Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 13 February 2007

Talk archive 1, Talk archive 2, Talk archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18: Lots of heat Archive 19: After the fire, before the pan Archive 20: After the pan, before the vote Archive 21: Voting Archive 22: YAA

List of things with gaps

Essays

It's new! It's exciting! It's an idea whose time came months ago: The Tags and Boxes Player's Guide Continuation: The Demotion Idea. If RFA is "broken," let's not make it FUBAR: The RFA Derby It's newer! It's not exciting! Essay on Wiki Cults of Personality My attempt at impersonating Marshal MacLuhan: IRC considered Blocklogz, A Wikiwebi Comix: My first attempt at hip artwerkx.

New Messages

Restoration literature

Congratulations on the front page article - seems it's been listed for ages though. It's really nice to see an overview article of such quality there. It seems sometimes, that only the more marginal, niche articles can jump the hurdles, whilst the invaluable overviews get bogged down in disputes and difficulties - getting a single editorial 'voice' for these articles is a real achievement. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nice to see you, on the page where you belong . Rather than those less glamerous pages. Giano 11:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Murmurings about numbered citations on the talk page, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Bugger numbered citations Giano 12:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to Geogre and to everyone who contributed to the article. Newyorkbrad 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice article. As for the numbered citations, I'd find some helpful. Not the sentence-by-sentence numbering I know some people hate, but just something explaining which specific bits come from which specific book (or the one website) listed in the references. The bit about the beginnings of the novel as a written form in English reminded me of something I've been reading about Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, in the introduction by Tolkien of his translation, quoted at Sir Gawain and the Green Knight#The poet. In particular, the bits about how the Gawain poet's language did not survive, but Chaucer's language did, and how that shaped what came after (in particular, the loss of the alliterative verse form of poetry).

I notice at Talk:Restoration literature you say the following: "Please note that this article is part of an ambitious project related to English literature. That article contains brief summaries of each of the classic literary periods, a structure mirrored in most university classrooms and older encyclopedia, and this project is attempting to have a full length article on each "period" of English literature." - you then mention Augustan literature, and from the succession box at the bottom of the article, I see Romanticism is also included in that series (should it be?). I also see that Literature of the Commonwealth and Protectorate is a red link, so I can't see what comes before that.

Will the series go all the way back to the origins of English, looking at Middle English literature and even further back to Beowulf? I also looked around in Category:History of literature and Category:History of literature in the United Kingdom, and found Anglo-Saxon literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Elizabethan literature. Can all these articles be put together in a sequence to form a series box (also called a navigation box) to act as a contents list for the history of English literature? If so, that would be something to put in the articles, and might be more helpful than the 'succession box' currently at the bottom of the article. I guess what I am asking is what are these literary periods, and are they all ready yet? :-) Carcharoth 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean something like:

• * - subsection of overview article - not full article yet.
• ** - see also Elizabethan literature - placeholder awaiting material from overview article.
• *** - Add A-S and A-N literature to overview article for English literature.

(Table modified by Carcharoth 18:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

See also Template:History of literature. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's it! Modern literature is a dab, so I piped in History of modern literature instead. And I think you missed out Augustan literature. Does that go between Restoration and Romantic? I might add this to List of time periods and/or periodization as well. Thanks. I think you should make your little table there into a template and use it to string those articles together. Pity about the red links. Now, I wonder who could deal with those... :-) Carcharoth 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts, History of modern literature is really part of the History of literature series (which seems to be a global treatment of literature, rather than just English), so something else is needed there. English modern literature? In fact, the last three seem to need English stuck in front of them, but I don't really know enough about this to be sure. Also, as well as the three red links, Elizabethan literature is just a stub. At the moment, English Renaissance is the link found at English literature, and English_literature#Elizabethan_literature and English_literature#Jacobean_literature would be the seeds for the spin-off articles. Also, modernism and post-modern seem to be subsets of modern literature. Carcharoth 17:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Table modifed. Carcharoth 18:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just turned the articles that you mentioned, plus a few more I found, into a table. I have no idea which pigeonholes should or should not exist, nor which pigeons should be in which hole. But we probably ought to have something along these lines somewhere. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Temporarily here

I'm under orders to not sit at the computer today, so I can only be rebellious and typing briefly. About footnotes, it's frustrating. I wrote many of the blue links in the article. For example, I wrote Richard Blackmore. Now, that article has a reference that gives the whole. The facts there are used in Restoration literature, so I use links as citations. Rather than attempting to graft in all the references used in all the articles on all the figures discussed, I essentially used internal reference. On the other hand, as one person noticed (to my delight), I was trying to demonstrate what I like about a true encyclopedia article: the prohibition against original research in no way argues against having a thesis. An encyclopedia writer is not a clipping service: she or he is an editor and a thinker. Now, I may be a real expert on 1660-1750. I have real and legitimate points of views on these things, and, ultimately, the "proof" for many things is, well, "Read the book." I.e. "read Defoe's novels, all of them, and tell me if you don't agree that they're more based on journalistic biography than Romance" and "read all of Behn's novels and tell me if you don't agree that they're near the Romance more than the obituary biography." In other words, they're just true and not OR, because they're observations also made by other people, but all made in pieces here and there and over there and over there again, etc. They're commonplaces blended by the author. It's what I meant when I criticized the footnote police for wanting undergraduate research papers rather than encyclopedia articles. The nervous sophomore fears to say anything and hasn't sufficient experience to see much that the experts haven't said, in so many words. Print encyclopedias, on the other hand, call on professors to summarize and offer a thesis on the material.

About succession, I have just enough rage for order to like periodization. Let's start with British literature. Anglo-Saxon, early Middle English, Middle English, Tudor, Elizabethan, Jacobean, what is often called "17th century" but what is instead Commonwealth or Interregnum, Restoration, Augustan, "Age of Johnson," Romantic, Victorian, Edwardian, then we get splits with Modernist (Bloomsbury, Symbolist, Absurdist, Naturalist, Realist, Surrealist, etc.), Contemporary, Post-Modern. American literature has Colonial, 19th century, Modernist, Contemporary, Post-Modern. Irish literature has an Irish Twilight, Irish Renaissance, Modernist, etc. Commonwealth is the one I know least about. (N.b. this "commonwealth" is not the same as the other one. The first one is "The period of the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell," and this one is "literature of post-colonial Anglophone nations." It can include Canada, and it can not.) Like I said, I know least about that.

I felt like I had done my duty to the ages with the bulk of Restoration and all of Augustan literature, Augustan prose, Augustan drama, and Augustan poetry. I could do a couple of others, but I would be much more tentative and much less expert on them. Geogre 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposed change to NPA

I have to share this. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, yes, sort of. The objection is valid, but the conclusion doesn't quite follow.
• Let me digress for a minute. I remember, back in 1992 or so, writing an essay on "Political Correctness." I had been troubled for a few years by being accused of hate speech for using "girl" to refer to a female of my own age (mid-20's). I asked how it could be hateful, when it was intended to be a familiar and peer marker, and I was told that it didn't matter what I meant, because it could be heard as diminutive. I.e. a female hearing herself called "girl" must perforce interpret that word as "immature" and must therefore consider herself always an inferior. The logic is completely absent in that, but I figured that it was no skin off my nose to use "woman" instead of "girl" in all cases of all females over 13 years of age or all non-maidens. After all, if it would always be perceived, or if it might be perceived, as damaging, it cost me an extra syllable and saved me misunderstanding. Therefore, I had made a "PC" change to my language.
• In the early 1990's, all the current hate jocks on radio were screaming about how political correctness was invading American culture, and everything substantive on the liberal political agenda was being dismissed as "PC." I began thinking about what is PC, and how do we get to the absurd level, as well as what is "PC," and how is it such a delightful bauble for the right wing. I came to the following conclusion.
• When there is an utterance, we seem to have two ways we judge meaning. One is to ask the intent of the speaker. The other is to ask the perception of the target. A greasy old man says, "Nice bubs." They go to court. He says he meant it as a sincere compliment and not to make her feel uncomfortable. She says that she heard a dismissal of her value as a person and a demand for sex. Who's right? Well, once upon a time we gave credence to the speaker only. The project of "political correctness" was to give credence to the target.
• The fact is, both of those methods are indeterminate and useless. The truth is that humans never work in such a binary. What we really do is say that a word's meaning comes from the whole code of the language, and that is the society's aggregate interaction. In other words, don't ask the speaker or the listener. Ask the community. Ask the society. Look to twenty or thirty usages and their values. Then you can establish the expectations that both the speaker and the listener should have had.
• /digression. We don't have to take whatever bitter pills passersby want to shove down our throats. We should police those speech acts that are likely to cause a cessation of editing or a disruption of editing ability. After all, such speech acts are just like stalking and the rest in terms of their effect. However, to assess them we have to survey speech use. The problem here is that people don't really do that. They keep saying, "He had to mean..." or "She's a notorious X or Y, and so...."
• The problem is that policing speech acts doesn't mean blocking. It doesn't mean templates. It means negotiating, mediating, moderating, educating, and working. Most people can't understand or won't try to understand my position here, so I usually confine myself to just saying that NPA is not part of the blocking policy, that all it says is that it's nice to be nice and that it's not nice to not be nice. Geogre 04:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi from a stickybeak. When there is an utterance, we seem to have two ways we judge meaning. One is to ask the intent of the speaker. The other is to ask the perception of the target. Cf the illocutionary and perlocutionary force of a speech act. And as for maintaining civility, try this. -- Hoary 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Before I go offsite to check the ext. link, I'm glad to see other people have read some of the speech act people like Austin. What I think happens too often, here at any rate (to avoid making a sweeping generalization), is that people are so locked into "did you mean it/did you feel it" that they forget that both of those are unverifiable. In truth, communication is speaker and audience, but the medium (I'm one of those) is never transparent. More to the point, the very opacity of the medium (language), the very thickness of it, is what makes communication. People who ramble on about how language is a net of interreliant deferred significations, etc. are missing a big, obvious truth: language is the ongoing, continually manufactured, culture of a group. Neither speaker nor audience own it. (And some people throw tantrums when they find out that language has "infected" them with other peoples' thoughts.) Now I'm off to see those links.
• BTW, I very much dig talking about this stuff, but I'm probably still working on how to explain my little observation. Geogre 13:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (In re the external jump:) Ooooh, very nasty. I've seen some of the meanest, hottest disagreements between word warriors. I saw scholars actually get to the point of blows about whether "fuck" came into English in the 12th (and therefore sound Anglo-Saxon) or 14th (and Dutch) centuries. (It was hilarious to watch, truth be told, as they kept wanting to use the word under discussion. It was like watching three people handling guns get into a fistfight.) I disagree with the "civil" author there, or at least the way that he's going about it, but I'm hardly qualified. Very amusing donnish donnybrook. :-) Geogre 13:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I like I've been accused of a lot of dreadful things, but never of maintaining a civil tone. Pullum is usually great fun. It's a pity that recently he's been using a fly-swatter rather than the, um, whatever it was that he used to get Spock to "interview" Chomsky on the Enterprise, but still it's deeply gratifying to see him being repeatedly and deservedly dismissive (e.g. here) about Strunk and White's silly little book of "style". -- Hoary 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Oh, now that's too far! I'm beginning to smell British ethnocentrism. If H.L. Mencken were alive, and not a Nazi, he'd be a good one to call upon. Heck, White could have handled him. Strunk & White are a force of good in the world, but their disciples can be one of the pestillences of the apocalypse. It all depends on the sanity of the reader. The FAC reviewers who hold up their corporate style sheets as if they were Simplicity Pattern patterns (I hope that link has the old sewing company) are silly people who manage to be wicked by dint of their mass. Geogre 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • • Ha! I got to create a new article! Geogre 16:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me sewing is a hobby of yours!! :-) I'm guessing the connection is that author mentioned right at the end. Carcharoth 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the Welty connection, but I also remember my mother making her own clothes with Simplicity Patterns when I was a kid. I found that tissue paper irresistible and probably ruined some projects before she had a chance to give up on them. I've considered learning defensive sewing (an impoverished bachelor skill), but it went the way of most of my other "it's not as good as home brewing or having a girlfriend" hobbies. Geogre 04:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Mencken's a hilarious writer (The Impossible H. L. Mencken is a fine example, and a reminder of how impoverished US newspapers are these days, aside from the worthy Frank Rich and a few others). But I've never been tempted to read any instructions of his on how to write. I don't recall ever having read anything by White (let alone Strunk), except for S&W's silly book, which I gave up after ten or twenty pages; yet Pullum praises White as (elsewhere) an excellent writer who rightly ignored the silly strictures he cowrote with Strunk. Here is Pullum (with Brecht) on the matter. And this kind of thing is on my mind as I recently encountered yet another dim lightbulb slipping on banana-skins in his indignant allegation that AAVE is "rudimentary". -- Hoary 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure

George, did you also intend to delete your own post here?--Van helsing 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, but she's read it, and no one else was talking about it, so might as well have it deleted. Thanks for noticing, though. I frequently make mistakes, and with my own words they quite often aren't. Geogre 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Humble pie

On Bish's talk page, now archived, I derided Vertue saying that Moll Hackabout:

"..was sent to bridewell by Sr John Gonson Justice and her salivation and death."

Now I find that plate 5 does indeed show her "salivation", a cure for the clap prescribed by Richard Rock which involved treating the gums with mercury, causing the teeth to fall out. At least, that is what Uglow tells me. Moll's teeth are on a piece of paper marked Dr Rock to the right of the image. The "cure" caused much salivation, no doubt. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that cure is available at a knockdown price in Convent Garden in Morning of Four Times of the Day, though it is impossible to make out in the pics I got from the web. Yomangani 16:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OMG. Look at this website. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That rather takes away the need to do any research! (it even has the answer to my question about the bills in the rear of the Second Stage of Cruelty). Yomangani 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good page. The people she cites are some of the ones I have available (Shesgreen is the annotator to the Dover Thrift I have), but she doesn't catch all of them, so there is still good stuff you guys can get from your Uglow and Paulsons. I could still wish for higher resolutions, and her segmentation of the engravings means that we can't really use them. It's a very good page. The mercury cure was the cure for syphilis throughout the 18th century. The question was how you took it. There was a limit to how much you could take before dying, and so the "rub it on your gums" was presumably a way of getting around the limit. Needless to say, Moll is dying of mercury poisoning, and not syphilis, which takes years, if not decades, to kill. There are even theories that Chatterton died of accidental mercury overdose. The other treatment was, I think, arsenic, but mercury was far and away the most popular cure. In fact, doctors today, I think, still say that mercury is a cure for syphilis, although an inefficient and deadly one. Geogre 11:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong about the gum treatment - excess production of saliva, and softening of the gums (indeed, decay of the jaw bone), are both symptoms of mercury poisoning ("Humans or animals poisoned with mercury or its compounds often manifest excessive salivation, a condition called mercurial ptyalism" - what a posh word for drooling.). Perhaps I am mis-reading Uglow - I'll have to check again. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and "humble pie" comes from "numbles" (offal) -> "umbles" -> "humble". -- ALoan (Talk) 13:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Input requested

I would value your input here. --Ideogram 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Interested in giving me any pointers

I've taken time out of blocking people and deleting things, to actually write something. Just wondered if you'd be interested in taking a look? The treasure of Loch Arkaig --Doc 14:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally uninvited, but I still have Geogre's talk page watchlisted for whatever reason - fun article, I learned something today! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I will definitely take a look. I'm always happy to help with articles. We still need more of them (though maybe not so many on individual songs and "73 Tai Chi positions" and the like). Geogre 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!

On 27 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simplicity Pattern, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Savidan 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles on people in green burial movements

Thank you for weighing in. I'll probably bring it to AfD in a couple of days. // habj 14:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounding board

Is an external link to a Spainsh blog post (which, admittedly, looks rather interesting, if rather Spanish) on an English novelist worth keeping? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Me, I'd say not. Not because it's Spanish, but because it's Blogspot. I.e. it's purely amateur. For that matter, the novelist herself.... Oh, never mind: I won't start swinging my axe at the historical detective fiction genre.... I have enough people mad at me as it is. (Did you know there was one madman who wrote detective novels featuring Johnson and Boswell as an ersatz Holmes and Watson?) (It all reminds me of slash fiction.) Geogre 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought not too, but wanted to avoid WP:OWNership. The books are good, IMHO - they are quite short, so try one if you have not already - not serious fiction, of course, but life is about light and shade. I have not heard of the Johnson/Boswell novel. Not slash fiction I hope? ....

Anyway, you (or interested others) may like to chip in at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jack Sheppard or Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Four Stages of Cruelty. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Help! (not waving, but drowning) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks for the lifeline. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations -- to be delivered at your talk page too. Geogre 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Indio, California

Indio, California has a parking garage and an ice skating rink! Also a fashion mall which offers customers air conditioned shopping at department stores, boutiques and eateries. Also a famous date grower, one internationally known festival, and two world famous festivals. The Tamale Festival has quote marks round the words "world famous", though, so that probably makes it all right. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

• Oh, Lord! Nineteen winters do we suffer for our sins. Here I am, largely paralyzed by the old wound, waiting for a grail knight to come along and ask me a question, and the land goes to waste. Parsifal needs to hurry, for my powers are on the wane. What can we do when they weave their poisons into the flesh and graft their evil fruit onto good stock? Geogre 13:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes essay

Hi Geogre. I've recently been thinking more about infoboxes, and I feel an essay coming on. I've read your essay at User:Geogre/Templates, but I want to focus more specifically on infoboxes, and try and end up with a guideline in the Misplaced Pages namespace at Misplaced Pages:Infoboxes (currently a redirect to a list of infoboxes). There is stuff at Help:Infobox, but that should probably concentrate on technical aspects. I also looked at the manual of style, but there doesn't seem to be anything there. Some new thoughts on the matter of infoboxes is here (see also the other sections on that talk page) and here. See also User talk:Carcharoth#Infoboxing. Some of the points I want to cover is the need to draw an absolutely clear line between what should only be covered in an article, and what an infobox should attempt to portray. In effect, I feel they should be a summary of the most important, indisputable points, plus maybe a "see article" thing for critical disputed points, plus data not suited for the article (eg. chemical data and planetary data - though these could go in a subsidiary infobox further down the page), plus maybe machine parsable data (something I have seen others mention, as Google, it seems, are now parsing the infoboxes, though I am wary of mixing up database entry and article layout). The important thing is to clearly define the role of an infobox in relation to the lead of an article and the overall text of an article, and not have the roles overlap. Do you think you would have time to contribute to some of the discussions, or help write the essay/guideline? Carcharoth 12:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'll try, if I overcome my semi-retirement that I've been in the last week or so. The aim I had was to prevent the imposition of boxes that weren't needed, or at least guide discussions where a box is and is not wanted. Some things can be standardized, and some things can't. I don't think biographies can. I don't think that people are consistent, and so I oppose trying to make them so, and I also don't think works of literature are standard, either, except in the broadest possible sense. I.e. I'm concerned with the lack of process involved in applying them, the lack of agreement on them, and yet the seeming, "We have spoken: all shall be indexed" approach that the box fans were taking. If we were to allow inconsistent subjects to have a mask like a box, we'd really need to listen to the most skeptical person and include only those things that absolutely everyone agreed upon. E.g. for poetry, I might agree with "Romantic movement/Date/Language," but not "ballad" or "Revolutionary" or "Major works of William Wordsworth." A box with three fields would be lovely, and useless, because the categories would do the same thing. Geogre 12:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Yeah. I'd just noticed that the standard boilerplate that the biography wikiproject spam on the talkpages of 'their' articles asserts: "this article needs an infobox". I'm poised with the retort "no, it fucking well doesn't".--Doc 13:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just do what I do Doc, and quietly remove it I have done this many times and they have never noticed, or perhaps they are just too frightened to challenge me! Let me know if you want me to do one for you. Giano 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• "some might say that this article needs ... but I could not possibly comment" or "this article may need..." -- ALoan (Talk) 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• When Aloan I write a page that needs an info box, I will add it. That happy day has yet to arrive! Giano 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go and change 'needs' to 'may need', and while I'm at it, I've remembered Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes and WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article... I tried that once, but gave up around step 8 (after missing out step 4 of course). Carcharoth 17:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it was protected. I left a request, but I don't hold up much hope. Carcharoth 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have been so cynical. It has been changed! Carcharoth 23:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Doc about the biography infoboxes being overpressed. I've just remembered something else about infoboxes. Sometimes there is a tendancy to include parameters that will only apply to a small subset of the articles where the infobox is used, but then, when looking at the infobox, it becomes tricky to work out which articles are using the parameter, and which aren't. Have a look at Template talk:Infobox Writer#Magnum Opus for how I generated a list of articles that used the 'magnum opus' parameter. I used a category-based system, but CBD suggested an 'invisible link' method that is much less intrusive, and gets the same results. The list ended up at User:Carcharoth/Magnum opus. The discussion at the talk page of the template ended up with another user just removing the parameter from the template. A random look at the pages on that list show that a lot of them still have the "magnum opus=something" bit, but obviously it doesn't display anymore. As the edit was not to the page, no-one who watchlisted the pages noticed, but equally they don't seem to have noticed it not being there when they read the infobox visually (if they do). Strange. Giano, I applaud your removal of a template from a page. Have you ever removed a parameter from a template and had it not challenged (yet)? Carcharoth 14:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WTF is a parameter in a template? Giano 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is like a database field. The things like "birth date", "name", "mother", "father, "name of pet", "number of fingers" - that sort of thing. Each of those is a 'parameter' in a template. You put in "9" for Frodo, and it will say "number of fingers = 9". To use a silly example. Carcharoth 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know the templates with multiple options? One of the citation templates, perhaps - {{cite web}}, for example? You can use the template with multiple "X=something, Y=somethingelse" entries:

{{cite web

| url =

| title =

| accessdate =

| accessmonthday =

| accessyear =

| author =

| last =

| first =

| authorlink =

| coauthors =

| date =

| year =

| month =

| format =

| work =

| publisher =

| pages =

| language =

| archiveurl =

| archivedate =

| quote =

}}

and it displays according to the ones you use. You also leave lots of them out as well or instead. Each of the "X=" and "Y=" things is a parameter. HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Far too complicated - you can sort that sort of thing out for me, by the way have you seen that award on my page that won't display - could you sort it for me?....please? Giano 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks complicated, but it is easy, really, like the ref thing, once you get used to it. I never bother with them myself, as it happens, although Yomangani seems to use them all the time. Shrug. Which award? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• The one that says "The Pleiades (photograph by Rochus Hess) are awarded to you for being a star. -- FClef (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)" but has no foto - go on ALoan sort it out for me - you are clever at things like that. Giano 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Strange. That category I created got got deleted. Can anyone have a look and remind me what I wrote there? The deleting admin seems to be on a wikibreak. I'm sure I explained there that the category shouldn't be deleted without having the courtesy to ask me first. But maybe I left a note saying delete if not needed. Can anyone around here confirm what the content of the deleted page was? Carcharoth 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted as a defunct empty category after it was depopulated. Before it was deleted, it said:

Category for people marked as having written a magnum opus in the Template Infobox Writer. The category was temporarily populated by adding ] to the magnum opus field "title section" in Template:Infobox Writer. See Template talk:Infobox Writer for details and the reason for carrying out this operation. The category was then depopulated by removing the tag, after the contents of the category had been copied and made into a list.

HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes are like cookie cutters — which are fine for cookies. Paul August ☎ 20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes yes yes and here we go again one of my least known and favourite pages, I know I don't own them, but I do spend ages trying to make them look attractive to read to drag the punters in - why do people do this? Giano 14:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What, Brympton House? ;) And AEJ Collins. Sigh. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoration literature

Restoration literature has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

-- mattb @ 2007-02-06T06:10Z

Ecomorphism

A student from Cornell claims to have invented a neologism - Ecomorphism, although this shows someone else claiming the term neither of them would pass notability criteria I'd have thought (and I wonder about the guys motive for writing it up on wikipedia) - so do I move to have it deleted and risk alienating a potentially good and otherwise capable architecture writer, or is there a wiser Geogre-like path to follow? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ecomorphism and left a pleasant message on his talk page. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• My feeling would be that it's best to reason with the author frankly. Just explain that we don't allow protologisms or even neologisms. If you speak to him as if he's a person who can handle the truth, he may turn out to be someone who can handle it. I think we go wrong both with the excessive delicacy of wikilove and much more commonly (since wikilove was last spotted on Misplaced Pages in 2004) the arrogant accusations of vandalism and the like. We definitely need more people editing in their strengths, but worthy contributors can understand our rules against original research.
• Dear X, I saw your article on Ecomorphism. Regardless of the term's origin or usage, we may not be able to have an article on it at this time. Misplaced Pages has pretty strong rules against original research (WP:NOR, if you want to read it), and we avoid any lexical matters in the encyclopedia anyway (since Wiktionary is our wiki dictionary). At the same time, we definitely welcome and respect solid edits from educated users on economics and architecture. Because of the policy against original research, I've listed your Ecomorphism at WP:AFD, as that's the process we use whenever there is an article that violates the deletion guidelines. Please stick around, be bold with editing, and don't take any of this personally. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. ~~~~
• That's about all I'd do. If he's going to freak out that his personal vanity must be stroked by the article, we don't need him, whatever his educational level, but most people aren't like that unless they feel like they're getting insulted by the AfD voters. Geogre 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have soaked up all of the wikilove - but Ecomorphic design seems to be a real thing - and plus many more more Google hits - the second has references going back to 1992. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Check again

Geogre, compare the timestamps for these edits:

• 07:41, February 7, 2007: LuciferMorgan's last edit to that page
• 09:38, February 7, 2007; your warning.

So this edit seems to be in error. Oh you English lit guys. Paul August ☎ 03:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• So he's just not posting to the page. In other words, he won't be nice, but he's not doing more. Ok. I don't want to start blocking people anyway. Geogre 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and "apologize or I'll block you" is not going to elicit a healthy change in behaviour.
  • If a block is ever required for Lucifer, I think it would do more harm than good if you instituted it, Geogre. Ask Yomangani, Kirill, or somebody else who is familiar with him but not involved in the shouting on FAR, to check his behaviour. Marskell 11:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • And I should add that I hope a block is never required for Lucifer. He does want to help out, despite being tempermental. Marskell 11:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, we are used to temperamental (with the emphasis on "temper" and "mental"). It is usually best to let people shoot their mouths off - it just makes them look silly. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with you, Marksell. I'm not very involved with that user. I haven't commented to him, I believe, on the FAR page. On the other hand, as strenuously as I argue against blocking for "NPA" and against "apologize or else," I argue for blocking anyone who demonstrates an ongoing effort at disrupting a page. For example, the user Ideogram may not curse, but he has shown a willingness to sidetrack discussions onto his favorite subject. That would make disruption, with or without NPA. (Fortunately, it hasn't fallen to me, because in that case I am involved.) What folks asked for, here, was not an apology, but a removal of the profanity and anger-interlaced comments. That's very different. I never expect "apologize or else" to do anything but increase the heat. Anyway, that's my view: the FAR was changing focus from the article to "how unhappy are you about things that have happened elsewhere and in the past?" That was disruptive. I can't imagine what all the "let's block Giano for saying he doesn't like IRC" people would do with those comments. Geogre 12:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I must be one of your favorite subjects, Geogre. --Ideogram 14:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just my favorite example, I'm afraid. Geogre 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll thank you to try to make your points in the future without using me as an example. But then, you never were any good at separating your personal animosities from what you were trying to say. You could have left my name out of it; instead here we are engaged in a meaningless conversation not at all related to your point. But if you want to continue, I am your loyal servant. --Ideogram 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, Bishonen did write "I'm willing to take an apology. A good one." I don't see that that will accomplish much. And while you're right that you haven't actually directed anything to him there, he won't perceive a block as even-handed. But disruption is disruption, as you suggest. We can only hope he is calm when coming back (he actually hasn't edited in a day).

• • And it was all predictable. When I saw the review go up, I hung my head. I actually posted first in the hopes of averting disaster. Alas. At least some people have had fun on the review talk page. Marskell 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bishonen was quite clearly referring to the attack on her integrity and reputation, an attack which was a tissue of lies. Nothing more, nothing less. She is quite within her rights to ask for a complete retraction. I am surprised people cannot see that simple fact, understand her reaction and support it. It is totally amazing that one can report the truth of hapenings on IRC and have half of wikipedia demented with rage, and a week later another editor can launch an attack based on nothing but lies and vitriol and no one seems to bat an eye. Giano 13:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this debate (when inline citations - by which I mean any form of inline citation, inote, footnote, Harvard or otherwise - are necessary, how many are necessary) has been going on for nearly 2 years - look at the links I posted, and the comments by Filiocht (of blessed memory) in 2005. Short of policy being imposed like a deus ex machina, I doubt this issue is going to be resolve any time soon, particularly by a featured article review.

Yes, the allegations against Bishonen were patently false, as anyone who knows anything about her knows; on that basis, the allegations just made the allegeor look angry and daft. I'm sure Bish is quite upset, and completely understanad and agree with her polite request for an apology and a retraction. On the other hand, I would not support a block if they were not forthcoming - I thought we were against banning people for speaking their mind, or as a punishment, or to help them "cool off"? So long as a person can be reasoned with, and they are not being too disruptice, surely it is better to change their mind than to silence them? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct ALoan, I am against people being blocked for speaking their mind. People telling blatent lies in order to damage the reputation of another in an attempt to win an argument is quite another matter. There is no doubt he is deliberatly lying (diffs are easy ti find) - therefore a retraction is necessary. Giano 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey I've just noticed they've done something to cite.php - you can now define the citation anywhere in the article and then list the additional citations as you please - all of the old, ridiculous slog of writing the first occurance of the citation in full has gone - yipee! Christ, it must be time for a wikibreak...........--Mcginnly | Natter 13:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting an apology isn't warranted: Lucifer was totally off it in his posts, while Bishonen's first post was totally amiable. I'm only suggesting that actually asking for an apology isn't going to accomplish anything with such a volatile editor. If he posts the little olive branch imagine on her page, great; if he comes back and starts cursing at everybody, he probably will get a block; if it's silence or respectful, on-topic disagreement, let's let the dog sleep.

As for the IRC issue, I have not followed it, will not follow it, and am indifferent when hearing it described. I could care less—in the best sense of the phrase. (That means, in part, that I have no pre-judgements regarding any of the editors talking here). Marskell 14:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The IRC issue shouldn't be at play. There is a rather hopeless tangle of "Giano is a bad person," "Tony Sidaway got blocked?!," "Kelly Martin got indicted?!," "Giano is a bad person," "IRC is a fun place to organize blocks," "Geogre said something about Kelly Martin and must die," "Why can't we block Giano without warning," "NPA is the law and it means blocks," and about a dozen other things all flowing together, and this "catastraf*ck" (quoting Jon Stewart on Iraq) gets called a bunch of different things. None of them are meaningfully referring, though.

For me, there are two large axes: NPA and IRC. For some people, NPA has silently come to mean, "Make a comment that I can interpret as mean, and I can block you." Under that illogic, several people have gotten blocks. I disagreed with NPA ever getting formulated, much less being called a policy. As it is, though, it does not read as its first authors wished it to read. It says that we don't flame each other and that in a very extreme case a block could possibly result. I have never blocked for personal attacks and do not anticipate doing so, although I can always make room for an extrarordinary case. Tony Sidaway blocked Giano for, essentially, disagreeing (there wasn't even a witticism involved), then blocked again to "cool off." That got Tony blocked. That then set off a storm of navel gazing and incrimination that, one way or another, continues to this day.

The other issue, IRC, is also not as new as the hostilities show. I and others don't like IRC for official communication or official actions. I think it's fine for chattering. When an "admins only" IRC channel was proposed, I opposed it. I still do. When that channel was used to propose, justify, and gather up an executor of a block, with nothing written on the Misplaced Pages, it set off another storm. The fact that some of the people involved were the same ones as the previous case just allowed for a massive pile on. There's no reason for it to be invoked here, much less discussed.

Anyway, I think Bishonen has a right to ask him to retract his statement, but I never read it as "retract or I'll block you": it looked more like "retract it or be an evil and unfit person who will have earned enmity of an innocent bystander." What's irksome is that Bishonen, Giano, and I, and certainly we and ALoan, Paul August, Filiocht (of sacred memory), Bunchofgrapes, and any other one cares to name don't work to watch each others' backs. We disagree with each other visibly and vocally. We do not demand unanimity. We do tend to agree on what articles are well written, but I think that has to do with other factors. (See ALoan and Mcginnly happy about footnoting systems, up there? Bishonen's FA's use footnotes. I think I'm an army of one when it comes to loathing them.) I saw LuciferMorgan's comments as an attempt to wave a flag and try to gather up allies and infect the discussion with a "Giano/IRC/Bishonen/you're-all-friends" bit of nonsense. (Sorry for going long. I have a to-the-point comment about the FAR to make, but I suppose I'll make it on your talk page.) Geogre 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"The IRC issue shouldn't be at play". I was thinking "I could care less" covered that. Marskell 22:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb 8

I'm consumed with the death of A.N. Smith this evening. Can you believe it?

Regarding people who are long dead, and writing articles about them and having them FACed and then having them FARed and lets everybody waste time, I have e-mailed you; I would actually prefer to talk in the e-mail forum. As I say in my e-mail, this is a lot of shit for me as much as it is you for you. Marskell 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe it either. --Ideogram 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Vox

May I ask why "the Vox" article was deleted? Thank you for your help. Tydalwave1 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Tydalwave1

It was a local concern. In other words, by being merely a local favorite or locally significant venue, it failed our minimum requirements of "notability." It was no hostility, but rather an assessment that the article made no claim for the venue's wider significance. Even being the only club in town wouldn't establish such a thing. What separates this venue from all others? What makes it an entry in an encyclopedia rather than in a business listing? Geogre 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

RestLit and footies

Forget my note two threads up, and my e-mail if you like, which were written after the vodka ran out. If you're willing "to satisfy the FAR people by using annotative footnotes" we don't need e-mails. I was just looking for a way avoid six people talking at once. So yes, I was thinking "discussed in..." notes, but for the secondary sources, as well as the primary: "...located in his Siege of Rhodes. For a full examination of Davenant's style, see Smith, chapter 3..."

In the references there are specific works that a reader can match to a primary author, such as the bios for Behn and the curious Robert Gould. But how are, say, A Handbook to Literature and The Creation of the Modern World being used? I'm assuming those are massive tomes; it's fair to at least point to chapters that were read in drawing up the page in a footnote or two. I've written to Bishonen that this isn't just window dressing. Your average college student could actually use a page like this for a honeypot of sources. He or she probably already knows The Pilgrim's Progress is "an allegory of personal salvation and a guide to the Christian life" but where to find more info? I know, I know, the blue links are there, but as far as FAR goes, pointing to the blue links is asking people to trust that Geogre wrote and is maintaining all of them...

As for size, "comprehensiveness, not length" is the mantra. Sandy suggests people avoid more than 40k of article prose per WP:SIZE or one of the other guidelines (there's some script that can be run to tally main prose separate from overhead), but there are no hard rules. Marskell 09:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'll look into annotating, but the thing is length, again. It's already a very long article. I would like to annotate and give the readers some clues, if they need them, to at least indicate where in an author's work the information is. I'm not sure about digging page numbers, though. I will if I can, but I'll go to chapters if we're talking about critical commonplaces. Geogre 03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I know you don't like the footnotes, but if you note "See Rosen, Ancients and Morderns chapter 10, for more on..." in footnote form, no one concerned about length will count it toward the core prose. And at a glance, I'd say this one is long, but not unusually so for an FA. A few extra KB is an easy trade-off to have a good settlement we can point to in future. Augustan literature, Restoration comedy, the Cantos (noted on Bishonen's talk)—inevitably, these are going to land on FAR because of some random nominator. I would be stupendously delighted if, rather than having a week of flame posts, we could just say "see what was done at Restoration Lit. No biggie."

• • The other issue is your time and internet access. We've left FARs up as long as ten weeks. You can always leave a note on the review detailing when you can work. Marskell 12:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Something beginning with C

Perhaps a compliment, or perhaps another C: I have noticed this kind of thing with my some of my biography articles before and kept quiet about it:

Compare my article on Elisabeth Rivers-Bulkeley with an article published in The Herald yesterday. Now, my article was admittedly sourced from the obits in The Daily Telegraph and a report - now subscription required - in The Financial Times, but, hopefully in sufficiently different words to avoid the charge of copyvio (there are only so many ways of reporting the same bare facts); however, many turns of phrase in the Herald article come directly from mine. The Herald article also has some original reporting, and, to complete the circle, I have added it as a source, as it broke the news that she was assisted to commit suicide in Switzerland, but even so... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone's copying someone. "she remarried, to Robert Rivers-Bulkeley, shortly after he retired from the Scots Guards" "Her father was a car manufacturer with anti-Nazi views. He disappeared in around 1942, and could not be located after the end of the Second World War. Her mother survived ..." "visited England in 1938 with the intention of returning to school in Switzerland but remained in England after Germany invaded . She was classed as an enemy alien in 1940 " (Which raises a question for me, which country did Germany invade? Switzerland, or England. Either would be news to me.) "She became a successful broker and also wrote columns of investment and financial management advice for women for the Daily Telegraph, undertook lecture tours and was a guest on Woman's Hour on BBC Radio 4 and The Money Programme on BBC TV." And that's just by eyeball till I got tired of it. Anyone have access to turn it in? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Of course you're being ripped off. The problem is that we're GFDL. Therefore, The Herald can rip us off all it likes, if it gives us credit and does not charge. Newspapers crib from each other by habit and practice, and they crib from encyclopedias without reference all the time. It was only a matter of a few seconds before we became the ripped. Can you turn them in? I suppose. The person to turn them in to, though, would be Foundation folks. Perhaps we could ask them for a contribution. Your words are echoed all over the web, now. If you do a Google search, you will find about 50 to 100 of our mirrors out there carrying exactly your words. It's possible that one of those was the immediate source. It is important, of course, for you to document which came first, at least for yourself, on the talk page to the article so that no one in the future accuses us/it of being the copyist. Geogre 11:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I cribbed my article from the sources cited in the article - compare my article to the Telegraph obit - but I try to only copy the facts and write them in my own way (often rather difficult, when you get down to bare facts). The Herald has a byline - Lucy Adams, Home Affairs Correspondent. I had not noticed the "...visited England in 1938 with the intention of returning to school in Switzerland but remained in England after Germany invaded"(!) (our article ends "...remained in England after Germany invaded Austria" - looks like a sloppy cut and paste to me).

I don't mind Misplaced Pages being scraped - most of them tell the reader that the content originally came from Misplaced Pages. I do mind when my words appear under someone else's byline. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Imitation and all that is the sincerest form of flattery, I'm just concerned nobody seems to want to copy me! Giano 12:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh - have you seen versions of Dürer's Rhinoceros in French, German and Spanish? <smug>

Anyway, the timing in this case is pretty clear: I created my article on 16 January, sourced from the Telegraph obit and the FT piece; it was a Main Page DYK on 21 January; and the Herald piece was published yesterday, 8 February. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is plagerism plain and simple. An email poiting this out to the editors of The Herald would be the thing. Paul August ☎ 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have not sent an e-mail yet - is there a central place I should be reporting this sort of thing? (Remarkably, The Times only got around to publishing an obit today - I wonder if they were waiting for the assisted suicide to come to become public knowledge...?) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

LM

At the risk of starting the blaze again, I wanted to reply to a couple of comments that you made (and others) on LM's talk page, but did not want to awaken the hornets nest there again. Given that you raised most of the points I wanted to reply to, I have resorted to dumping it here.

• First, and most importantly, I think the only substantial piece of unfinished business is that LM ought to do something about the initial accusation which triggered the debate, on the FAR page, as Paul August has requested. I have already added a comment to the FAR, but it would be so much better for LM to strike the comments from the record.
• LM's behaviour on the FAR (casting wild accusations and being very uncivil) was indeed very bad. Very much more and I would have supported a block - for disruption, not for simply saying bad things. I agree with LM, actually, that it would have been best to bring the issue to the attention of an uninvolved admin on ANI, rather than you or Bish or I (or Raul654 for that matter) blocking. There is a time for kicking over the traces - particularly when the kicks are aimed accurately, as we have seen in the near past - but it is a risky strategy, particular if the kicks are not so well aimed.
• As you say, Giano does indeed have a point about the e-mails - it is very much to be regretted that some people seem to be, in Giano's words, "emailing unsolicited lies and venom about their own particular enemy of the day". However, I doubt that further messages on LM's talk page will elicit any information about the source those e-mails (although I am sure we can all hazard guesses as to their origin) and it could very well drive LM away from the project. I would not want to be a part of precipitating the latter.
• Given Sandy's subsequent message to me, I am not entirely sure who she thought were the "poking" admins (you? Paul August? Raul654? Giano, even though he is not an admin?). Not a very nice characterisation, who ever she was talking about. But I do understand her point about stopping. These disputes have a tendancy to burn out of control, spreading uncontrollably across multiple pages as each reader has to add their own cup of gasoline to the bonfire. Eventually someone has to reach for the off button. That was what I was trying to achieve with my messages to Giano. I could not see anything good coming out of going back and forth again and again. I think that is also why she deleted Giano's posts to her talk page - she just had no inclination to discuss the issue any more - although it may have been more productive to simply say so.
• Yes, as has been pointed out, LessHeard vanU was grossly uncivil in asking Sandy to "fuck off". I understand that they reached an understanding about that without outside interference - perhaps there are lessons to be learned in how quickly that potential flash-point was resolved.

Anyway, it looks like this is blowing/has blown over for now. Sigh. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot agree with you, ALoan. I wish the I could, but I cannot, because, fundamentally, I saw LM's comments as an attempt at massive disruption that failed. His comments about Giano, Bishonen, and "intimidation" seemed to be an effort at flagging down the general "Giano must be banned" crowd. I.e. it looked like an attempt at dragging in not only extraneous, but vindictive elements to turn the FAR page into yet another intestine-gnawing fight. I don't regard LM as a very high profile problem. Neither do I care much about Sandy.
• I do think that Sandy's efforts at instituting a regime of footnotes without review or consideration is a way of stopping FA's altogether without helping them, but for her herself, I really don't care. Therefore, I regard myself as unconnected. LM did not insult me, and I didn't insult him. The fact that I agree with Giano doesn't impugn my judgment, and I think it's a ridiculous precedent to set to say that people in agreement automatically forfeit their objectivity. At least I do not. If James Forrester needn't recuse when it comes to the en.admins.irc channel, then surely recusal is not a high priority.
• Sandy's comments about "poking" was, of course, dismissive and insulting, as was her refusal to answer a polite query from Giano, as she made a comment directly about him and then would not explain herself. Giano was following the recommended steps in dispute resolution. She was not. I should not care for it to continue, but another way for it to cease is for the person alledging the demotable offense by Bishonen to retract that statement. It stops then. Another is for Sandy not to make unjustified comments about the personalities of other editors and administrators.
• My concern was solely that LM was attempting to disrupt the project significantly. The attempt failed, and I'm glad of that. However, if I feel that he is again attempting disruption, I will block him for that. I don't care about the dirty words, but shouting, "Fight! Fight!" and trying to arrange a rumble is disruption. The rumble didn't materialize (for once), but the user needs a strong and unalloyed warning about the attempt. That is what I was offering, and having it second-guessed was off-putting. Geogre 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Well, the remarks on the FAR certainly seemed to me like an attempt at disruption, although it thankfully petered ou, but I saw it as railing at the result of the Palladian Architecture FAR rather than invoking "Giano" as a call to arms (the responses to Marskell were just as bitter as those to Giano or you). If the usual suspects had been interested, I am sure they would have turned up in force.
• Neither LM nor Sandy are particularly high profile, but they are two of the more active participants at FAR, and it is a necessary process (some of the articles under review are quite shocking). The best that can happen - and it happens reasonably frequently these days - is that an article is brushed up meet everyone's requirements - look at Parliament Acts or Anne of Great Britain.
• When it comes to blocks, I think the blocker's motive needs to be beyond reproach. We have all seen what happens when that is not the case. I know that it is a frequent refrain of the blocked that the blocker is somehow involved (often simply by virtue of having reverted a case of vandalism or having given a warning first) but this does not seem to me like such a simple case (where the objection can be dismissed out of hand). In any event, outside review is helpful. Perhaps my qualms about blocking are why I don't do it very often. Anyway, there is not much point debating the hypothetical.
• As I said, I thought Sandy should have given a short response to Giano, rather than just removing his comments (and the edit summaries were less than helpful). But it is surely possible to comment on a matter, and then withdraw from further discussion. There is no obligation on an editor to talk to another editor. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no obligation to talk to another editor, as such. But to offer a drive-by attack while simultaneously declaring the subject closed is surely a poor way of not-talking. So are dramatic edit summaries about how aloof from "drama" one is.

Anyhow. Geogre, you seem to be saying conflict continues because LM's accusations about me committing de-sysoppable offenses are still up on the FAR page? In that case it really shouldn't continue, because I can't say I'm bothered. It was nice of LM to write to me on my page and withdraw what he'd said, there's no need for him to do anything more. The FAR issue is over as far as I'm concerned, it's fine. Don't worry about it, Lucifer. Geogre, it's very sweet of you and Paul August to be concerned for my rep, but I have a hard time imagining a situation where it would matter. If I had a dime for every time I've been called something de-sysoppable... This site is full of hasty accusations, most of them still sitting on the pages where they were first posted. Heck, the last person I blocked, a few days ago, informed me on their page that I'm so flagrantly biased it's impossible to take me seriously. Is that eating away at my peace of mind and my good admin name? Nah.

That said, I can easily understand that Giano, in contrast to me, is still angry about what went down on FAR and elsewhere. Is it open season on him or something? Neither SandyGeorgia nor LM have withdrawn any of the attacks against him. So, he can't be de-sysopped because he's not a sysop—does that mean insulting him is more acceptable than insulting me? It shouldn't. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Of course it is not open season on Giano. Yomangani, KillerChihuahua and Kirill Lokshin complained about the tone of LM's remarks immediately in the FAR. I was not around until about 10am on the morning on the 7th, by which time Geogre and Marskell were already on LM's talk page. Later, after your request for an apology, I added a comment saying that an apology was due, as the allegations (towards you and Giano) were blatantly untrue. Would Giano like an apology too? Perhaps he should ask for one, like you did.

My concern on the 10th was that the focus of the dispute seemed to be slipping from LM to Sandy. Sandy's initial comment was to complain about "five, six (I've lost count) admins poke at Lucifer"; she then complained about her comment being moved (which it was). There was no need for Giano's comeback "If you bother to check the history the only person who has moved your post is you" (also wrong, actually - LessHeard vanU did it, as he admitted, before regrettably launching into his own tirade). He has since apologised to Marskell and to you. It would be nice if LM apologised to everyone he attacked, including Giano. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Me? Ask for an apology? You take that back, young man! :-P I most certainly did not ask for an apology. (I did request a retraction.). Marskell, you, and Yomangani asked LM to apologize to me; *I* didn't. Not wanting to sound ungrateful here—I did appreciate the support—but I'm still unpleasantly struck by the contrast, whereby nobody asked LM to apologize to Giano, his prime target. If anybody did, I can't find it. That contrast is why I conclude it's open season on Giano. What happened to Defend each other? ""Model Desired Behavior: if someone else is attacked, defend them." Bishonen | talk 18:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Take a look ALoan Giano 16:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I had to check twice, to make sure my eyes were not deceiving me, but surely that is LessHeard vanU moving comments from above Sandy to below Sandy (giving the impression that Sandy's comments have been moved)? Just as I said above? Or am I missing something? If so, can you please point out what it is? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a technical point - the diff shows Sandy's comment as staying still while the comments above it are moved down, but it could just as well show her comment being moved up (it's a display decision in the coding). The page was rearranged around her comment, which gives the impression of moving it. Agreed, it would have been better if she hadn't gone off on one as a result, but I think that was amicably resolved between her and the mover/rearranger. (I'm not poking, just pointing). Yomangani 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes ALoan, very clever!!! That is what I have been attempting to explain to Sandy after her ranting and reverting, insulting edit summaries, and not engaging the only person who moved her comment was Sandy herself. Consequently she left my response to her which had been underneath it - high and dry. Of course Sandy could have read this edit here , I even politely drew her attention to it would have been a good idea but Sandy kept reverted all mention if it with the summary that I was baiting. I wonder why? Giano 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking at cross-purposes? LessHeard vanU moved some comments down (or, as Yomangani correctly points out, given that you can only discern relative changes from the diff, entirely equivalently, moved Sandy's up) ; that annoyed Sandy, who moved her comment back (or, I suppose, per Yomangani, put the other comments back above her comment and moved the ones that had been below her comment above it, leaving then "high and dry", as Giano says) Gosh, the limitations of written communication. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

NO ALoan wrong again. She was moving her comment well away from its orininal place and away from my response to it posted underneath it Giano 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we try to agree chronology? (I have left a few comments that I don't think are material out, but we can add them back if it helps.)

1. 00:49, 10 February 2007 - Sandy posted her "poke" comment
2. 06:54, 10 February 2007 - Giano replied to it re "drip fed poison"
3. 12:10, 10 February 2007 - LessHeard vanU moved something (earlier comments down, or other comments up)
4. 16:35, 10 February 2007 - Sandy reunited her comment (but not the replies to it) with the earlier ones
5. 17:01, 10 February 2007 - Giano told Sandy to check the edit history
6. 17:02, 10 February 2007 - Giano posted on Sandy's talk page asking her to look back at LM's talk page
7. 17:05, 10 February 2007 - Sandy deleted Giano's comment on her talk page ("remove baiting, not interested in the drama, pls locate the stop button")
8. 17:48, 10 February 2007 - LessHeard vanU admitted to moving Sandy's comment
9. 20:54, 10 February 2007 - Giano posted again to Sandy' talk page
10. 20:56, 10 February 2007 - Sandy removed Giano's second comment on her talk page ("rmv, stop button")
11. 22:44, 10 February 2007 - Giano posted again to Sandy's talk page
12. 22:48, 10 February 2007 - Sandy removed Giano's third comment to her talk page ("stop interrupting work")
13. 22:59, 10 February 2007 - Giano posted to LM's talk page, referring to his deleted comments on Sandy's talk page
14. 23:08, 10 February 2007 - ALoan asked Giano to stop

Yes/no? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PS - sorry, Geogre, for using up so much of your talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One simple way to look at it: the sig Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC) immediately preceeds Sandy's posting both initially and in the disputed edit. She did, as ALoan says, reunite her comment with its original position. Marskell 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day: Sandy's comment was stationary until SANDY moved it OK? Giano 17:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really - Sandy's comment effectively moved up when the comments above it were moved down (the diff shows it staying in the same place, but it moved up relative to the comments that the diff shows moving down). Sandy clearly thought it had been moved, as did LessHeard vanU, and she wanted it put back where she thought she had put it. Perhaps the replies to her comments should be moved down too in LM's talk page archive?

Anyway, surely this "you moved it" "no you moved it" is a sideshow from the main event, which is the FAR and LM's comments there? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No you are trying to sidetrack the issue, the issue is that Sandy's comment remained exactly where she placed it until she moved it. When this was pointed out to her she was insolent and insulting. Giano 18:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I hope you attention to Sandy's edits has not caused you to miss Bishonen's very astute edits above Giano 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's "the FAR and the article itself." LM's comments were a sideshow to begin with, and we're now off-off-Broadway. And no, there's simply no way to deduce "that Sandy's comment was stationary until Sandy moved it." Another user moved it; that user admitted to moving it and has offered his own apologies (and has politely requested nobody refer to him). Marskell 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if this is how the FARC page is run - I,for one, have no intention of visiting FARC or whatever it is currently called again, untill someone has cleaned that page and its inhbitants itself up. Quite frankly Sandy and Lucifer can stew down there together - they can just grab what featured articles they like and do to them what they like - invent what rules and templates they like, someone else can endure and deal with their beahaviour. They throughly deserve each other. Giano 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But that would involve me taking the hemlock (or the Mister Clean, at least). I can only suggest going to the FAR archives and looking at the five dozen keeps over the last seven months. If content improvement of that sort constitutes stewing, throw me in the pot and call me a carrot. It's a shame you've only seen difficult ones. Marskell 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you Marskell are an exceptionly nice exception. However, I shall just continue writing, ensuring that not one word of mine ever has again the remotest possibility of ending up that place, and there is only one way to be quite sure of that - avoiding the whole FA circus altogether. Anyhow I'm done with this now <very Roman shrug and sneer> Giano 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

FA FAC FAR FARC

I used to enjoy the FA process. There was a time when I spent considerable time there. That's how I met Filiocht, and Geogre and Bish, and ALoan and others of that ilk. I used to go to AfD (then called VfD) to work in what I considered the "basement" and when I'd had all I could stomach down there, climb the stairs up into the ivory tower to work on FA's. That seems long ago now, and I never go to FAC anymore, and only very rarely go to FARC to "defend" or "preserve" one of "my" FAs. I don't think I will do even that anymore. Perhaps we should reinstitute "Brilliant prose"? Paul August ☎ 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes

Just seen John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough on FAC here. It is written from a military standpoint, but balanced by an overview of the political intrigue. I am sure there are many areas that could be addressed in more detail. I have given some comments, but perhaps you have a few dimes to add (2 cents may be insufficient). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, my goodness! Does the author appreciate why it's impossible? There is a new biography written every year, just about, and each of them is panned by some/most reviewers because none of them can manage, in book length, a fair representation of Marlborough in each sphere. He's such a different person with the Queen, with Godolphin, with the Opposition, with Walpole, with the Hanoverians, with His Wife, with his troops, with his political aspirations, with his money, with his letters, that trying to contain all of that disparate, divergent coverage in any article that doesn't spawn daughter after daughter is just impossible. I will read with charity, though, and hope that it's a short article that hints all the explosive discussion rather than attempts to fairly represent it all. Geogre 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)