:AWCDnIawRtLPTPBAN, so it's policy now. You should have informed yourself of all relevant discussions and voiced your opinion. (The discussion on quorum is just me, puttering around, muttering to myself, the way old people do. I've been muttering about this longer than Lyndon LaRouche has been muttering about the tri-lateral commission.) Like any philosopher, I can show how "quorum" relates to every ill. It's just obvious when people are passing RFA today with the same number of votes that they did in 2003. Geogre 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you make a very valid point, and I believe it extends far beyond just RFA. There needs to be a very real discussion about how well a number of the community processes have scaled - not very, in my opinion. We've long since outgrown some of the procedures that worked when we had a couple hundred (or even 500) admins, and not so well when we're well into the four digits. The "community ban" issue is one example - the idea that "a block nobody will lift is a community ban" worked much better before we had quite so many admins who could give out indefinite blocks. There's undoubtedly hundreds or thousands of such blocks that nobody even knows about, much less has enough information to determine whether it should be lifted or not. Most of them are probably legitimate, but is there anyone wading through the pile to check and see if an innocent mistake was made? Probably not. FCYTravis (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The first thing to creak under the weight was VfD (now AfD). The second thing was RFCU. Like water, users will flow around an obstacle, if they have sufficient inertia. The way they do, though, is often very, very bad. When people answer the call by throwing out indefinite blocks every few seconds, no one can review them. The Community Sanctions board, for example, can only work if there is review by sufficient numbers. If there isn't a "community," then there isn't a community sanction.

The problem is that the very problem has been cited by people heading the wrong direction, in my view. They talk about "sufficient" quality, rather than sufficient numbers. They keep rejecting the big numbers we've depended upon to average passions and contribute intelligence in favor of "clueful" people. To me, that's pretty weak, logically, and positively corrosive in practice.

You know where insufficient quorum affects me every wiki-day? Projects. We get "rulings" from projects. The projects may be amazingly underpopulated, and yet they're getting incredible control over the shape of articles. If they get the power, they have to have the numbers. If they don't have the numbers, they haven't any power. It's like the joke, above, about making a policy because my buddies and I agree: the first time I saw this attempted was in 2004 with WP:NPA. Phil created it, called it "semi-policy," and then went about enforcing it. After all, he and a few like minded people had agreed. It had had no debate. It reminded me of a virgin wearing a beauty pageant sash because her mother says she's the most beautiful girl in the world.

We've got to have quorum in a number of areas. If Wikipedia is founded on the idea that Everyone in aggregate is smarter than an oligarchy (if not smarter than any one), then it only makes sense that we do not marry mail order brides, do not canonize newborns, and do not obey anything or anyone that hasn't had a real audience. Geogre (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

J. Jones, a poet

Hey, Geogre, I need help with a question, and you're more of an expert on poetry than I am. I'm trying to find the right poet named Jones, who wrote a poem about a retired soldier feeling useless, getting drunk, that sort of thing. It was translated into Slovenian and made into a song by Lačni Franz, called "Stari Vojak"="Old Soldier". I've seen one place claim that his initial was "J", but I'm not really sure. Any idea who I might be talking about? Zocky | picture popups 14:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably British. Any idea of dates? If this is a WW1 poet, then one great place to research is The Poetry Foundation. It has a fantastic search function. Beyond that, a line, or a likely line, would do a great deal to speed the chase. If this is prior to WW1, the greater likely search would be via Chadwick Healy, but that's subscription. I believe I can get at it via Questia, as my workplace does not subscribe. In either instance, though, it's going to be a difficult search with the popularity of "Jones" and "soldier." I'll try. The poem doesn't spring to mind. If, by the way, it's a poet after WW2, we're going to be in the dark somewhat. There is a large body of socialist poetry, mainly English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish that the various CP's in Eastern Europe promoted. It was far more popular there than in the west (although certainly good stuff). There are some outstanding folk songs, for example, that we in the West are "discovering" now that were written in the 1960's, enjoyed in E. Europe, and then slowly emerging from the "dirty commie" shadow. (Lost my syntax that time.) I'll look. Geogre 14:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Poetry Foundation has Richard Jones, David Jones, Rodney Jones, and Leroy Jones. David and Amiri Baraka/Leroy Jones are likely hits. Geogre 14:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Bartleby.com strikes out, but it mainly has the poems I'd know in my head anyhow. Geogre 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about the time frame, but I can back-translate the first few lines and summarize the rest On Monday I get my paycheck/I'm no longer a dog soldier/I put a bunch of money in my pocket/Ouch, how heavy it is/Not everybody is as rich/As me, the old soldier. The following verses: tuesday out drinking with buddies and chasing girls, friday looking for free beer and fighting in a bar, sunday waking hungry in a park and not going to the church, and finally a verse imploring young men that it's better to die than spend 30 years in the army. If that helps any. Zocky | picture popups 14:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It can't be James Jones, can it? The From Here to Eternity author? If "dog soldier" is any part or likely part of it, that identifies American and WW2 or beyond. That throws it into his timeframe, and he is a J Jones and an author (and I'm almost purely ignorant of his work). Geogre 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello - this sounds like the lyrics to the song "Reenlistment Blues" from the movie "From Here to Eternity" - music by Merle Travis and lyrics by James Jones. Hal peridol 15:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! The virtues of Wikipedia assert themselves again. Thank you Hal (middle initial wouldn't be I., would it? no relation to Respi Peridol?); this is why Wikipedia is still worth doing. Geogre 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so not an actual poem, but a blues song. Brilliant, thanks Geogre for a fine piece of brainstorming and Hal for the answer. So, this Slovenian version by Zoran Predin is a really nice translation - it tells the same story, uses the same idioms and sounds as if it was originally written in Slovenian. It also has a probably unexpected additional bonus - it's a waltz. (This video has it as, shall we say, fair use background music.) Zocky | picture popups 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For both of you, if Hal Peridol is still looking in, or for you, Zocky, here is a link to the poem/lyric. And here is a link to the song in the movie via YouTube. You're right that the original is a 16-bar blues structure, so the adaptation is interesting. Geogre 10:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both - very interesting! (I only wish I knew Slovenian!) Hal peridol (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A wise person, you are

Brilliant and wise, you are; with a hint and a pinch of humor thrown in to help the most youthful of readers to ascertain what in the world is being discussed herein at any one time. You help to make Wikipedia a beacon of light, rather than a cesspool of “social norms.” ( Mind you, social norms are not right or good, they are just norms.) To default to a mean or mediocre is really quite sad, don't you know? Indeed, thank you for your wisdom and for being… Nice 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd blush, except that I'm already [[Category:Rouge admins|rouge]]. I generally keep my head down, my watchlist free of any user talk pages, and function as a counter-puncher. (Punching the counter isn't always fruitful.) I've been here for a long time, in Wikipedia terms, and I know why I volunteered and why people at the same time volunteered, and it's worth remembering those reasons. Let everyone say that they're inapplicable now, if they choose, those reasons remain valid, remain operative, and no frustration should allow people to frustrate them. Geogre 18:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)