Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 08:36, 2 July 2007 (→A pox on the assessment drive: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Oh, more IRC bashing from an IRC hater, etc. You know -- just whining from a luzer.: People are still getting blocked by "unanimous" IRC consent. So You Wanna Be An Edit Warrior? An essay on how to tell if you may already have the qualifications to be an edit warrior and not even know it!

New Messages

Talk archives

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

I've been maligned, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt

Aw crap. Have I been maligned and missed it? Is there a userbox for that or something? Friday (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was following behind someone and saw this, so that's what I call derision. Malignity... Well, it's sure more benighted than benign. (Ooooh, a 5 point pun, too!) Geogre 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on a protected page

Geogre, just because you can edit a protected page, it does not mean you should, when it's been protected for a good reason. Please discuss changes on the talk page like everyone else has to. Neil ╦ 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The page was degenerating into an edit war. Protection is commonly used to stop these things, and admins don't usually have to go through the steps you suggested - it's usually "protect the page for 24 hours and urge the editors to discuss their changes on the talk page". Unfortunately, many admins believe that they must get that one last edit in so the page looks as they want it to, even if the page is protected. You've been around forever, Geogre. Imagine there was a page (that you weren't slightly invested in) being edit warred over by admins - what would you have done? I didn't mean to come across as imperious, but I probably was abrupt. Sorry for that. Neil ╦ 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I do agree on your opinion of en-admins (I won't repat myself, so just see Giano's talk page). Neil ╦ 21:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Geogre/IRC considered

Somehow or other, I hadn't run across this page, before -- having glanced over it, I'd have to say that you actually bring up some good points. I notice a slight emphasis on the disadvantages over the advantages, but I suppose any reform suggestion would probably do that. Your major conclusions, at least as guidelines, could be quite helpful. I've wondered about several topics you mention (the lensing effect, for one), previously. If I might presume to make one small suggestion, perhaps changing "inherent corruption" (disadvantage #6) to "inherent potential for corruption" would be easier to demonstrate empirically; if you're looking to make a strong statement, though, feel free. Haven't had a chance to read Kylu's parallel edition, yet, as I've got to head out on a social call. Just out of curiousity, did you have any particular plans or direction for this? I know you've mentioned the possibility of an RfC, at least once. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I said "inherent corruption," I meant that it was built in, that the medium, simply by virtue of the way it operates as intended, is "corrupt." The licensed term is "corruption," really, rather than "inherent," because I was using the term the way that Transparency International does: opacity of process and lack of accountability. By most definitions of "government corruption," "being unaccountable" and "not being transparent in decisions" is key, so that's how I was using the term. We could only overcome this part of the corruption -- the corruption that is entailed the moment we use IRC for any decision making -- only by having public logging or every single person on the channel (at the same time). Because both of those are impossible at present, deciding anything by IRC is corrupt. That isn't meant to say that the people are corrupt, but the process is.

Thanks for the compliment. I hope that even those most ardently against my position will at least admit that I was thinking the matter through and trying to argue honestly.

I believe that an actual "guideline for behavior" would be useful, but only (argh!) if there were some way of ensuring that it was followed, or that there were consequences for not following it. At present, some of the policemen of admins.irc, at any rate, are mistrusted, to put it politely, and they (some of them) have said that they do not believe that they are accountable to any Misplaced Pages or Wiki Media generated guideline at all. This has been a consistent hard line held by both James Forrester and David Gerrard. That is what has hardened people into taking potshots -- at least from my point of view. Geogre 02:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also hasten to point out that I have absolutely no doubt that 95% of the time that particular channel is just chatting away or silent. I do not think that people go there to be evil, or that people who go there are evil (at least not by virtue of that), but the 5% of over-the-line stuff is aggravating because it's an itch we can't scratch, an error we can't correct, and, most of all, because it's a force multiplying error. When people say -- and they have -- "I had unanimous consent for the block on IRC," that's not only a sign of a bad admin, but it's a sign of how easy it is to be mislead by the echo chamber of IRC.

I could add, by the way, other things that aggravate the problems with IRC, and chief among them would be the echo chamber effect, but it's not really necessary. Geogre 02:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, since I don't read all the relevant pages (and don't really want to) and don't hang with the right crowd (and...), but it seems to me that there has been a bit less "I had consent on IRC" lately. I'm going to guess that the noise (rude, loud, polite, quiet, no matter what form) several editors (I could single out two) have made about IRC - I'm going to guess that it is now a little embarassing to say "I had consent on IRC." That's a good start. The esay idea that if something is urgent, go to IRC to ask people to rush to AN/I, not to action, that will take a little longer. Jd2718 02:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There is less of that, yes. That is good, yes. However, I worked on the Harvey Gantt senatorial campaign in 1990, I suppose. He was ahead in the polls the night before the election. In fact, he was way ahead. It was going to be a landslide defeat for Jesse Helms. Helms won. It seems that few citizens of North Carolina would say they wouldn't vote for a Black man, but, once they got into the voting booth, they wouldn't. So, we had a minor victory, in that people would no longer say racist things, but we had no effective victory, because they still voted along racial lines. I feel pretty sure that the more recidivist members of the core of admins.irc are unchanged in word or deed, but I think that the "silent majority" is now very quick to point out the need to rush to AN/I (or, "hey, go check AN/I to see about this issue that's really bugging me"), and the silent majority is less likely to be led astray. We should take our victories where we can, in this world, but I really think we shouldn't have to settle in the case of this micro-world of our collective site. Geogre 03:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction: it was the 1990 campaign I volunteered for, but it was the 1996 (was it really that late?) campaign where we "won" the night before we lost. Geogre 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a late reply, but: I've noticed your propensity for diction seems to be greater than my own, so it doesn't come as a surprise that your choice of words wasn't casual. Beyond that, I'm glad we had this little exchange, however brief. It's crystallized a few things I've been mulling over. Regardless of what channel policy or ownership may eventually be, I'll do what I can to keep the people I can (myself included) on their best behavior. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI - IRC takeover/coup update

Just to let you know (since I've heard that you got sick of the IRC channel and haven't been around in awhile) that as of June 15, 2007, the IRC channel was "taken over" by mysterious persons of authority and the chanops was whittled down to 7 persons (initially). Now one must tow a draconian "on-topic only" policy at #wikipedia. The only prior (barely) mention of this was at the foundation-l mailing list. Just thought I'd give you something to make you proud to be associated with Misplaced Pages. :p Bumm13 13:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, for more fun, read the comments under the last section here. Bumm13 13:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On-topic-only at Misplaced Pages.irc? But! That was never very much of a problem. At least that sucker is open to anyone. It's the "admins" thing that is potentially a mess. Anything where "we decide who gets in" is, by its nature, a mess. Anything like that has already had a bit of nonsense in it by being not a place where anyone can edit, and then, when the people accused of doing bad things are the people who decide whether bad things have been done, there is a much worse mess. Sad, sad, sad. Oh, and on what topic? Geogre 13:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, cute. I don't suppose James feels the need to say what it is that this malefactor has done to be kickbanned from James's house? <sigh> If every link to admins.irc were removed from Misplaced Pages, I wouldn't be sad at all. Geogre 13:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been said that we cannot regulate IRC. That may be true, but we can regulate admin conduct.

How about an anti-collusion policy, which could be defined as 3 or more admins talking together off-wiki about specific policy or action decisions. Much like the Sunshine Laws enacted by many states.

I believe I also read somewhere that all editors are considered to be admins, and some just have more tools than others. Lsi john 14:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, I tried to come up with a "here is what you should all bear in mind" thingie. I figure that there is only one way for IRC to be appropriate when discussing on-wiki actions, and that's if the ops are 1) always there, 2) always honest brokers, 3) always enforcing the "speak well of things or refer people to investigate at admin pages" rules. Otherwise, there is no possibility. Back to Bumm13, though: what I'd prefer is not that the channels stay on the topic of Misplaced Pages, but that they never go to the topic of "what to do about Misplaced Pages" in the absence of the 3 above conditions. It's a chat medium. Let there be chatting. It's the polluted message of the forum that's the problem -- the "we just hang out and chat and then we coordinate Misplaced Pages activities" that makes a mess. Geogre 14:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on David Gerard's recent edit summary, indicating that there is ownership, I'm not sure that any such policy would be permitted by the 'owners'. However, I've given it some more thought and I think that a Sunshine Policy just might be appropriate.

If three or more admins are discussing (wikipedia) policy-change or actions-to-be-taken, in an off-wiki environment, which is not fully open (and disclosed) to all editors, then they forfeit their admin tools.

I've noticed that read-protected pages exist on-wiki. Sensitive topics, that need to be private, can be discussed on a read-protected wiki-page. IRC is not a mandatory medium, it is simply convenient. If we are all considered admins, we should all have the same access to the discussions. Specific exceptions being made for specifically confidential matters, again, could be in read-protected space on-wiki. Lsi john 14:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What you're noting is what I've noted before. The current "owners" have stated that they need not listen to anything ArbCom says. Given that, that solidifies the idea that this is a 100% non-Misplaced Pages resource. If that's the case, then Misplaced Pages has no more business linking to it and hawking for it than it does SomethingAwful forums. However, the current Wikipedians who use the channel disagree with the "owners" and therefore with the idea of de-linking. I understand. I'm sympathetic.

The problem with loss of admin tools, etc., is that it's a netherworld in policy. ArbCom should not involve itself in off-wiki actions of Wikipedians, IMO. IRC is off-wiki. Therefore, ArbCom would only be in a position of ruling on misuse of tools if a person acted on-Wiki based on something not fully justified and discussed on-wiki. This has been sort of, kind of, how things have stood for a while. It doesn't stop the character assassination and prosecution without representation on IRC, but it does stop acting on those vilifications and prosecutions, or slow them.

My point about admins.irc (and let's be clear: it is only admins.irc that I'm talking about, not wikipedia.irc) has always been that it does nothing, absolutely nothing, better than Misplaced Pages and that it has, built into it, dangers and corruption that mean that it is always the less preferred way. Some people agree with me. Some people don't. The people who do are scattered about the place. The people who don't talk about me, and it, on IRC. <shrug> Sic transit gloria mundi. Geogre 17:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If Arbcom should not involve itself in off-wiki activities, how would you suggest addressing personal harassment at the workplace and other off-wiki locations, and publishing editors personal information on websites? I think wikipedia has a right (and a need) to establish a code of conduct which must be followed in order to maintain admin tools. Lsi john 18:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom

pfhththththtth. you beat me to the nom, but you didn't notify Bishzilla, so I didn't see it. ya big meanie! Lsi john 18:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, perhaps you did. Just not clearly enough for us peon non-admin non-irc editors to understand. Lsi john 18:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sneaksy, I am. If it's hidden in a Dennis Miller-styled pun on the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, no one can find it. Geogre 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeth yeth, musts be sneeksy whens they wants your preshiousss. and wants your preshious they doez. Lsi john 19:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Lazy 'shonen

Lazy shonen take power nap instead of skype, 'zilla regret! 'Zilla appreciate DYK listing, thank you geogre. Article lots of verbs, 'Zilla plenty-plenty linguistic skills. Also good sense of humor, banter with little users on Zilla Talk. bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

"Scarred and Charred: The Bishzilla Experience" -- sounds like a musical revue. I had to cook yellow rice, sour cream biscuits (that's biscuits, not cookies!), and a layer cake. The last of these is cooling, like a corpse on marble, so I have Cooling Floor Blues (a song by Son House, and if we don't have an article on that, when we do have an article on some pop tart garbage, it'll be another sign that the culture war should be fought with actual guns). Geogre 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But I downloaded Cows With Guns on IRC. so there! Lsi john 03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool tragic cat

Cool article ! What a nutter. Yer British eccentric and no error. Geogre, please check the very light edit I did, mainly with the notion of making the South Sea Bubble more approachable for the unitiated. Is it correct to call it a stock market crash, do you think? I mean, there was stock and there was a crash. But, while there was also a market, the South Sea Company wasn't the entirety of the market (not far off, though). Would that make "stock market crash" an improper term? A modern reader would take the term on board without needing to click (in contrast to "bubble"), that's what I like about it. There are some new wikilinks also, please see what you think and fix the way you like it. I was maternally outraged at calling a baby "it", I'm afraid... ROARRR!! Bishonen | talk 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

I did check it, and it looked good. I agree with not calling a baby an it, too. I've been too conditioned by reading sloppy pronouns, I'm afraid. I keep writing, "Don't call people 'that's'," and it never makes a dent. Anyway, the South Sea crash pretty much was a crash all over. When it burst, the national debt had been tied to it in the infamous "sinking fund" (and what an apt name, as it turns out), so the crash meant massive devaluation of all other stocks. I.e. that bubble caused an overall crash, except that I think they locked prices or did some kind of bank holiday. At the very least, it's not so outrageous a link as to be objectionable. It's also more than a stock crash. It's kind of a mass hysteria plus insider trading plus malfeasance plus a bubble plus a crash, and we learned a lot from it -- so much that we've repeated it several times. I see the guy as a classic "you can hang yourself at last" sort of situation. It's a time of sons really hating their fathers (esp. when they're whig, but when they're tory, too). Geogre 23:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You agree your contributions may be edited mercilessly. I haven't reverted as it would spoil the fun. Yomangani 14:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ou. Colour me miffede. Utgard Loki 14:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was duped! Oh, well, no challenge there. Anyway, the stupid MoS, thanks to Emmsworth, still has that stupid "if they were born in what is today called the UK, spell things the way spelling is taught in the UK today, but if they were born in what would one day be the US (or Canada, or a US dominated educational system), spell according to Noah Webster's reforms." Grrr. Nothing wrong with the quaint old British spellings, but changing back and forth is a drag. Besides, as I will now rant on any occasion: my spellings aren't "American." They're "reformed." We can reform more, so far as I'm concerned, so long as those reforms don't include "lite." Geogre 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand

, and I really like understanding. I hope you don't mind me asking, what happened with Charlotte's Web? And what's happening with the jockeying around ArbCom about it now? I mean, I don't feel in general much sympathy for Jayg - it would seem that we edit at cross purposes on Israel/Palestine related articles - but he's usually careful to stay justonthisside of the line. I wouldn't have been shocked had he slipped across, but this allegation makes it seem that he blew it badly. Did he? That would be against pattern. or is there more that is not being said (or that I am not reading?) CW and Jg seem not to have crossed paths before, either. Didn't write on one another's talk pages, didn't edit the same articles. Likewise, KM who brought the Req for Arb seems to have first crossed paths with Jayg on the CW Req for Admin page, and with CW on an unsuccessful RfA for Yonidebest less than 2 weeks ago. So I don't get this. I suspect what U.C. says about the Ombudsman not being the right place for this is correct. But what is ArbCom supposed to look at? And how does Jay, a content writer, get all mixed up with the RfA of a non-content writer who doesn't muck around in anything Israel-related? On the surface it looks bad for Jay, but my gut says there's more here, my brain says the candidate wasn't a great candidate for admin anyhow, and my fingers are typing on your talk page. Feel free to delete if this is out of place. Jd2718 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't investigated, but I share your disquiet. Jay and Kelly have not been friends for a good, long time, and Jay and Kelly's Friends have been very frequently on opposite sides. Whether that has led to vindictive actions by either, I don't know, but the hostility almost surely adds accelerant to the house fire (or grease to the ice sheet or ... anything but "gasoline to the fire," as I'm declaring a moratorium on that metaphor). I still need to look into the particulars, so I can't offer any intelligent analysis. Geogre 11:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's weird. I'm on both sides of the fence here. I have to agree that proxy editing is either all the way out or all the way in. If nothing else, proxy editors can be socks/reincarnations of other users. Imagine that the project goes to a hard ban on Michael or someone like that, and then a proxy editor with a fascination for music acts and inflexibility about them goes up for RFA, and that person's through a proxy. Michael, of course, never edited through a proxy, so this is merely a hypothetical. The point is that proxies either have to be disallowed, or we have to allow that kind of anonymity. That said, revealing it during an RFA and on the RFA page, instead of merely disqualifying the user, is irregular. It opens the user up to public shame. The problem is that it's a violation of the rules, start to finish, to be editing that way. Why was it so late in being checked, or was this information that was known and not shared until the RFA? There are questions, but I think they're questions that need to be asked inside, as it were, rather than out in the open. Geogre 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. That helps. It sounds like ArbCom should take this, but with a different bunch of questions than were originally proposed. The results of the RfA is the only completely non-interesting part of this. And I guess the rest ArbCom should look at, quietly. jd2718, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 21 June, 2007, a fact from the article Swedish Emigration Commission 1907—1913, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Yomangani 11:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspected Socks

Nice fire you have going there. ;)

I have a question, perhaps you can help. Mama's Family has some edit warring going on, which it seems is typical for wikipedia. However, these accounts seem to be created for this purpose. I'm not familiar with the full policies of wikipedia socks-world (though I try to change mine daily). Is it possible to get a casual check on these accounts? Or is a formal process required? Lsi john 12:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears one of them was blocked indefinately for vandalism. Though I suspect its a deeper issue. Lsi john 13:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they were mostly socks of EverybodyHatesChris, per AN/I. Peace. Lsi john 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Another quiz

Yes, it's round two of the Elizabeth Needham quiz. I've now found a little ditty on her which includes the lines "Who Bail, on occasion would find - And keep you from Dolly and Shame". Now what's a Dolly here? Slang for the pillory? The little cart for moving hemp around in debtor's prison? Dolly Parton? 2 points for a definitive answer. ½ point for each reasonable guess. Yomangani 13:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Dolly. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dolly suggests:

• a childish name for a doll
• a wheeled platform / hand truck / wheeled apparatus / small locomotive - see dolly (trailer) and camera dolly
• a wooden implement for stirring clothes in a washtub is a common one] - washing dolly is a redlink, of course
• a tool to a hold one end of a rivet while the other end is hammered into shape - see dolly (tool)
• a protective cap added to the end of a pile while being driven
• dopamine

There may be a more obscure cant definition. Perhaps something to do with the hemp bashing at Bridewell? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see dolly does almost all of those (gosh - I even edited that recently!). I doubt a dolly bird or dolly mixture is what you are after. Yes, OED is the way to go. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Brewer's says a "Dolly Shop" is a shop which buys and sells rags and refuse - effectively an unlicensed pawnshops. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1841, "Dolly Varden," in Dickens: a tramp who dresses in really bright colors. Sounds like a job for the OED. Utgard Loki 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone (Bishonen) with online access (Bishonen) to the OED (Bishonen) would be able to answer this (Bishonen) instantly. I would tend to think that Dolly, aside from a familiar form of "Dorothy," is going to be "making scraps" or "wearing scraps." Thus, bail saves her from working in a rag shop (in Bridewell) or wearing rags (again, in Bridewell). However, (Bishonen) we really need to get someone (Bishonen) to look up 1725 meanings, as I was alerted, today, that South African gold miners had uncovered a nugget that was shaped exactly like my broken tooth, and so I had to go to the dentist, where nugget and half-tooth were married in a most uncivil ceremony, and now the nearby teeth are objecting. Geogre 21:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is using the telephone legal research? (I have a source). In the meantime, can we get another line or two (preceding, preferably) to improve the context? Jd2718 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I'm still going to go look at the print OED and other junk, just as soon as I get done administering and grading a big test of a different sort. Man, I wish there were a Works of Ned Ward that wasn't a rare book. Geogre 10:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is in the last paragraph of Elizabeth Needham (although for some reason I have the vaguest of suspicions that Geogre was hinting that Bishonen could look it up in the OED online...I don't know why, it's just a feeling) Yomangani 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We'll see who gets there first. My call will go to someone who did some scholarly work on a guidebook to London's brothels (really, I think so) and I'm guessing I might be fast enough to collect a couple of points.

OED

Sorry to be boring, but I have to simply suggest OED sense 2b: "A drab, slattern, useless woman," dial. or colloq.

1648 HERRICK Hesper., Lyrick to Mirth (1869) 38 Kisse our dollies night and day. 1706 E. WARD Hud. Rediv. II. v. 13 And so away he led his Dolly.

A word for Mother Needham's charges, I guess. See Ned Ward in there? Bishonen | talk 08:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

• Ned Ward sort of did a guide to brothels. Ned Ward, my buddy, seems to use it simply as "whore." It might be, and this would be useful in the rhyme, "street walker." Needham was a madame, and being the controller of a house was way, way, way, way better than being a street walker, just as being a prostitute working in the house was better than strolling. It could well say, "Had she not made bail, she'd have had to walk the streets/service the jailers/walk the streets for the jailers." Now I wonder if "Mr Seemingly Proper Dickens" meant, with the character name, "Whore clothes Varden" or not. Geogre 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, just so y'all know, I'm saving Ned Ward for myself. He needs work, and I've always had a serious soft spot for him. (Back upon a time, he was one of my potential dissertation topics, but it's really, really hard to find a library that has all of his works in its rare book room, and all of the emendations present the sorts of troubles that we've been having here.) He sure is fun, though, and the world really needs new editions. Geogre 10:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh - is that the source of dolly bird? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be, because that Dolly Varden mentioned above became the name of a fish. If there were an ichtyornithologist, or a 'gentleman scholar' in the 19th c. going around naming everything, it could just be a Dickens fan who wanted the term for "brightly colored female." Otherwise, if it came from the folk, it might be "bright colors like a tramp." Of course, it could also make a sound like "dolly." You know, like to "tooky-tooky" bird.

A "trout"? Oh, beautiful. (You do realise that a dolly bird is not actually an avian, yes?) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, "dolly" is also a word in Polari for "pretty, nice, pleasant". Fantabulosa! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you can have 1 point for that, Bishonen (as that was already suggested on my talk page yesterday). The other ½ point I have left has to go to ALoan just for the quantity. I feel I should give Geogre a point too for making the same connection that I did to "street walker", but he tried to set Bishzilla on me yesterday and I'm holding a grudge. Yomangani 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather hilariously, this suggests that a "dolly" is a sort of scrubber (well, scourer, it says) used it the felt-making industry. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I could also mention Ainsworth's Nix My Doll, Pals, Fake Away, a flash/canting song from Rookwood. But I think the killer is this 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue:

Doll

Bartholomew doll; a tawdry, over-drest woman, like one of the children's dolls at Bartholomew fair. To mill doll; to beat hemp at Bridewell, or any other house of correction.

Dolly

A Yorkshire dolly; a contrivance for washing, by means of a kind of wheel fixed in a tub, which being turned about, agitates and cleanses the linen put into it, with soap and water.

-- ALoan (Talk) 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got an inexhaustible supply of points you know. I'll just have to make a massive footnote with all the possibilities listed. The hemp beating sounds more likely to me now - this is from 1781 apparently (though if I don't get to mention Ned Ward in the article I'll be upset). Yomangani 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Newgate Calendar, under Jack Withrington, mentions "the commitment of madam the negotiatress to Bridewell, in order to mill Dolly". That seems pretty conclusive. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll owe you 1½. The OED is rubbish, isn't it? Yomangani 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Newgate Calendar is pretty solid. However, it's obvious that both meanings are operative, that a Dolly is a woman who has had to beat dolly, which is a whore, and therefore is a whore. I.e. you can be saved from beating dolly and/or saved from turning dolly. Given what those in prison did, and the general system of pay-while-you-slave, there is little doubt that a prostitute in Bridewell of Needham's stature would have been expected to make some money for them. Geogre 18:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've released her into the wild to see if she can survive unsanitised. No infobox or trivia section so far. Yomangani 00:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good thing FAC catches "writing" problems

Today's main page, lead: "(the B-52) impacted the ground." The reviewers claim to be all over prose, approving only brilliant prose, and "impacted" gets on the main page? "Impact, n. a collision between objects." Maybe the ground had been planed, or jet bombered. Geogre 11:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I don't believe that English, grammar, spelling, fact checking or 'literacy in general' are required studies for Misplaced Pages editors. From my experience, the best editors have degrees in IRC, reverting, paranoia, propaganda and lynching, and spend more time forming investigation committees than writing good articles. Lsi john 12:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, quite. Most of those express vocal disinterest in what they derisively refer to as "content." On the other hand, WP:FAC had a couple of people who, without benefit of degree or interest, proclaimed themselves experts on "what is a featured article." They furthermore "object"ed constantly on the grounds of writing and insisted that they knew good writing. Since I had to endure one or two of those blockheads, and since I have had to watch good writers endure more of them, I have delighted in noticing lead paragraph phrases that a high school English teacher would catch. Generally, people who are expert writers and writing evaluators don't go about claiming it. As I told a very young friend who had gotten his first IQ test and discovered that he was a genius: "It's better if other people tell you you're smart. If you tell them, they tend to not like you very much." Geogre 12:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

ASC and Æthelberht

Geogre, hi; I thought I'd post a quick note on your talk page since part of what I wanted to ask you isn't really anything to do with the Æthelberht FAC. First, I just wanted to say thank you for chipping in and commenting; I am not really expert in Anglo-Saxon history, and having someone who knows a lot more than I do give feedback is tremendously helpful. I will be working on the points you raised, and I wouldn't mind betting I'll see some more come up.

I'll reply to most of your points at the FAC page, when I get to them, but there is one thing I wanted to ask you about that is more general, regarding the ASC versions. The C ms is actually one of the Abingdon manuscripts; see Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the listing. That was one of my first FAs, and I have been pondering ever since then how to refer to the different ASC manuscripts when they come up in other articles. I currently use the to notation that Swanton uses, since the letters do seem to be a standard; the square brackets serve to make it clearer to lay readers that there is something specific going on here. The manuscript, when it comes up, could be linked directly to Peterborough Chronicle; but that seems a bit of an Easter egg, which is frowned on. I don't particularly like using "Parker" and "Peterborough" in the text of other articles, partly because there are alternative names (Winchester, Laud) and partly because the and manuscripts, at least, don't have good names. The letters seem like the best alternative to me.

I did think of taking the question to a WikiProject, but couldn't find one that looked sufficiently active and relevant; then I thought of starting an Anglo-Saxon WikiProject, but I don't have the time or energy for that, so I just set what I thought was a sensible standard and started using it. So, if you have any ideas on a better way to do this, please let me know. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I share your frustration, but I'm old, old, old fashioned. I still say Parker and Laud and Winchester. I know that Swanton's sytem is best, and I should have them memorized, but I don't. I can't think of a good way to do it, except either to have A-F articles (e.g. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle A etc.) as the lemmae for our discussions of the MSS and then have each and every one of those other names be a redirect or to have each 'common name' the lemma and the A-F as redirects.
• The practical solution is to say "In C (the "Laud Manuscript"), he is referred to as...." A simple parenthetical costs us only a few characters and stops caviling critics like me in our tracks. :-) It's a good article and more than comprehensive. Geogre 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the practical solution. How about if I make the parenthesis a link to the mss section of the ASC article? So it would be "In C (one of the Abingdon manuscripts)". Mike Christie (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me. In fact, it solves two problems at a stroke. (I only did my doctoral minor in Medieval, but I enjoyed it enormously. In particular, I really dug Peterborough and had great sympathy for Orm, as I figure that anything I ever wrote would be lucky to be half so useful or readable. Geogre 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Æthelberht FAC

Geogre, just a quick note to say I've now caught up with your comments at the Æthelberht FAC. I haven't resolved everything: I've done what I can, but in a couple of cases I'm not sure of your meaning and I've asked for clarification. There are also a couple of places where I've given a more detailed explanation of what I was trying to accomplish in the sections you've commented on, to see if that would affect your thinking. If you could response there I'll go back to work on whatever is left outstanding. Thanks again for the detailed review; it's a pleasure to get comments like that. Mike Christie (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye. When my eyes can focus, I'll try to take it all on board and see if all is well. I may be more griping than useful on the accession section, but, to whatever degree I can help sharpen the points and speed the delivery, I'm happy to help. Obviously, it's a strong article now. (This, by the way, is why I don't think it's possible to review every FAC on a page. Folks put weeks into writing them. We should at least give a few hours to reviewing them, each.) Geogre 02:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, not to toot my own horn or anything, but have you seen Peterborough Chronicle? There is a bit in there that could use the new links to the MSS assortment. I went on listing the various unique Chronicles, using the old names. Perhaps you could update those links to the new system, so that section will actually be useful to readers? Geogre 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely I've seen it! It was one of the articles that inspired me to take Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to FA. I've made a list of some of the important AS articles on a subpage of mine, at User:Mike Christie/Anglo-Saxon articles; I'd like to try to get all of them to FA eventually. And sure, I'll update Peterborough Chronicle with those links. Despite WP:OWN, I hate to mess with someone else's FA, but since you ask . . . . I'll get it done over the next week or so when I get tired of reading about Rædwald (my next target, after Ceawlin, who's sitting at GAC right now). Mike Christie (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not wandered off or forgotten, and I will not leave it without an unambiguous support. Apologies for taking so long. Geogre 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I appreciate all the input and the timing isn't important. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my! Automated Brad, I had no idea that I was in so deep, but I shall certainly look and, if pushed, move. :-) I merely stated that I couldn't make head nor tail of the thing. It looked odd, then otter. Geogre 01:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who comments gets a notice. There's no obligation, although I'm afraid there's no money-back guarantee, either. Newyorkbrad 01:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rats, and here I thought I was special! (It's what they told me at school.) Geogre 01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish there was an automatedarbspam optout! (there's too many clerks to tell I don't want any...:() El_C 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and then you hurt our feelings by reverting them. :( Newyorkbrad 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want it to be a surprise... :/ El_C 01:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously though, I would like to optout. Can that be arranged? El_C 02:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Age of Reason

I know that you are not into the whole FA thing, but would you mind reviewing The Age of Reason for content and readability? :) With your interest in the 18c and religion, you are an ideal reviewer. The peer review is here. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's later than my happy zone (1660 - 1750), but not entirely outside, so I'll be happy to look into it. I wish I could promise speed, but I can promise thoroughness. Geogre 12:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But who else is going to know so much about the period in general? :) Speed is of no necessity (the siren song of my dissertation is ringing out) and I much prefer careful reviews anyway. Awadewit | talk 12:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for responding here, but I'm cogitatin'. In "Historical background," we have opportunities, but they might be red herrings, and I'll mention some general topics and see if you want the information in or out.

1. Background to free thinking in England
   1. How it moves in waves after the first outbreak
   2. How it developed with empiricism
2. The two strains of deism: natural religion and rational religion
3. How busting presses and the like was not unheard of, as the government had responded with trials, prison, and fines for much less than this for over a century.

Thing is, this stuff can bloat out, but it does help establish the context from the British point of view. I.e. in America, it's shocking that a poor printer is prosecuted for a thing like this. In England, the response is much more, "Well, of course he got thrown in jail! Thus always with gadflies." The danger is that these things can either balloon out and distort the flow of the prose, or they can be ridiculously insufficient. I think it can be done with a deft hand, but you let me know if you want me to assemble a few sentences (literally...not paragraphs). Geogre 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• (Asterisk as a headnote): I'm going to try to reply to these things as I can conceive of them. As Churchill said of the differences between the sexes, "I can't conceive, Madam, can you?" Well, in pieces, then, and in toto by tomorrow night probably. Geogre 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think of the "Historical context" section as a place to explain why The Age of Reason was written in the first place and what specific, immediate historical events it was responding to. (Since most readers don't have a good grasp of history, much has to be explained, as you know; I don't know how many times I have written about Burke and the Reflections on the Revolution in France. His articles are really bad, too - I feel guilty linking to them.) Awadewit | talk 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about a whole section or subsection under "Arguments" for a mini-history of English deism (there just isn't much American deism before Franklin, Allen and Paine)? I tried to suggest some continuities and breaks with this tradition in my discussion of The Age of Reason, but obviously did not try to give a overview of the topic. I would welcome such an overview. (This article is basically taken from parts of my Masters thesis on The Age of Reason - I left all of that out because I thought it might be overkill. I'm glad other people want it, too.) I would think that the various "waves" would be a good idea to include as well as their relationship to Lockean, Berkleyean and Humean empiricism (again, I tried to suggest this connection vaguely in a few sentences, but did not go very far with it.) I think that the prosecutions (e.g. Thomas Woolston) and the class divide would be important to include as Paine and Carlile are both put on trial. Awadewit | talk 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the importance of distinguishing between natural religion and rational religion, although I could be persuaded otherwise. Do you mean "natural religion" as in "all beliefs should arise from the natural world (which just happens to suggest a maker)" and "rational religion" as in "all beliefs should be based on a rational approach to the natural world and the Bible and whatever matches, is true" (roughly) kind of thing? Joseph Priestley, whose biography I'm wrestling with now, is what I would characterize as a "rational religion" kind of guy. Awadewit | talk 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. You have a good scholar giving a good overview of what the Deists held in common, but...well, they were holding those things in common sort of by the time of Paine. They were... well... they had been two separate strains. The "there is an innate religion from universal revelation, and it is then corrupted by priests" is slightly different from the Cherbury "let's look at all religions in the world and see what few things they have in common and decide those are true, because we can't trust any revelation" strain. The former became very interested in American Indians (e.g. the silly Hermsprong by Robert Bage) because they thought they could get at that "natural" religion. The latter became interested in surveying "China to Peru," as it were. Geogre 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. The "unity" of deism was a simplification that allowed me to easily distinguish Paine from the earlier Deists (and not mention Paine's contemporary deists) as well as introduce the major concepts of deism (despite their various methods of arriving at those beliefs, many of the beliefs were extremely similar, especially if you compare them to Arianism or Arminianism).

Well, I'm not sure I'd agree about Arminianism, but perhaps one strength of Paine is this very synthesis and blend. By his day, this was a mature philosophy, from Tindal and Anthony Collins, and even (oh, blast...there goes a name...the dude Gildon tried to ride into fame...it's that Wonderbra on the main page...my concentration's shot) Charles Blount (deist). There was a sort of cavalier-er than thou side to it in the 1680's. Then there was a rake-ier than thou side to it in the 1730's. These have distinct styles in writing and thought, and it's the "I'm a hard man who has no truck with delusion" sort (Collins, Tindal, etc.) that Paine picks up after Mr. Hume's agnosticism. Geogre 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Do you see Arminianism as virtually synonymous with deism? I've heard that view before, but to me Arminians seem more Christian than many 18c deists. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've read some Tindal and Annet, but neither of them struck me as either cavalier or rake-y. They struck me as trying to sound clever and witty. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• So, you don't think Hume's an atheist? Them's fightin' words. :) Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another problem: If you read Isabel Rivers, for example, she argues that the early deists used a very similar kind of ridicule to Paine (e.g. Matthew Tindal and Peter Annet). If that is true, there is nothing special about Paine's text except that it sold well. But so many other scholars insist that his language is new and distinctive. That is why I left her out, even though she is renowned. Let me know what you think we should do about that. Awadewit | talk 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think there's no fear there. If you've read any of the Restoration deists, Paine is 180 degrees from them. I have read Collins, but none of the others in primary, and they all have torturous styles, filled with circumlocutions and heavy periods. Further, they were concerned with philosophical orthodoxy. They sought to follow a particular single line to its mandatory conclusions, where I see Paine as much more of a philosophical handy man. He is willing to kick anyone out of his church who does not answer to his "conscience" (and that is one seriously loaded word, too). Geogre 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, to some extent, but there is her argument and she is a very reputable scholar. Despite the whole NPOV policy, I decided to leave her out since her view is contrary to both my impression of the texts and almost every other scholarly opinion published on the matter. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with your assessment of Paine as a "handy man." I just saw Michael Moore's Sicko today and I think that he is in a direct line from Thomas Paine. His films are not about argument, they are about shock and rhetoric, exactly like Paine's works. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The GA reviewer suggested more on Paine's rejection in America - do you think that is necessary? I thought the quotes I had were sufficient, but perhaps not. Also, since it isn't the Paine page, I didn't want to go overboard on that topic. I have much more to add along that line, if you think we should. Awadewit | talk 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I really don't. Honestly, the usefulness of this work for the philosophical founders was undeniable, but it was directly rejected for going too far. Paine was comprehensible, and that was his virtue and vice, both. The founders were aware individuals, and they had to find a ground for rejecting state religion, even as broad a one as "Christian." Despite what Pat Buchanan thinks, they were nervous about any of that because of what they knew could follow, and Paine was useful for clouding the issue and making it difficult to support a pious homogeneity, but he went too far for them, too, by insisting on a radical individualism that was inviolate. That's the bit that they couldn't hold. They couldn't hold to each man's church being within his chest, because then they would have been paralyzed legislatively in the face of sacrifice, polygamy, etc. They had to hang onto a general code, and so they had to reject his sacredness of the individual. Geogre 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Paine was comprehensible, and that was his virtue and vice, both." - Well said - we should put that in the article. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• What has Pat Buchanan ever been right about? I hate all of that "America was founded as a Christian nation" crap that I hear all of the time. I just want to throw stacks of books at people or show them Jefferson's letters. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The GA reviewer also felt that the article had POV problems, but I think that this is because s/he is a mathematician and anything that sounds like an opinion (such as a scholarly interpretation) appeared POV to him/her. Let me know if some POV has crept in. Awadewit | talk 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by no means. It seemed well written and temperate, with no POV problems. Geogre 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The GA reviewer also felt that there was "essay style" in the article. Now, I despise this criticism (and I have a feeling you do too, from your articles) because the prose labeled "essay style" is usually what explains ideas and connections between ideas to the reader. Again, let me know. I try to find a balance between my essay style (which I cannot avoid writing in, frankly) and wikipedia's demands. (See the talk page for a lengthy discussion on this problem and my "narrative" style.) Awadewit | talk 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have an ally in me in that regard. That's an encyclopedist's duty. What are we, a news aggregator like Google? Are we a clipping service? Are we Spark Notes? No! Encyclopedists are performing useful, unique, and challenging work when they synthesize available information and present it in a concise and clear form. There are always biases of selection and exclusion, always colorations in wording, always "original research" in the original combination of facts and order, and there are always conclusions. This is what it means to be an encyclopedist. The grand old 1911 Britannica is now obnoxious to us because they had such heavy footed interpretation, but I find that the problem is less that the writers had points of view, but that they dismissed facts, works, and opinions. It isn't that they said that Swift was a misanthropist -- such a nugget tells us about the UK in 1908 -- but that they say that A Tale of a Tub is not worth discussing or that Argument Against Abolishing Christianity is a worthless trifle. We do not have to immasculate (or inhyster?) ourselves to avoid that kind of error. If we approach our subjects not as fans, but as generous readers, we can avoid 1911's hamfisted approach and still guide readers. Geogre 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Many editors seem to think that we are SparkNotes. I have seen so many literature pages that are entirely plot summaries (actually, I would call them plot narrations, since they are not really summaries). I totally agree with you on the what an encyclopedist should do. I wish that that role was better understood here. Unfortunately, the idea of mastering a topic in order to write an article on it is rare here (in my experience so far). Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am glad that finally someone understands that our entries are "original research" besides myself. I have sometimes tried to point this out to other editors, but I have never succeeded in making anyone understand that an article written by you, for example, on The Age of Reason would look different from "my" article. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I sometimes feel that the restrictions on prose in particular lead to the kind of "emasculation" you are referring to. Someone once objected to an article I submitted to FAC because I used the word "claim," as in "Locke claims that associationism is central to the formation of the human mind." It blew me away. I showed them that even philosophers use the word in this way, but they were not swayed because there is some policy somewhere saying you can't use that word (a policy which defined the word incompletely, by the way). Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A copy editor also suggested these changes: "I feel like there's more on Paine being ostracized in the U.S. later in his life that could be added, but I may have to look that up. It also has some significance in the debate over Separation of church and state, as an example of what one early influential American was thinking, though I'm not sure that really needs to be mentioned." - Let me know what you think of those. Awadewit | talk 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I said, above, some of the ways that he was important for the separation of church and state. Think about it from their points of view. They have to argue to themselves and their British countrymen why they should have no official religion and why they cannot give total freedom to each person to have any action in the name of free religion. They need and want some proof that there is no easily deducible perfect religion, but they can't go as far as Paine does. That said, this is merely the atmosphere of the time, and I know of no American FF writing in his diary, "I like how I can use this Paine guy, but we have to suppress it."

• Jefferson, perhaps. He was canny. He was friends with Paine but discouraged him from publishing the third part of the AR. Although he invited him to the WH after the tumultuous presidential election, it was only after he was elected that he did so. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the interesting side issues is that the entire course was set with Protestantism, IMO. Once the Protestant movements (not the Anglican church, until later) started to say that real Christianity had been corrupted by priests, they needed to have a pure Bible. That opened up the Higher Criticism, and that meant the discovery of a great deal of Biblical indeterminacy. Oops. Additionally, the priesthood of all believers meant that the structures of dogma were weakened/questioned/broken, and that leads to the idea that a revelation was sufficient. Why, then, not reason? Additionally, the priesthood of all believers leads to our Zwickau prophets, "Jack of Leyden" in Swift, and all the exuberant Christian denominationalists (who are cranking up again with Whitefield and Wesley in the time just before Paine), and that creates a huge backlash. It's in this realm that you have possible the idea of the individual finding God by himself, that church authority is weak as water, that Bible studies show potential weakness in scriptural traditions, etc. In a sense, Paine's free thinking is the thud of the cannon ball Martin Luther fired. A side issue, though, and not worth putting in. Geogre 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree - the Reformation was the beginning of the end, but of course they didn't know it - they wanted "reform." I would also add in the crucial step of vernacularization. The very process of translating the Bible led many scholars, anyway, to realize that the Bible was far from inerrant or even stable. Then comes comparative religion as a result of exploration in the 17c and 18c. Finally, the Germans arrive with "higher criticism" in the 19c. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would also look to the visionaries and prophets of the English Civil War and the 1790s as important in this respect. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• All of this interesting stuff should go on a page detailing the history of "free thought" or perhaps even "atheism." But who has the time? I'm already in the middle of too many projects. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks so much! Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you in return. Awadewit | talk 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, I'll reply more to the points above and offer some matter as soon as I can. De nada, though: I like playing with ideas and words, and I enjoy reading really good articles like this one. Geogre 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I look forward to working on it with you. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Secret

Sekrit e-mail for you. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Ah, "the black dog barks at midnight." Got it. Wilco. (I check e-mail before Misplaced Pages. I still believe in that life over this.) Geogre 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A pox on the assessment drive

. Amen. I just happened to see this on recent changes. As the author of several hundred fairly short articles on composers who lived between about 1100 and 1650, articles which are now written to about the maximum extent permissible without violating the "original research" guidelines, articles which have been largely tagged as "start" or "stub" by people completely ignorant in the topic area and completely incompetent to assess the situation regarding sources, all I can say is -- I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who finds this tagging business to be irritating.

Now if I were truly rouge, I'd just delete that damned assessment drive. Why, I could even have an AN/I drama thread named for me! Sigh. I feel better now. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I'm glad you spoke up. I've been feeling really alone, and I know that that's the critical feature. A "Project" might be one dude with a -bot or SandyGeorgia and a dude and a -bot, and yet "your article has been assessed and found to be a stub" lands on a talk page. If you want to see genuine horror, look at the talk page of Henry Carey and see when some #!$#$#!@ added a "project cleanup" template on it and then how long the article had to endure that. Mind you, there was never a single word on the article talk page about what had been "dirty" about the article, not a sign anywhere of what the problem was. It just got a tag, possibly even as vandalism, but suddenly a po-faced army has to weigh and say that, yes, yes, this must be cleaned. Well, the "cleaning" didn't result in more than 10 characters, but still the tag sits there, and still I keep trying not to appear to be OWNish. Such, of course, is the way: the "Project" spreads its contagion across the work of dozens of editors, and each of them has to fight the battle believing herself or himself to be all alone.

Yomangani has an article up for FA now, Elizabeth Needham. It was "start class," but one of the devotees of forms and tickets and tags and processes over content manually upgraded it to "B." This is so that it "could become" an FA.

The people who "have been assessing" show no credentials, including no capacity to read and discern, and they even use -bots to do it. Granted, you and I are unlikely to be cowed by a -bot's opinions, but imagine the new author. He's now believing that he must have an infobox, because a Project told him he did. This is, I am convinced, a narrow agenda of some narrow minds to try to control all assessments and judgments on Misplaced Pages and to reduce it to a bureaucratic case of "first do steps 3-9, then take your form to the office of proofreading, and then take it to the department of metadata processing, and then you may submit it, after three requests have been made and filed at the appropriate desks, to be evaluated as a "Good article," which is necessary before trying to submit it for featured article review." May they wither with the agony of desiccation!

If you ever feel like punching those folks in the nose, let me know, and I'll bring my own axe handle to the party. Geogre 20:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Know what? I think it might be time to unleash another essay. I think I'll call it, after Walter Hilton's book, The Stairway of Perfection, and in it satirize this "take the following steps, and then we won't have to fret with human understanding" approach. The current brouhaha with SandyGeorgia and Tim Vickers on WP:AN is another version of that. People want to put their thumbs into WP:V and such not because there is any flaw in the pages as they stand, but because they want to have a black and white, one-two-three process. Well, as a frequently named "process wonk," it may be surprising, but I think that's utter nuts. I'm for process when it protects our people and defuses the aggregation of power. This is process to consolidate power, to try to set up boards of review and offices and projects that will be necessary steps, small, small bodies that people can place themselves at the head of. It's also process to eliminate assessment, argument, and judgment. It's evil.

Another possibility would be Misplaced Pages:ProjectAbuse, where people could come to document and discuss projects running amok and running over editorial sanity. The Projects may be well at speaking for Project members, but they must never assume that that means anything. For each member, there are a score of non-members who know about the project and do not wish to play in it. That score does not cede any editorial or personal judgment or rights to content simply because a "project" gets cobbled together. Geogre 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"All revolutions eventually evaporate, leaving behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy." Misplaced Pages was a kind of revolution, and I'm sensing that something is evaporating in the hot sun, and what's left behind isn't exactly what those of us who possess either common sense or specialist knowledge quite want.

You are quite correct about the boards of review, offices, stampers and filers. Eleven easy steps to B-class mediocrity for Misplaced Pages as a whole. I fear we may have a systemic problem which has to do with the age and maturity (senescence? I wonder) of the project, as well as the failure to harness usefully the energy of clouds of eager newcomers, most of whom are young, inexpert, and accustomed more to contests and games than writing scholarly prose. In any other environment we'd find a leader and send them all off to do something useful; in this anarchic one, they invent contests--who can rack up 10,000 assessed articles the fastest? who can invent the best fastest automated tools to stamp "stub class" on three-paragraph French playwright biographies the fastest? --and those of us who actually research and write those "stubs" are quite outnumbered.

We need to rein in rogue Wikiprojects, indeed. My brimstone is in short supply. Does anyone else care about this stuff? For another example of what we are dealing with, this is a very interesting thread. There has been "civil disobedience" before, at least. Best, Antandrus (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha, a place where I can yell at them all at once! It won't do any good. They were proudly huffing and citing "Civil" when a guy said that he didn't like the ratings. It's not "civil" to not agree with a project. It's a Project, after all, and you're just an editor. Editors can be replaced, but not clever -bot operators! I'm not sure what implying that they're all scavengers is, but it's just accurate, from my point of view. (If they want to start an "Assess Articles You've Written" campaign, I'll wish them a hearty hand shake and a slap on the back.) Geogre 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, slapping a start class tag on an article is killing it, if an article needs "B" or better to be included in the Misplaced Pages 0.7 stable release (have a look at this, but caution, it gives me heartburn to think about how these choices are being made), so the scavenger analogy isn't bad. Indeed this is exactly why these "ratings" were starting to bother me so much. (I now preemptively put a "B" rating on every article I write; it feels rather like spraying new patio furniture for termites.) I haven't noticed, yet, the tagging drive for importance. It's bound to be a lovely one. Antandrus (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I haven't done that. Part of it is my being a horse's ass, I'm sure. I think that it would compromise my ideological purity, because it would be tantamount to admitting that the assessments mean something. Like I said, I'm probably being a prick, but I really feel like even assessing my own article is a way of suggesting that there is a point to it. I can't believe, though, that "start" or "stub" excludes from the RSN-no-really-RSN 1.0. That would be unbelievably stupid. Geogre 02:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't let your picnic be spoiled by mosquitoes. Whenever you see a "cleanup" tag applied to an article without any explication on the Talkpage, just delete it, identifying the tagger on the Talkpage and requesting guidance. A further step, directly notifying the tagger, would be an inappropriate courtesy, I should think. Similarly, when a thoughtless and uninformed redlinker links a name about whom virtually nothing is likely ever to be known, I simply make it into a redirect to the page where the name appears. Minimal confrontation with the mediocrity. --Wetman 00:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As a participant in the WikiProject Biography Assessment drive, might I just mention a few points? (Is this intruding? I am not totally sure. If it is, feel free to delete my comments.)

• As far as I know, no bot is rating articles. I did see some discussion regarding that idea, but it was dismissed. Editors still have to look at each article they assess, although there is a script that many of us are using to make the actual coding of the rating easier. Awadewit | talk 00:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• While I wish that the parameters for each level were more clear-cut so that the rating among editors would be more consistent, I am not sure if that is possible. Awadewit | talk 00:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• I do think that it is useful to have a rough assessment of each article on wikipedia. It makes data collection for essays such as Misplaced Pages is being flooded easier. Such statistical analysis is quite helpful. Awadewit | talk 00:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Both the spring and summer assessment drives specifically warned people against rating the article's "importance" unless they were part of that subgroup of the project and understood its aims and subject. Awadewit | talk 00:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• I did not know that editors were placing all sorts of other tags on the articles - that bothers me (I have seen the problems that such tags can create). In general, I think, they are reviewing for comprehensiveness, organization, prose and citations. While comprehensiveness may require knowledge of the subject, it often does not (and many of the stubs are obviously incomplete). A person's life cannot be described completely, for example, if only statistics about their achievement in hockey are mentioned. Awadewit | talk 00:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, while I understand your frustration over the mechanical description of how to write articles, I am afraid that they are all too necessary. Most of the novel articles, for example, rigidly follow the WikiProject Novel template. I tried to change the template, arguing that their structure misleads editors into writing poor articles, but was rebuffed. The same thing happened at WikiProject Films where I suggested (shockingly, apparently) that the template should include sections on "Themes" and "Cinematic style." I was informed that not all films have themes. (Film pages are also usually appallingly written.) The fact that so many editors use the template reveals their dependence on it; the number of times that I have had to explain to an editor that real research is required to write an article are becoming too numerous to count. An explanation of how to research and write an article must be somewhere since it seems to be a rare skill. The FAC on the movie E.T. is a case in point. I asked for a "Themes" section, arguing that an article on E.T. needs to discuss more than the film's plot and ticket sales. It took a while to convince the editors of this (I'm not sure they are totally convinced, though). Now we are working on research. One editor has admitted the s/he does not understand any of the film criticism on E.T.. Disregarding it, then, is apparently fine. Such editors need help learning how to write and research. WikiProjects provide a useful place to do this, since the members supposedly have an interest in the topic and perhaps even some knowledge of it. Awadewit | talk 00:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're begging the question, there. If the bad authors are following a template, the answer is not, I think, to try to come up with a "good" template, but rather to kick the crutch out. I don't mean to sound nasty and elitist and all those other things, but the templates are being used to excuse and gild the articles. "You can't say the article is no good: I followed the template!!1!" If people need help learning how to write articles, their best guide is now what it always was: to read good articles. That one step is the most uniformly missing.

• I've always thought of the template as a starting point, not an ending point. I also agree with you on the reading part. That is also one way to improve one's writing, as you well know. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A good template is bad, not because the people who constructed it were malicious or stupid, but because it's a template. I suppose it's possible that there is a film somewhere without a theme, just as, of course, it is possible for there to be a film without dialog, or without a producer, or without a soundtrack (yes, I know: there is always a theme if there is any intentionality, but I suppose it's possible that there could be a robot-made film that would lack therefore philosophical outlook and motivation and therefore lack theme). Any time we come up with a 1-2-3, we miss something or we impose regulation on something that might not want to fit. The problem remains that people want to have these assurances, these templates, these processes that can guarantee a product. A good author doesn't need them, and I think a bad author won't benefit from them. Inexperienced authors could gather ideas from them, but only if they understand them as hints and suggestions rather than templates, and they would still be better off reading some FA-classed articles.

• I don't think of templates that strictly, I suppose. I have always thought that they should be guidelines that offer good ideas to help editors decide on content and layout (the kinds of "hints" you are suggesting). I did not realize that they were being used in this strict sense, this procedural way. The two templates that I have spent the most time with (novel and film) all mention that other sections than those listed can and often should be included in an article. I think the problem often lies in the users not being careful or imaginative. (The people who programmed the robot would have to be considered.) Awadewit | talk 03:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the steps for a biography. Infobox mandatory. To that I say "no." In fact, I say "never." I do not want a box intruding into the reading space of an article I read, and I will not plant one in an article I write. Then there is this "biodata" that's mandatory. Since I don't believe any two lives are consistent, I don't think any consistent data is meaningful. When there is a standard human, there can be a standard biography. Until then, we can recommend some likely methods of approaching the subject, but even if we went with the bland requirements of the DNB format, we'd be encouraging readers to skip (just the way I do with the DNB... father was a knight of Surrey, mother daughter of a yeoman of the farm... and this is not presented as meaningful in any way... just a shadow of the 19th century's belief in inherited qualities).

• Again, I agree with the assumptions behind what you are saying (although, all people are born and die - so far), particularly with the "recommendations" part. I suppose that I always just assumed that editors realized that templates are recommendations that don't work for every person, book, etc. Silly me. I should have known better. How would you instruct new/inexperienced researchers and writers? I feel that there must be more than just saying "read a quality article," because I have found a striking inability in my college students to draw conclusions. I am not sure that the majority of editors could read a good example and from that deduce the principles that go into writing a good article. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have written many, many biographies. Except those that made FA, they are all, universally, "start" or "stub" by this assessment drive. I don't think I'm being overly vain if I say that this can only be the case if the person assessing didn't read the articles or didn't understand the words. In some cases, like Nicholas of Flue, Misplaced Pages has worked well, and the article is nice and juicy and explains well. It's 3 screens. It's "start" class, despite the fact that nothing can be added without going entirely off track.

• I would assume that that article has been rated "start" because someone didn't think there were enough citations; personally, I would rate it a "B." Since the WP:MOS is supposed to be followed for "A," that is the only reason I wouldn't give it an "A" rating (citation of websites, heading capitalization, etc.). Frankly, I care less about those things than I do content and good writing, but others care a lot (there seems to be dash police - I don't know if you have had them come by your articles); I am willing to bow to some arbitrary rules (such as heading capitalization) for the sake of community sanity. (By the way, that is just the kind of infobox I find intrusive.) (Since you seem proud of your "starts," I won't change the rating, unless you want me to.) Awadewit | talk 03:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I know we get swamped. I know we have swarms of ignorant. I know we get exuberant and inexperienced authors who will say the most outrageous things, but I just don't think a template is going to do us any good, and they will use those templates to argue that their articles are guaranteed good. Geogre 02:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I am curious as to what you think would help the problem, because it obviously is one. If templates that suggest ways of organizing and researching an article aren't the way to go, I am interested in hearing and promoting the alternatives. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now my talk page has lit up, as well as that other page. LOL. I have a bottle of fine bourbon calling to me; perhaps it may assist me in crafting further responses. Want me to pour you some?

• Virtual alcohol - that I can do. Awadewit | talk 03:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

More seriously, I wouldn't object to people organizing expert editors in their disciplines to do assessments. I for one would like to see which of the many thousand articles on "classical" music really are desperately needing expansion. Maybe I should shut up and make such a list based on my own opinions and knowledge. I bet you could do the same in your area. I just don't want to join that huge MMORPG masquerading as a project. Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with that peer review idea as well. If there is a scientific peer review, why can't there be a history peer review or a literature peer review? I find it odd that science is being privileged here (alright, maybe not so odd). Although it is useful to have "outsiders" read pages so that we can determine if they are accessible, it is difficult to rely exclusively on such reviews. If I had eighteenth-century experts reviewing my pages as well, I am sure that they would be that much better. Awadewit | talk 03:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• My userpage contains a long list of eighteenth-century articles that need improvement. It seems like I will never get to them all. Every time I go to an eighteenth-century page, it seems, there is either nothing there or total drivel. (By the way, I wonder if the high number of classical music pages is coming from the fact that each piece by Bach (thousands in and of himself), Mozart, Beethoven, etc. has its own page.) There certainly are some odd projects, but if that is what the editors want to edit and that is what they know about, well, who am I to say no? As long as they discuss World or Warcraft well, I don't have a problem with it. Awadewit | talk 03:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ah! Profuse apologies for the Bach, etc. comment. I forgot to read your userpage before responding. By the way, I really like your layout. Do you mind if I steal some of it? Awadewit | talk 03:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the steps for a biography. Infobox mandatory. To that I say "no." In fact, I say "never." I do not want a box intruding into the reading space of an article I read, and I will not plant one in an article I write. Yay! As the self-confessed coperpetrator of a (minor, somnolent, to Awadewit perhaps "odd") project, I'm now thinking of drafting a new principle for that project, one that explicitly says that infoboxes are redundant. The better writers already realize this obvious fact; the slower ones and the conformists will be able to cite it as gospel truth. -- Hoary 03:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Does your "odd" project (no offense intended) explain to its editors how to do research on its topic? That is what I think is the most important information to convey - what kinds of sources are reliable and useful for constructing an article in a particular discipline or on a particular topic. Awadewit | talk 03:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Alas no it doesn't. I'm grateful if I can read something that comes from a disinterested website or a book (any book): I'd love to be able to add constraints such as "articles in peer-reviewed journals or books from university presses or comparably stringent publishers" but this would be unrealistic for "my" project (though definitely not for physics, 18th-century literature, etc etc). As for research in general, my memory tells me that, way back in the last century, although it took me a couple of undergraduate years before I knew how to cite stuff "style"-ishly (I'd merrily confuse foot/endnote and bibliography styles), it took a mere couple of months of undergraduate work before I, together with my classmates, had acquired the basic (field-unspecific) principles of library research; notably the idea that a credible source had to be unambiguously specified for anything that wasn't common knowledge. (We acquired this fast because we'd get failing grades otherwise.) Anecdotal evidence suggests that undergraduates these days are unlikely to acquire this idea, perhaps because expectations are so low. I hope my view of undergraduate education is unjustifiably bleak, but I don't suppose that WP can expect an average level of scrupulousness of editing beyond that of an average undergraduate education. -- Hoary 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm glad that this thread didn't pass into the night unnoticed! :-) I see you responded below my comment "For what it's worth, there are disadvantages to very large wikiprojects like this one, but this probably isn't the right time to go into detail on that." - and that this does seem to be the right time now... The biggest problem, in my opinion, is inexpert editors incorrectly assessing on specialist topics. The big advantage, in my opinion, is inexpert editors learning things by reading lots of articles. Unfortunately, that might turn them into infobox generators, rather than FA-standard article writers. I do think that WikiProjects should do specialised assessments, and that large projects like WPBiography should concentrate on indexing and keeping track of the "people" articles. The specialised workgroups should be doing the assessment. Unfortunately, it may be too late to stop this "assessment drive", but the best approach might be, after this is done, to say something along the lines of: "oh dear, lots of these have been inaccurately assessed - please can you ensure they are all placed in the correct workgroups so that an expert can redo the work and make the correct assessment. Thank-you." I have personally upgraded many "short but complete" articles to B-class. But there should also be something written into the assessment pages that make very clear to people that obscure, specialist subjects often have articles that may look like start-class, but will in fact be B-class - ie. If you don't know enough about a subject, just classify it by area and move on without assessing. If necessary, create a new class along the lines of "needs expert assessment". Now, you might say that all article need this, but some of the more, shall we say, modern/popular topics, don't need experts. The large wikiprojects versus small ones issue also needs more discussion as well. I see that thread has two nice pictures. I wonder if there is a suitable picture to illustrate large vs small wikiprojects? Also, Geogre, you have a competitor in the wikicartoon world, to wit User:Psychless (heavily involved in that assessment drive) and User:The Psychless/Template humor. Enjoy! Carcharoth 08:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)