User:Geogre/Talk archive 5

Archive November 10 - December 4, 2004

Bowling for Soup's 1985

Totally non-Wikipedia topic. Since you've mentioned you're a veteran musician, I thot you'd enjoy the 1985 video[1], if you haven't seen it already. To fully appreciate it, one has to be familiar with early MTV music videos, but I imagine you probably are. (Oh, and I liked your 'organism' analogy on your User page, politically it sounds like we're pretty similar, and my latest windmill-tilting occured here--I guess it's back to trying to finish polishing my speedy case proposals and figure the best way to propose them--a poll like I was sort of headed for, or start with the speedy page itself like has been done recently with other cases. The main thing I'm trying to figure out is that some of mine would probably be better as clarifications or expansions of the current cases.) Niteowlneils 03:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Music reply (still contemplating other issues): I would tend to agree that the mid-80s were were more glory days for music videos, not music in general. I guess everyone's musical preference[2] influences what period they think is best, but for me, I'd probably go back a bit further, to the mid-70s--1973 Dark Side of the Moon, Montrose debut, Lynyrd Skynyrd's debut, Pronounced Leh-Nerd Skin-Nerd; 1974 Bon Scott joins AC/DC; 1975 Aerosmith's Toys in the Attic; 1976 AC/DC US release of High Voltage, Boston debut, Heart's debut Dreamboat Annie, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers debut, Sammy Hagar's first hit (AFAIK), "Red" (the video's reference to 'the other guy singing with Van Halen' amuses me, since Sammy's been makin' records since before VH was even formed); 1977 The_Cars_(album) debut, formation of Def Leppard; 1978 Van_Halen_(album) debut, The Knack formed, Eagle's Hotel California, Blondie's Parallel Lines, Billy Joel's The Stranger. (There are more, but I'm sure you get the idea.) Time also matters as I probably started listening to Top-40 radio around 1972 or 73, using a small radio my grandma gave as a b-day or xmas present.

I wish I could remember more from the early video years--I can only recognize Faith (and even with that I had to double-check, as I wasn't certain) and Addicted to Love--I assume the hair band is Van Halen, but I don't know which song (or whether the gal on the car was part of it, or from a fifth video), and I have no idea about the rap one, but my guess would be something from Run DMC. Also, there seems to be a more subtle reference to "Video Killed the Radio Star", and probably others if my memory was better. Niteowlneils 21:09, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'm definitely more of an underground listener than you. However, I have a theory of Great Years in rock. 1968 was the summer of love, but 1969 was the year all those albums came out (i.e. the pressure/influence of the big event shows up in the recording studio at the time and gets released the next year). The next was 1974, although I'd agree with your Aerosmith, but I'd put in Bowie's "Heroes" (or was it "Lodger?") and Reed's "Berlin," Iggy Pop's "The Passenger," Eno's "Another Green World," Fripp's "Exposure," Big Star's "#1 Record," and even BTO's "Not Fragile." The "pressure" there was probably the exceptionally saccharine 1972-3, where the radio was dominated by Bread, Jim Croce, Terry Jacks, The Heywoods, and whatzhername McGovern. The hippies got mellow, and that provoked a reaction into intellectualism and hard rock. (Also in 1974, incidentally, is Television's first record, The Ramones play for the first time, Talking Heads and Blondie and Patti Smith all play at CBGB's.) Punk in England prompted a huge response -- shoving the docile arty people back to basics and challenging them while also waking up everyone else to irrelevance or energy -- and all that shows up in 1980, even though it happened in '78-'79. The Athens scene that I was involved in cranked up around 1980-81. We had had precursors in bands like The Hampton Grease Band and The Fans, but we all took off after B-52's (in 1978) and were a "scene" officially by '81. My band started in 1981. We recorded in 1985 and 1986, and then I walked out on it. When I began, REM were a college act, and the other contender for national fame was Swimming Pool Q's. When I quit, Drivin' and Cryin' were getting big, REM was playing arenas (but not yet as big as they'd get), Indigo Girls were trying to open for my band (and I refused them) and Mr. Crowe's Garden were seeking an opening spot (and I refused them, too). You probably know that band by the name The Black Crowes. The great band that we all knew was better than any of us was Pylon, though. Pylon wouldn't sign a major label deal, and so they're forgotten, but they were our Green River or Mother Love Bone. At any rate, if you want a fun/scary musical nostalgia trip, see "Urgh! A Music War." It's neat to see people acting like their fame will never end who never made it and people acting like nobodies who soon would be big. Geogre 04:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Homosociality, etc.

Naaaah, I have never taught literature, and have never studied it beyond the required courses at MIT. Courses 21.01, 21.02, 21.03, and 21.04, to be specific: "Introduction to the Humanities."

I sometimes like to read it, though.

I do have a sort of "fan" interest in Jack London. I certainly remember having a spirited discussion with some academics on a mailing list regarding the fine distinction between Jack London's "racialism" and plain-old-garden-variety racism. I might have picked up the word "homosocial" either in connection with Jack London or Owen Wister. There's no doubt that Jack London had "an eye for the ladies," but he also had an extremely close friend, George Sterling, with whom he exchanged affectionate letters. Jack called George "Greek" and George called Jack "Wolf." They definitely smoked "hashish" together, and were in the habit of occasionally going together to San Francisco's "Barbary Coast" district where they did nobody-knows-exactly-what. It is possible that someone described their relationship as "homosocial." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chess and Hooker

Thanks for your comments- I'm glad you put the A Game at Chess article up; I wouldn't have got involved otherwise! Your new para on Hooker looks good. I want to put paragraphs on both articles about their use today, but I couldn't find out anything about modern staging of A Game at Chess. Rowan Williams has written what looks like an interesting article on Hooker, but I haven't had a chance to read it yet! --G Rutter 16:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vote for Undeletion of "American World University"

Indeed, this was a unanimous delete and a "clear piece of junk", but only before my changes and keep vote.

I made major changes to the article before my vote, and no other votes were made after that. I think that the admin should have allowed consensus to redevelop post the major edit before making a decision. Essentially, I feel that my work was deleted based on votes to delete a totally different article.

I would accept the article being immeadiately sent to vfd again (with the old vfd archived), and I would accept whatever consensus develops there. I accept that Wikipedia is a democracy, I just want my work to have a fair chance.

I normally do not ask individual users to reconsider votes, but I do so in this case. Please return to the undelition entry, read the two versions of the article, and reconsider your vote. I thank you for your time. --L33tminion | (talk) 01:41, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

• I appreciate your taking the time and your willingness to abide a renewed VfD listing. I will certainly look again, both at the article and my VfU vote. Geogre 03:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Invite

Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:37, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC) Filiocht 08:39, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

hey there thanks for the support for the article, one thing though i thought that i did happen to explain the terms in the first paragraph fairly well. do you have any suggestions on what to change as it is hard for me to determine what would be understandable and what would as i wrote the article. --Larsie 17:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

excelent george i thank you very much, hey any ideas for images, i unfortuneatly can't download any and post them as i do all my contributing from my pc at work. --Larsie 17:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ok george i think i've been able to create that first lay introduction what do you think? --Larsie 18:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The heritage of contemporary Bahamas

Solid!!--[[User:Bishonen|Bish (Bosh)]] 17:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

come to new york!

-) it's only five hours away by chinatown bus... +sj+ 00:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

? It's 4 hr by the Amtrack, too. What's happening in NYC? Got a lot of friends I could see there, and a school I could go terrorize, but what's happening in particular? Geogre 01:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Loubaxter

Any objections if I delete that article-to-user-space redirect? (A leftover from the recent page move vandalism by Cjc244.) Or you might just do it yourself... Lupo 07:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

None, of course. I left it in place overnight, from my point of view, to keep the vandal from repeating the move. If he went to move it again, he'd see that the move was blocked by the existence of the redirect page. Since he can't delete pages, he can't change that situation. I was going to delete it myself tonight (about 24 hr after the vandalism). Geogre 14:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dan-Dee!

Looks like John Dee made it to FA status. Thanks for your help. Your suggestions made a big difference and sent the article in the right direction. PRIIS 23:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A Tale of a Tub on the Main page

Hey, Geogre, check it out: did you know that A Tale of a Tub will be featured on the Main page on Sunday? :-)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 23:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD

Hi there,

Just to let you know, I'm not trying to be awkward about VfD, you will note that I am not needlessly voting keep on everything. My delete votes are certainly not as extensive, as I see little point in using up wikitime voting delete on articles likely to be deleted (I have no objections to such junk being deleted).

I do have reservations about VfD as stands, or the actions of some "VfDers", as you may well have picked up from my comments. I thank you for correcting me on the tone of my comments, but I do also feel there are those too inclined to vote "delete, delete, delete". Label me inclusionist if you will, but I do intend to continue screening VfD for votes that raise some level of concern for me.

zoney ♣ talk 22:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln Example

See here: User_talk:Kim_Bruning/Abe_Lincoln

I've gone over it quite quickly so it's still a bit rough at the edges. Feel free to comment (or even edit to make things clearer. :-)

I've deliberately done this in my user namespace first, this way of working won't work in the main namespace, due to over-zealous vfd. (And it's a demo of what kinds of things might be possible if we could simply control vfd better :-) )

Kim Bruning 20:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Black images

Geogre, Giano tells me that the first and the fifth image in Restoration comedy are black on his screen also. And so is the Rose of Prose! WTF? Note that the user who said on FAC that the Restoration comedy images look OK on his screen runs mac, like I do, so that actually doesn't help a lot. I need to hear from Windows/IE users, I'm wondering if this is some sort of mac/Windows issue. Do you see those images all right? How about the Rose?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 23:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Its an IE (aaaaiieeee!!) issue. They are black using Internet Explorer 6 in Windows 2000, but fine with Firefox. The Steve 00:04, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Thesteve, could you clear the cache and check how it looks in Windows 2000/IE 6 again? David thinks he has fixed the problem, see FAC page, but he also runs mac (more of us around than I thought!), so he can't actually see what horrible Windows IE aaaaiieeee does.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 01:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm using a PC with Win/Firefox, and it displays fine in both cases. I'll open IE 6 and see what that does (though I hate using IE for anything). Nope, looks fine with IE 6 under Win XP Home. It's possible that the images are so large that the IE is timing out. Clearing cache and reloading might work, but, with a dialup modem and IE, it's possible that it's quitting. One of the really irritating things about IE (just one) is that it only tries anything 2-3 times and then it never actually tries again, even when you tell it to. E.g. if it can't load a page twice, when you refresh from then on, it doesn't actually try. It just says that the page can't be found. Geogre 03:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, its working now. Good job David! The Steve 05:46, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

John Rich

Sheesh, John Rich didn't start operating until 1714? :-( I'll put a link to him into "See also", I hope that's all right.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 02:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John Rich didn't open his own theater until 1714. He began performing in 1705. This is why I wanted it at the end of comedy, and not in the war of theaters. I only thought it was bad to say that comedy ended. It didn't. It changed. Low stuff increased (farce), and pantomime came along. Also, there were revivals of Beaumont & Fletcher. I thought it was wrong not to give the heritage of the things you discussed, and that's why I thought it was best in the "end of comedy." I didn't put it in the war of the theatres because I didn't think it was appropriate there. I'm very serious about "macho." That has to be changed in the lead. Geogre 03:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going by your John Rich article. Geogre, I just replied to a bunch of stuff on the article's Talk page. Could you reply to the question I asked above, please?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 03:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rich is fine as a see also. Rich wasn't that important. What I was trying to get at only was that the story end in diffusion rather than revolution, since I thought that was more accurate, that the end of Restoration comedy be part of a trend, a trend visible in its rise and second rise that you had established so well. Geogre 05:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So change it. It's a wiki.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 03:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I changed it to a less effective but less objectionable word for now while we search for a more precise one. I don't mind any alternative except such an oddfish one as that. Geogre 05:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nasher

FYI, I've added a delete vote and the results of real-world library research to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nasher, in case you're interested. Niteowlneils 02:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Award yourself a giant cookie for that one. Thanks for the effort. I was surprised that no German speakers volunteered to help us out with the .de discussion. Normally, folks are eager to help out. The question, I guess, is whether the ___Empire article has also been hoaxed. :-( Geogre 05:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Restoration comedy: "rakish"?

Hi Geogre. in Restoration comedy, as an alternative for "macho", does "rakish" work for you? Paul August 15:22, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

• It's possible, but that term has a fairly precise meaning in the Restoration, and it's not really good form to get that in. Some of the heroes are rakes, but most of the heroes of the second wave, in particular, are not. Manly, for example, is definitely not. Bishonen and I are e-mailing one another to try to find a word that is both precise and powerful. I'm personally not as bothered by any weak word as I am by a word that I think is really off the mark. I also don't mind the word showing later, but I think it's a bad spot for a word that's even a shade distracting. Geogre 16:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Astrochicken

Hi, Geogre. :) I'm letting everyone who voted on the VfD for Astrochicken know that I have placed it on Wikipedia:Votes for Undeletion. I would appreciate any comments there that you may have. func(talk) 17:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Preliminary deletion

Isn't anything being done on setting up Preliminary deletion? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:43, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Rfa

Thanks for your support on my RFA. I've learned a lot about Wikipedia by reading your discussions of issues here, so that vote really meant a lot. Joyous 00:16, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

"VfD is for votes, not proof."

Hi! I read your advice for VfD users on your user page. A lot of insightful info there.

However, the item in the header I disagree with. Discussion is what [should] forms consensus. IMHO, dialogue, is better than the monologue of simply stating one's argument and leaving it at that. If someone is voting delete or keep for all the wrong reasons (in conflict with policy, or just with your personal views), why is it wrong to point that out? Why not prove your point if you can? Should the criteria for deletion only be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion? What should happen if someone still doesn't follow them?

I understand what you're thinking, I think. In some cases, where not all participants shared the same level of maturity, *cough*GNAA*/cough* the "dialogue" grows excessive. In most cases, it does not. In the cases where it does, I think the problem is not dialogue, but multiple parallel monologues.

The one-person, one-vote argument is compelling, but false since Wikipedia doesn't/[should not] build on numeric votes but on consensus. It is often said that VfD is populated to a greater extent by deletionists compared to Wikipedia as a whole (don't know whether that's accurate). One-person, one-vote doesn't necessarily represent the view of the community as a whole. — David Remahl 06:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I appear to have made your case on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Textfiles.com :-P. — David Remahl 08:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

David, I think you're reading too strenuously the advice. I think that dialogue is ok, but trying to beat the other person into agreement, which is what happens far too often, is what kills us. The GNAA people, but also the Something Awful Forums people, and the "Hey, that's my favorite TV show" people, don't merely offer a reason, but attempt to prove the other person wrong. As Butler said, "He who complies against his will/ Is of his own opinion still." I get the impression that a lot of people have to counter every vote that differs from them. The worst case I saw was that execrable European Union medals count. Pgreenfinch had to reply to every vote for deletion, and always with something inflammatory. He didn't want consensus, he wanted to win. What I'm saying is that people must not try to "win" VfD. In this regard, I usually take my own advice, too. For example, I think people have gotten sidetracked on the Jane and Finch VfD discussion. They've begun debating whether the neighborhood needs an article. It does. What they're forgetting is that the article is misnamed and is about an intersection, and yet, having made my case, I don't feel it's useful to go in and tell them that they've taken their eyes off the target. If they change the article to make it a good one, they'll probably also rename it.

One man, one vote, though, is something I feel very strongly about. VfD, I believe, is an executive page. It is where a determination solely on keep/delete/clean up/redirect takes place. Just vote, and no new accounts, no sock puppets. They're just electrons on a disk. People act very childishly and think that if something is deleted then some personal injury has been done. If we vote the article instead of the person, the author ought to realize that the vote means that the thing should not be done in that way. E.g. Dule Hill's character on "The West Wing." People are getting upset (ExplorerCDT has a lot to do with that). Most folks have said that the article would be fine on a Characters page. Some have objected to the plot summary (me). But others are getting personally affronted. How dare anyone think it excessive to have an article on every fictional character?! They're arguing. They're trying to win (and ExplorerCDT is really trying to win). The result is entrenched "deletionist" and "inclusionist" stuff and ill will. Anyway, that's what I was getting at. Geogre 15:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, about the Textfiles debate, I must say that the JScott on Wikipedia is quite bannable. His actions haven't been single impassioned personal attacks, but consistent rudeness, name calling, and juvenile behavior, and he wants to write an article about what fun it is to trash articles? Honestly, that bodes very ill.

One thing's for sure, he's not here to build an encyclopaedia. (Though he came here a few months ago with that intent). But still, I haven't heard him say he'll "write an article about [..] trashing articles." He's going to write an article on the potential failings of Wikipedia, and in fact I look forward to reading it. He seems to be a much more civil and controlled person outside of Wikipedia, and I've been entertaining some email conversation with him following the creation of the article (initially to verify that Jscott really was Jason Scott).

I took the "sometimes you want to take the car out and leave it in the pond, wheels up, spinning" as "sometimes, after you've edited an article, you just want to make it say stupid stuff because you feel like it." I.e. it seemed to be an argument for the joys of trashing things. Maybe not. Seemed like it to me, though, and it can sure be read that way. Geogre 23:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, what I really want for Bishonen's new award is something like an erector set (or mecca, I think they're called in Europe) -- something that shows building, but without being a real life paver or something. I'm going to see if I can find something via Google that's PD. I have low expectations, but I want an image that will show simply what it is. Geogre 19:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's called mekano in Swedish, is all I know :-). It's quite different from Meccano though, at least judging from the first external link. Though I think the mekano set I played with as a child was from the 1930s–50s...Hey, that could possibly mean that the box art has passed into the public domain just recently (70 yr term)...I'll check that next time I'm at my parents house. — David Remahl 20:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I checked. The set and documentation was published in 1948, which means that the publisher retains copyrights to it for another 14 years or so. While some of the material in the book is photographic (meaning a 50 yr term), the photographs depict assembled constructions which are probably covered by copyright themselves. The cover art on the instruction booklet is in colour; a rather arranged scene with four stereotypical well-behaved thrifty young boys building a carrousel and an Eiffel tower. I promise to upload it in fifteen years :-P. — David Remahl 13:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Textfiles

Please do not lecture me in public discussions. You are not adding anything to the discussion in general, but are making a personal issue ou of a broader discussion. I am trying to help Wyllium and similar to an understanding that it upsets editors to list their articles for deletion without even bothering to talk to them. That is not the wiki way. It seems to have unhinged Jscott! You think that it is best not to have discussion as a means to build consensus, but to seek to enforce standards on the recalcitrant? I don't. You are far too fond of accusing people of "personal attacks" and not addressing valid points they make. I urge you to put more effort into building and not so much into destroying others' work. I will not respond any further to the underhand mudslinging on VfD, Geogre. I urge you to try to be more constructive in your approach and less willing to use your own familiarity as a standard in judging what is or is not notable, but ultimately it's up to you, and I don't want to spend hours of my life trying to convince you you're wrong. Consequently, let's leave this discussion where it is. If you are concerned about the length of the discussion on VfD, I don't mind if you remove or refactor any comment I have made in reply to one of yours, so long as the comment it is in reply to is equivalently treated.Dr Zen 03:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't lecture you if you weren't acting so darned ignorant. I'm thoroughly uninterested in your ideas of me, my character, my family, my progeny, or my actions, but I'm extremely interested in your flag waving attempts to increase division on the project. So far, I have seen you, on VfD, twice encourage people to rally behind a point of view that there are bad guys who need to be opposed. That's an attempt to pit one person against another, and I find that worrisome. If you can't speak dispassionately, speak less, please. If you cannot state your opinion without calling someone else a name, do not. Even here, you come with vitriol. You made yourself look bad on VfD. That wasn't me. I'm sorry that you are being embarrassed in public, but it probably wouldn't happen if you didn't try to create villains that could elevate you to heroic stature. Geogre 05:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I expect you know why you made that rather ugly comment on my talk page. You certainly didn't add anything to the discussion we've been having. Can we not have a difference of opinion without your descending to the playground level of communication? Dr Zen 05:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Playground level? You mean saying that someone else is being "shitty?" Hmm. Let me think: was that me? No. Was it me who made a first entry into a vote by accusing the other of being stupid and hating a site? No, that wasn't me, either. So, did you come here with an apology? No, not yet. Sorry. I don't really see much need to talk with you. Geogre 05:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I asked you to leave the discussion where it was but you did not. You have instead flamed me several times. As a consequence, I have blocked you from my talk page for a while. I hope that you will take this in the spirit it is meant, to prevent further conflict and flaming.Dr Zen 05:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That charge cannot stand. If what you seek is to have the last word, I am unwilling to grant it, since you had first word as well by initiating an insult. I will be seeking a member of ArbCom to take a look at this dispute informally, without going fully to ArbCom. I do not have flame wars with users, never have had, and will not be accused of such now. Geogre 06:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Terry Smiljanich

• Just wanted to let you know that additional evidence of notability has been provided in this article. Hope you will reconsider your vote. anthony 警告 12:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Answered on VfD. I appreciate the "inclusionists" who work to make articles worthy of inclusion, but I don't think this one got there yet. People should light a candle rather than cursing those who curse the darkness. Geogre 17:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking a look. I hope this isn't deleted just because it falls slightly short of being good enough. That would make all the hard work we've done be for naught. (IOW, why light a candle if it's just going to be extinguished anyway). anthony 警告 19:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Most of the time, the candle won't get extinguished, and, frankly, there is such a thing as good enough. Anyone who's ever had to give an F to a student who worked hard knows this. We create for our users, not our contributors: that's what sets us apart from Everything2 or Geocities. Geogre 19:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • There are a ton of things that separate us from E2 and Geocities, but I resent the implication that my reason to keep this article is for myself. I think it should be kept because keeping it makes Wikipedia better. Whether or not the candle gets extinguished depends on the specifics. Once it became clear to me that I wasn't the only one interested in keeping the article I started enhancing it. Until that point, I'm generally not going to waste my time. If it turns out that this article is deleted anyway, especially if it's on some technicality, I'm going to have to re-evaluate how much support an article needs before I'm going to waste my time putting effort into saving it. I don't say this to be argumentative, I'm just explaining why sometimes a simple vote is the most I'm willing to do. anthony 警告 20:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Anthony, did I imply that you wanted it kept for yourself? I implied that you and others want articles kept for their authors, whoever they may be. By extension, yes, it means that I think a lot of those people think that Wikipedia should fundamentally exist for whoever to write whatever, so long as it cannot be explicitly proven false, but I was not suggesting a personal interest. I suspect that many of the people who now rake "keep, no reason" votes were themselves once nominated for deletion and think the indignity of it so supreme that, obviously, anyone who does not understand the inherent worth of their particular efforts is an evil "deletionist" interested in hurting them, but that's neither here nor there. I don't think in terms of individual personalities, if I can help it. Philosophically, do we exist to be an encyclopedia and reference work, or to be a place where people can write stuff and have it stick? I think the former. Geogre 22:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't want it kept for the authors, I want it kept for Wikipedia. I want it kept because Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with it than without it. Yes, many of us had articles we've created listed for deletion, and that's where many of us found out about the destruction that's being done on VFD every day. But that doesn't mean we vote to delete for the author. I don't care about the author nearly as much as having the best encyclopedia possible. We exist to be an encyclopedia, every page here should be geared toward that goal. But we exist to be the most comprehensive encyclopedia we can be. Deleting articles because you haven't heard of them or because you're too lazy to do a one minute search to find a respectable source verifying the facts does not make the best encyclopedia. Don't try to tell me I want to keep anything anyone writes. That's patently false. My idea of what is a good topic for inclusion is just broader than yours. I don't think we should try to impose our POV on what is and isn't important on our readers. on our readers. anthony 警告 01:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Ah. So you're back to suggesting that people who vote to delete are ignorant or lazy? See, I think the people who write shit articles about their obsessions are lazy and ignorant. Write a good article, and there's no way I'm going to vote to delete it, unless it is patently false, advertising, or an insult. Apparently, though, DJAmazin's way rad underground comix scene is too hip for people to understand, and therefore there is wanton destruction every day. Anthony, what is happening every day is the process of getting rid of the junk so that what remains is actually useful to someone and that we don't carry things that aren't useful. We're not a free web host. Unless our users are actually going to seek the information, there is no reason to carry it. I've never seen ANYONE vote to delete because they haven't heard of something, and it's tedious to see people telling each other lies to get mass action on disruption. Geogre 03:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say that anyone who votes to delete is ignorant or lazy. Many seem to be, though, in many cases people will vote having seemingly not even done the most basic search on the topic of the article. If you haven't seen anyone vote to delete because they haven't heard of something, then you haven't been looking very closely. anthony 警告 04:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Colley Cibber

Hello, Geogre, I added some stuff to Colley Cibber and it grew a TOC! :-) Just like it was a real, serious article. In case you have a minute to spare from your VfD duties, you might drop by and name those "Tory satirists" (I think you actually only mention Pope). Btw, is the dunce/Dunce variation systematic? If you want to put in some more of that highbrow material of yours we could have us an FAC, what do you say? Maybe not. I know you're cooking up far worthier subjects.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen ( talk)]] 22:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You think we have enough on Colley available to us? I suppose so, but you'd have to do most of the heavy lifting, as I know him mainly from his late period, when he was the whipping boy of the Torys. As for the dunce Dunce thing, I use the majiscule when denoting a professional identity via Pope and the lower case to indicate "an idiot." At any rate, I was just today assembling materials on the Dunciad Variorum, and I'm ready to put a sketch of that up in the Dunciad article. Then, though, comes the better 4 Book Dunciad. So far, I'm just in the Yale ed., but I'm going to grab the Aubrey Williams emendations to see how he introduces such a poem.

Yes, of course I'll go over to the CC article and look. Geogre 02:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requesting a favour

Hi, I wonder if you'd run your eyes over Modernist poetry in English for me if you have a few minutes at some point? Thanks. Filiocht 15:15, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

A quick note to say thanks

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship and for helping me choose my new name. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Notorious Ideot"

I just read your Dunciad page, and, oh, man, it's got the worst personal attacks on it of any Talk page I've ever seen! Wikipedia policy encourages us to remove PA's, and don't worry, that's what I'm going to do. I'll refactor that page to about five lines! Those trolls can just cut out the flame war and take each other to RfC like normal people. Man, that User:Pope is just begging to be hardbanned.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 20:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Look what this User:JDennis wrote on his talk page: "But the deformity of this Author <viz. Pope> is visible, present, lasting, unalterable, and peculiar to himself: it is the mark of God and Nature upon him, to give us warning that we should hold no society with him, as a creature not of our original, nor of our species: And they who have refused to take this warning which God and Nature have given them, and have in spite of it by a senseless presumption, ventur'd to be familiar with him, have severely suffer'd, &c. 'Tis certain his original is not from Adam, but from the Devil."

Then that User:Pope came back and referred to User:JDennis as Balatro, Calceatum caput and Scurra in triviis. He was using foreign languages to insult him. What a terrible flame war.

Still, I think this whole thing is a way cool episode of Dungam Harm Suit Superball Z, and I can't wait for the translation from Korean into Japanese for it to be broadcast on the Internet. Can you believe those deletionist trolls don't think it's important? Geogre 22:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nude mud wrestling

Right. I'm kind of faint from just this minute saving a new Shakespeare article, gulp... I expect the Renaissance people to disembowel me. Cool about the Dunciad, I'll check out the pissing and muck diving in a minute. You make it sound a bit like a specialised brothel scene.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 20:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My adminship request

Thanks for your support! --jpgordon{gab} 04:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About my article

Hi Geogre, I've written the article 'Ummo', i would like to know why you deleted just after his creation, because this article doesn't exists anywhere. The reason seems to be 'Patent nonsence', but why, this article needs just to be checked. I don't know. Thanks Graffity 21:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll reply here and to your user page. The article was up for VfD in the past and was deleted in the regular course of things. It was recreated, either by you or someone else, and then listed for VfD again. Wikipedia policy is to speedy delete any recreated article. I'm not exactly sure why the original VfD (Votes for Deletion) failed, but I was simply following procedure in performing the speedy delete. Geogre 00:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you believe the page was deleted improperly -- either because it was not identical to the one that had lost VfD in the past or because the original VfD was invalid -- please nominate the page for undeletion on the Votes for Undeletion page. I have no personal view on the article's worth and was simply following established procedure in speedy deleting articles that had been deleted previously. Geogre 00:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Garrick vs. Barry in 1756

The rival King Lear performances were in 1756. I came across a mention of them here.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 13:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great. That means that the Romeo and Juliets were 1755. The 1911 Britanica had something about it, but it said Barry vs. Mrs. Cibber...that kind of thing. If you go to my John Rich (producer) article and click on the external link, you'll get the 1911 account. Geogre 14:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Modernism

Hi, I've been away for a few days, hence the silence. Thanks for your very kind words on WP:FA. Thanks for the paragraph on the loss of pastoralism, by the way. It really adds something. I hope to respond correctly to your long, interesting messages later. Filiocht 08:38, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've stitched in a few sentences to address some of the points you raised, all of which were quite valid. My own view, for what it's worth, is that poetry is the one art form where modernism is still a really active force, mainly because the romantic stance refuses to go away (witness Heaney, Larkin, et al). Pound (for example) was never really accepted by a wider public in the way that Picasso (for instance) was. Discuss, as they say. I'm also wary of going into too uch detail, given the widespread resistance to giving away too much in a wiki article, or, heaven forfend, using hard words that Homer Simpso would not know. And anything that smacks of 'original research' (preferring, as we do, the unoriginal type). And the page is now quite long (29267 bytes). At least nobody has objected on the grounds that I need to add 4000 words on criticisms of modernism. Yet. Filiocht 14:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I should be more alert when responding to this, but here goes. I don't think Modernism has ended neatly, but I also don't think Romanticism did. There are a lot of elements of Romanticism that the Moderns sucked in wholesale. In particular, the view of the poet priest is pure Romantic, and the Moderns actually emphasized it over what the Victorians had done. Eliot and Pound and Yeats, and even Auden and Stevens, took turns with the lofty point of view where they would tell us What It All Means. That vates part of poetry is sometimes found in the Victorians, but it is largely abandoned by the supposed schools that came after the High Modernists (the Beats and the Black Mountain and Language and Surrealist poets). When I look at Heaney, I see a person who is very much a Modernist at times (Station Island is one of the finest poems I've read, and that whole volume has some classically Modernist poetry in it) but who is also retreating to a pre-Raphaelite stance betimes as well. The death of Modernism, as much as there was one, was a renunciation of the vates stance of the poet. The Beats and all since them (the Confessional Poets...if there were any) explicitly rejected the position of the Modernist poet as seer. They all retreated into private experience. In doing so, they didn't merely vanquish the sometimes "cosmic portentiousness" (Larkin's phrase) of Modernism, but they did something no one had ever done: they made poetry that was entirely without meaning to anyone but them. You don't find 18th, 17th, or 16th century poetry that is just about how much they, the poet, enjoyed a feather on a blackberry bush. Such vanity was unthinkable before 1945. These poets also wanted to kill the overly erudite poetry of Eliot and Pound, in particular, and so they spoke in what they called plain language, made the sound of the words the only thing in the poetry, and, instead of gaining audience thereby, precluded any audience whatever. They ended up with either amateur poetaster crap that anyone in the audience could have done or repetitions of a word over and over again that is fully as academic, and twice as inaccessible, as Eliot's expecting us to have all read The Golden Bough. Anyway, I'm a fan of Modernism, but I also see why the later generation rejected it. It's just that no alternative to it (except some folks like AR Ammons and Seamus Heaney when he behaves himself) has seemed worth a fig to me. Geogre 01:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theophilus

Theophilus got a bit more scandalous, I don't know if you noticed.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 14:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theo already has a modern ed of his plays (with Susannah), from 1981, with an intro, I bet that's got the trials in it, so your ilk can probably manage without reading a novel about them. Amazing the things these academic types will edit. I found the edition in the NCL and put it and this and that here (but don't hope for more juicy stuff). If you can figure just one more headline, I think Theo would grow a TOC, too. :-D --[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 16:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think there is a problem with a new heading. Once I read the 4 Book, I'm pretty sure that the Pope will have more to say about him. If he does, then we change the article slightly. The lead then runs to: "Theophilus Cibber (dates) was an actor, author, and playwright who was a controversial figure in his own day and the subject of celebrated scandals. Born to Colley... He began acting as early as 1721 [I think that fact is missing from the article now...I'll check & add it] at Drury Lane Theatre.... -Subhead 1- Early attacks Al Pope bashed him but good in 1732 (quote). By the time of the revised, Pope went into more detail about the supposed crimes against good taste of Theo (quotes) -Subhead 2- Trial Etc." That would do it. It would grow a TOC. Now, if there were pictures of him or a bit more detail, he would actually be a FAC. I think that the present "universally considered not good" could be rephrased, and a little discussion of the usefulness or uses of his accounts of previous poets (even if it's from Giles Jacob) and the amount of misinformation fostered by him, would push it up to a small FAC. Just an idea. Geogre 16:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't planning to put any actual work into Theo, myself. It's more as a joke that I've added a few random things to his article. (Incidentally, I did not add the sex scandal part, what do you take me for? It was right there, I just corrected it. It kind of hurt to see four glaring errors in two lines, even in an insignificant article, and also I knew the case had to be in Lawrence Stone's Road to Divorce, that I could touch by putting out my hand.) Shakespeare's reputation is the one I want to edit nicely in and do a bit of research on.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 19:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Back on Cibber pere for a moment, if you take a look at The Dunciad and go straight to "Cibber as King of Dunces," you'll see some material in overview, and then in detail, about P & C. I wouldn't paste all that over to the Colley article, but I might do a little of it. (I think it would take a box of caffeine tabs for anyone to read the whole of the article. It's definitely too finely grained, but I admit to being unable to cut much of it.) I think Theo could be an interesting article for anyone who did have a bio at hand, though it's not for me, as titilating as it is. Geogre 01:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mmmmmm.... donuts....

"Dunkin' Donuts University (DDU) was established in 1966. Every Dunkin' Donuts franchisee must pass an intensive program at DDU that teaches the process to make fresh, delicious products that customers have grown to expect."

Sounds like a notable educational institution to me. It has affected the lives of millions of Dunkin' Donuts customers. And two sentences should be plenty for an article, don't you think?

And after that, Hamburger University... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Dunkin Donuts University is a university in Miami" is about all you need, really. That will get 15 "keep! Extreme keep! Dpbsmith why do you keep trolling with nominating things for deletion. Create more great articles like this one instead of destroying!" I kept my poise for a long time, but this organized trollishness is beyond question. Someone, won't guess who, has managed to take several people who have written junk articles and gotten listed on VfD and organized them into a "Keep" block. Let's put it this way: any of those persons will have very few actual contributions to Wikipedia, and all their shouts about "building" ring hollow. Worst of all is the churlishness of their behavior. Grrrr. Geogre 04:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Cantos

Here's a bit of fun you might like to join in with. Not started by me, but I've added stuff. The lead needs work and there are still 115 more cantos to cover! Filiocht 09:10, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Bill's rep

Hi, I've written a new section about Bill on the stage vs. Bill the poet at Shakespeare's reputation, and shuffled the sections about and renamed them. Please check it out if you have the time.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 21:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have done. I did make a couple of minor wording changes. You can reverse them if you like, but they were strictly stylistic (except for the meteor). The one grammatical one was the "respectively," and that was one of choice. "In, respectively, 1725 and 1756" vs. "In 1725 and 1756, respectively," and I chose the latter because there had been a comma realtively near the "in" already, so I felt that it preserved the flow better not to offset the "respectively" before the years. It's a good distinction to make. What's implied, and I don't guess you want to be explicit with it, is that during the 18th century the very same time that sees people making studiously correct print copies sees them completely ignoring fidelity on the stage. I wrote the complaint Pope had about how the actors made changes, and you've elsewhere said that the happy ending Lear ran to 1830's, but completely changed versions ran during the 1730's-80's? I suppose so, and yet you'd think that the same editors who keep refining the texts would be bellowing about it. Geogre 21:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Implied?? :-( I was trying to make it really clear that, from the Restoration, you paradoxically have on the one hand textual infidelity on the stage, that gets worse as the years pass, and you have on the other hand editions that pay studious attention to textual criticism and collation and correctness, in order to try to reproduce Shakespeare's own words as closely as possible, and that get better as the years pass. (Hence, the "rift" widens.) And it looks like I didn't want to be explicit with that? It was supposed to be the fucking organizing principle of the whole section. Shit. I was working on it all day :-(. I'll have to start over, or let somebody else take over and make it explicit.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 01:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sheesh. Sorry. I did pick it up as the organizing principle, yes. There are two sections that present the contrast. The head does so, and there it's explicit. I wasn't talking about that, and I should have said so. It's in the 18th c. subhead that I meant that it was perhaps worth mentioning. The current 18th c. subhead talks about the appreciation for Shakespeare and the establishing of the texts. It's just easy to forget that that's the time also when the performance and printed texts are getting worse. As I recall, the first draft was meant to debunk the idea that the 18th c. kept mucking about while the Romantics rescued the Bard, so it still has that structure. If you don't mind, I'll insert a summary/amplification sentence. Feel free to cut it out, if you don't like it. Geogre 06:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You say the head (lead?) and the chronological 18th C section--"Restoration and 18th-c reputation"--present the contrast? I'm getting more nonplussed, sorry. What about the section immediately after the lead, that's called "Shakespeare on the stage and in the study", that's wholly devoted to an overview of the contrast, before the three chronological sections start? (Or do you refer to that one when saying "the head"?) Or weren't you talking about that one at all? What I was trying to say in my post above was that the staging/reading contrast was the organizing priniciple of that section. But you think there should be more about the contrast in the chronological 18th C section also...?
I suppose you saw the new stage/study section? It's pretty new, I'm wondering if you could have been reading a cached copy that didn't have it. Unless you just didn't think it was clear. Well, the hell with it, I have to go to Uppsala now. If the stage/study section doesn't work, I'll just abandon it. Maybe it was a bad idea. Going straight into the chronological account century by century might be a simpler and thereby better structure for the reader anyway. I'm all out of time.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 07:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've done all the correcting I thought needed doing. It's the Stage and study section where I thought it was perfectly clear. In the chronological section, I thought a small sentence that reminded the reader that the world wasn't set would help. I wrote the sentence. Geogre 14:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD - Nexum

Good afternoon, Geogre. Can I ask you to reconsider your vote to delete Nexum? I have been able to find evidence that it was a real concept in Roman law. The current contents are not much more than a definition and I would normally vote to [m:transwiki|]] but I think we should keep this one. I'd expand it myself if I understood the concept better. Rossami (talk) 21:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)