Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 16 August 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk archive 1

Talk archive 2

Talk archive 3

Archive 4: Oct 10 - Nov 9

Archive 5: Nov 10 - Dec 4

Archive 6: Dec 5 2004 - Apr 5 2005

Archive 7: Apr 6 2005 - May 8 2005

Archive 8: May 9 2005 - July 12 2005

New Messages

No, thank YOU

I had a great time and learned quite a lot on St. Simons, Georgia. I had no idea just how cool Georgia was :) Thanks for pointing me that way. -Harmil 6 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

(Random thought for myself.)

I'm excellent, personally

That was the broadband connection effing with me. "Upgrading", are you ready for this? Upgrading from VDSL to ADSL. Yes. No, please don't explain I'm laboring under a misapprehension, I assure you that's what they call it. C is in a big snitch. We're back online now, anyway. ¿Como es usted yourself? Bishonen | talk 7 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)

What?

Eh? 24 at 8 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

• I removed the pornographic image, which was not necessary to the article and which had been inserted by a user who had received multiple warnings about uploading said images. The text says that a person might be aroused by pubic hair. That really is enough. A shot of a woman's mons veneris isn't necessary and is, in fact, inappropriate. Geogre 9 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

  No, I removed the image. You reverted all my changes back to his very first version. Look again. 24 at 9 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to delete Matthew 2:16

however, a proposal by User:Uncle G covers a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a vote at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

Woodlouse

Hi again Geogre. I was wondering if you could give me any tips on how I could get information on Woodlice used in medicine to cure coughs. I have been trying to find information using google but to no avail. Is it ok to add something very brief (like the medicine section that I added) if you think it is something that is worthy of being included? I'm not too experienced with wiki etiquette. Thanks --J011 22:14, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Geogre, brilliant information. Do you not believe what I wrote? I am pretty sure that the name Pill Woodlouse came from the fact that they used to be taken as a medicine, but now to find a trusted source to back it up :) --J011 20:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, again

As I was saying on IRC, I'm sorry if I was overly terse in my FAC comments, as I I really don't want to diminish the work you've done. I may be a bit finicky about style, but the effort you've put into the article certainly shows. The content seems to be a plenty, and I don't think it's very far from being perfect stylistically either. Ambi 13:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/The Fifty Worst Films of All Time

Hello Geogre, thanks for voting, and for the insights into the history of the subject, most interesting!

Still I am wondering, what is it that you actually care to keep: the article about the book (presumably by a, uhm, notable critic) - or the list of "worst movies" in itself? (or both?) If what is to stay is an article about Medved's book, then how does a redirect to an article about another author's compilation make sense. Also, if it an article about the book then it should not be a mere list of the "worst" movies, I believe. If, on the other hand, it is yet another list that we keep, then how can it ever become NPOV? Yes there are other such list already in existance (e.g. references on the discussion page), which are kept, after vfD discussions, on the grounds that they clearly and profoundly state the POV nature of such article! Anyway :) - the article as such is in need of lots of improvement and doesn't it qualify for deletion just for that. What do you think? - Introvert (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Drama yours

Then you must have a cheese sammich! I'll take a good look at drama yours. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Company (or, Oh, Christmas Tree!)

In fact why don't we enjoy it together in front of the fire? Bishonen | talk 16:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Augustan drama

Well, I have no familiarity with the era, but it sounds like that's what you wanted. Yes, I think I understand the point, and you conveyed the problems that a theater system something like modern Hollywood and a censorship program caused in terms of chilling new drama. There are a few minor things, all terms that are either unclear from context, or are just obvious link targets:

• 18th century
• propos
• historical and didactic poetry
• middle class anxiety
• playwrights
• Tory

Great article. I look forward to seeing it on the front page some day! -Harmil 01:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Huchoun, which you recently created, has been 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.

References

Hey, did you use Green and Ward, and do you have anything else that's in-puttable there? Because the others on the list are more left from the original general monster article, aren't they? Furthermore, may I archive the penises in the penis archive? Bishonen | talk 02:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The Ward I ... well... I used in the sense that it explains to folks the context, but I didn't cite it. I.e. I didn't use it, because I know the stuff, but it would be a reference for anyone else. Greene... Hmm. No, I guess not. The revisions I did yesterday were all cited with brand new citations (e.g. the libretto, and I finally cited Butt, since I'd had the Pope quote in there forever). I will probably have to do a reference plug and sweep, and perhaps I'll do that today. I.e. I'll look for references that say what I say and cite them, although I didn't get the information from them -- things that are just true and known to those plugged into the research. I have a citation to add for the Dover edition of Hogarth (a folio book of Hogarth engravings for $10, originally, but with a good (not fantastic) text on each plate explaining what's going on and the historical references), because that's where I got some information on the 2nd or 3rd war of theaters. Geogre 10:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And the PENISES? May I archive? Bishonen | talk 13:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Penises? Wow, bishonen, I don't know what you're talking about. 0:-) Geogre 14:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The Dorset Garden Spectacular

Hey, I can feel an article coming on—I'm reading about the operas at Dorset Garden in the 1670s and 80s. Wow. Apparently Betterton went over to Paris and studied the latest machines, and then DG got all outfitted, and they put on stuff like the Dryden-Davenant-Shadwell Tempest. Here's a stage direction from Dryden's Albion and Albanius, 1684—85:

The clouds divide, and Juno appears in a machine drawn by peacocks: while a symphony is playing, it moves gently forward, and as it descends, it opens and discovers the tail of the peacock, which is so large that it almost fills the opening of the stage between scene and scene. (Act I)

In your face, John Rich! Another:

The cave of Proteus rises out of the sea, it consists of several arches of rock work, adorned with mother of pearl, coral, and abundance of shells of various kinds. Through the arches is seen the sea, and parts of Dover pier . In the middle of the cave is Proteus asleep on a rock adorned with shells etc, like the cave. Albion and Acacia seize on him, and while a symphony is playing, he sinks as they are bringing him forward and changes himself into a lion, a crocodile, a dragon, and then to his own shape again. (Act 3). --Bishonen | talk 14:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Doan you undercut me, missy! Yes, I know opera and recitivo was spectacular, but the question is when spectacle just as spectacle starts to kick plays off the stage. (I've seen a copy of Sodom, and the stage directions there look about 5 times more impossible than the 2nd one you have up there. I don't know how Proteus could change shape, but Rochester has people doing things that simply can't be done with human bodies.) What article would you do? We could sure use one on spectacle, but we could also do with 17th century British opera or a section in Opera that says what's true about these "early modern" times. (You know how I feel about "early modern.") Geogre 15:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well, "change shape"—you shouldn't expect computer-assisted morphing like in the cinema! Notice that he "sinks"? Into the floor trap, presumably. The audience wouldn't be looking for for a convincing transformation, I guess, they'd be there to get a kick out of how great the guys in the lion, crocodile, and dragon suits looked as they emerged from the trap. I was thinking definitely a separate article, with a title something like your redlink. Hey, Geogre, a pretty good web reference for you: Helton, Lowrie F. "Technical Theater During the Restoration: Lighting and Scenic Design England 1660-1800", part of a collaborative post-graduate web project, The World of London Theater 1660-1800. This essay is by a grad student, far from well-written, but full of good, carefully referenced info, take a look! (It's the most horribly formatted text you ever saw, at least the way Mozilla renders it. And NO paragraphing, believe it or not. Nevertheless.) Bishonen | talk 17:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so a sliding trap. He sinks (as Proteus), revealing Lion standing there, who then sinks, revealing Dragon standing there, while Proteus has gone back to the back of the queue and risen again behind Dragon? That would work...sort of. I'll take a look at the reference, as I could find nothing useful on my searches. They were all horrible. Meanwhile, I keep thinking of things to buff up the article some. Incidentally, I am not working this to any sort of FAC any time soon. I might self-nom it in the far future, or ask if anyone else wants to, but with Restoration literature and Augustan literature both having come up very quickly, the voters need a break from me and my hobbyhorse. I'm just working on it because it remains an intellectual problem that needs addressing and because I can't think of any new articles that I want to work on. Please do write something on spectacle or something like that. I'd love to be able to link "spectacle" everywhere I've used it so that people know what I'm talking about. If you clicked on spectacle, by the way, you'd see that it leads to spectacles: it's a spelling redirect. :-( Geogre 17:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

A question about deleting a couple of articles

Hello. User:JCarriker suggested I contact you. I ran across a couple of articles which seemed suspicious to me -- BODMAS and BODMAS! (they have similar content). The band and their albums don't seem to be real. User:JCarriker suggested I list them on the Votes for deletion page, and I think I did the process properly. Could you look them over and let me know if I was wrong in addressing the situation this way, and if I was correct, if I did the complicated process correctly? I asked the user who created the articles if the bands were real, since I can't find any references to them on Google, but he or she didn't respond. The band is also listed on List of songs about suicide for their record which supposedly sold 2 billion copies but doesn't come up on a Google search. Sorry if I made newbie mistakes. John Barleycorn 22:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'm glad I figured out the instructions.  :) John Barleycorn 17:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Augustan Drama Links

No problem, it was a very well written article. I am aware of the linking policy (only link the first time a word appears in an article), but I guess I just missed the fact that a few of them had already been linked ..I did try to check first with ctrl+f ..oh well :P Keep up the great work on your articles! :) --Naha| 03:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Run for cover

As I'm a veggie, I'll see if I can trade it in got a quorn roast. I did revert an interesting edit where someone removed the second picture on the grounds that it was the same as the first one! Filiocht | Talk

A poor little canard on a veggy talk page - have you no tact or shame? Giano | talk 11:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, dang! Round here, eating that stuff would get you tarred and feathered as a radical subversive. If it don't moo, quack, or whistle, it ain't food. (Yes, we eat our football referees, too.) I'll see if I can find an illustrative photo. Little did I know that filiocht would be competing with the ducky for food! Geogre 11:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Argh (Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005)

This one's just about got me at the end of my rope: Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005. The way we're headed the inclusionists will soon want to keep articles on individual stop signs and intra-high school chess matches, and everything2 will look positively erudite in comparison. (Not soliciting a vote, just needed to cry on someone's shoulder.) Oh, and I hope all has been well with you since we last chatted. Niteowlneils 01:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Referral from Sango123

Dear Geogre,

I have been referred to you by Sango123. The following are some of the vandalized and consequently blocked pages by username Joy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Pagania http://en.wikipedia.org/Duklja http://en.wikipedia.org/History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina http://en.wikipedia.org/Travunia http://en.wikipedia.org/Serbs http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Serb_lands03.jpg etc...

Please refer to the following discussion as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image_talk:Serb_lands03.jpg

Joy insists on violating copyright protected materials. His map is a flase clone of a published work http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Kpdai30.gif and is in disagreement with the facts. Not only is it inferior, but wholly flase and in violation of copyright material.

According to most historians, all the historical evidence strongly suggests that Serbi-Bosnia's western border ran along the Una and Sava rivers, centered at Srb, an ancient stronhold on the Una River. According to primary historical sources Caslav's rule did extend to the west of the river Una as well. He shortly ruled Croatia. Neither map reflects this.

Last but not least, Joy seems to be in disagreement with the wider Misplaced Pages community. With only himself on his side, he has blocked numerous wikipedia users. I express my doubt that this should be tolerated. It hurts the whole community.

I thank you for your help in advance. SHould you be unable to assist with this, please let me know who is.

Thanks, UCLA - Pasadena

• Response: Misplaced Pages is designed, by its very nature, to be like other encyclopedias, in that it is not the place for new information. It is a tertiary reference work, and not a primary source nor a place for the publication of new conclusions or research on a subject. Therefore, on all political and academic issues, it must take the most conservative, least disputed position possible. That is why "cite sources" is important. If citations disagree, then we can either say "both points of view have references" or we can simply not discuss the issue that is not entirely settled. If it's in dispute, we are not the referee to make a ruling. We are not the arbiters of truth, but only reporters of established truths. Because Misplaced Pages is online, we do have encyclopedia articles not present elsewhere on subjects that are new, but in those cases, as with all others, our duty is not to surprise anyone with new information, but rather to gather, discuss, and present coherent summaries of what other scholars say. Were I the greatest expert in the world, I would not wish to step in and say "This is the truth of ethnicity in Boznia, and this is not," because that would not be my function as an encyclopedist. I do not mean to discourage you from arguing your case, but I must say that it is least appropriate to do battle in the pages, electronic or not, of an encyclopedia. Our facts must be fairly dead, and not in motion, and especially when we discuss issues that have shed blood in the past. Geogre 15:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"UCLA - Pasadena"

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ARD and Jwalker and the linked pages for information about this whole affair. We've tolerated his mockery of our rules (and of common sense, even) for a long time... --Joy 09:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's not an ethnic dispute even, it's a dispute between people who are on crack and those who are not. Granted, myself and Mir Harven are Croatian, but PANONIAN is a Serbian. This abuser isn't here to promote an alternative interpretation of history, they're just here to cause a flamewar by posting nonsensical images.

In case you hadn't bothered to read the background discussions, the summary is that the image (on five different filenames, but their actual image is only one) is marked to depict the 9th century and marked as something from Byzantine sources; whereas in reality they don't depict any century because they're a fabrication, and their sources are from the 10th and the 20th century, and they aren't actually using any of those sources but drawing their own maps without any real criteria.

Thanks for your patience. --Joy 20:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

William Davenant

What happen? :-( I could have sworn there was a pic of Davenant of the syphilitic nose in one of the auggies, where'd it go? Bishonen | talk 10:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Aha, Restoration literature, sorry! Nobody set us up the bomb, thank you, as you were! Bishonen | talk 10:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

-) You've been watching too much arcade video game screens, and now all your base are belong to them. Yes, D'Avenant of the amblyopia is in Rest.lit., not the Auggie. I shall return to the Dorset Gardens RSN, myself. Geogre 11:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Got any more empresses?

Geogre, I believe there exists a whole series of pics of the Empress of Morocco scenic displays. I uploaded this one myself, long time ago. Have you got any more in your book? Nudge, nudge? Also, can I interest you in doing me a cropped version of the naval battle scene that is at present in the User:Bishonen/Dorset Garden Spectacular? See, I was thinking, with that high resolution you use, I'd like to have the naval scene without all that theatre building around it—just a narrowish proscenium frame—so the ships could be good and big, and use that for the lead picture. Or, again, not, but I'd really like to take a look at how it would... uh, look. And then, if you have more of them, I could have the full picture with a different scene in it, further down the page. See, I illustrate the page at present with too many faces and not enough scenes, for the subject, don't you agree? Got to try to give people an impression of what "spectacular" looked like. So why don't I just grab the ships and crop 'em myself? Well, that's the thing. I tried, and Photoshop like to have exploded. :-( Bishonen | talk 19:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, unfortunately, I don't have access to any more of the Morocco prints to scan, so I'm no better off than you are there. However, I do have the original high resolution one that I uploaded, so I can easily get a detail of it. Gimme a few, and I'll drop it right on your talk page. Geogre 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Wanna delete old Nose?

Geogre, I've come across a bigger and better version of the Davenant image and uploaded it as Image:WilliamDavenant.jpg and put it into your Restoration page, check it out. Image:Davenant.gif is now an orphan, please delete it if you like. Unless you prefer it? I'll admit the unfortunate man looks better the fuzzier he is. I also found a better Wren playhouse section, used in User:Bishonen/Dorset Garden Spectacular, and deleted the old one. Oh, and I'm not on IRC, check out the box at the top of my Talk for why. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The bible

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Misplaced Pages:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

All right

Awright. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh. I like the scary ogre one. 3. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Next to the paranoid one (not visible), that was my favorite, too, so long as it's not seen large. Geogre 20:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I wanna see the paranoid one! Incidentally, did I mention how much I love having the scanned detail from the Empress of Morocco by the Lead section? It's the most decorative and informative thing, it really pleases me to see it every time I go to the page. :-) --Bishonen | talk 23:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

WOW, speaking of pictures, look at the pic of the day, Image:Wellington City Night.jpg! Click on the high resolution version. Man. I didn't know my screen could do stuff like that. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at that picture when the database locked, and since then there has been no easy editing. Therefore, I blame it. Anyway, I'm glad you like the backgrop. I didn't understand that that's the whole scenery. I thought it was a single painting always behind the action or an ornament in front of the arch. I didn't realize that they would move it here and there to provide 3 or 4 backdrops for the acts. I did a thing with my old City Heiress, where I put in Gould's insult and then tried to explain it. I'm thinking that I may want to read the play. There's a free e-text, so I'll glance at it and see if I can find a way to read off the screen that doesn't make me want to vomit. I'm reading A Confederacy of Dunces just now, and I was amused to see it refer to Hrosvit. I'm wondering if I should quote it in the Hrosvit talk page or something. It's amusing, as the main character compares her with American Bandstand. Geogre 16:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Geogre, you sound like you're looking for something to do! Do we still not have any article on heroic drama, or heroic play or heroic tragedy? See, I have these redlinks in my new article, and that's one of 'em. Nudge! There are others. Say no more! Bishonen | talk 20:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you back!

Missed you, man! Need an administrative favor of you. I've been going round and round with two rather contentious users as of late who are either one and the same or working in cahoots. They are rude, their edit summaries are even ruder and I for one feel they need some talking to. They are User:Mirror Vax and User:Sherurcij. That last one in particular has been hanging stub notices off of vandal bot entries and leaving the rudest edit summaries you've ever read. The first guy just has a bad attitude in general. Never heard of him before he flamed my talk page. Can you help? - Lucky 6.9 21:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• The former is a kid (shrug). The guy naked in his bed shot by cops is a pure VfD. You know this, I'm sure: we do not have articles on victims unless there is something particularly notable about them. Just another cop victim is just another cop victim. As for the latter, he expands substubs. In every instance I've seen so far, the substubs you tagged with CSD were CSD's, but he has moved them up to keepers, but only with nastygrams in every edit summary. I left him a note about the vitriol. The wretched edit summaries are clear RfC material, if you think it's worthwhile, but you'd have to be pretty much a mellow fellow as well. Some of the "Every stub is sacred" people are hysterical about it, in my experience, and can't just buff up the stubs but have to shriek at the tops of their lungs in the process. The buffing up is fantastic. Would that all of them did that. The shrieking isn't. In fact, it's not allowed. Geogre 22:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like they're both on the young side. If Sherurcij has, in fact, expanded substubs, more power to him. You're right...I wish more would just expand them and be done with it, although I still am of the mind that whoever first writes an article is obligated to make at least something workable out of it. I was pretty cool with Sherurcij, but he forced my hand and I listed him on the vandalism page. Hopefully, he'll calm down and become a good user. Those edit summaries were just wrong. - Lucky 6.9 04:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, you probably know that people use "personal attacks in edit summaries" as grounds for RfC. In my opinion, it's not a fit grounds for an RfC, but the point is that that's the recourse, rather than ViP, for that. I can't tell you how exasperated I am with some of the people who swear (in both senses) that substubs have every right to stay here, because someone who knows something could one day come along and write about it. Well, yeah, but the same could be said of having no article: someone might come along and actually write an article. Speedy Delete criterion #1 absolutely allows for the deletion of substubs, and it doesn't matter whether it's a good or bad topic. You also know that I have a big argument about why it's better to have nothing than to have an idiocy. Geogre 11:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No comment yourself?

Replied on my page, but btw, no comment yourself, to my nudgey message above, huh? I mean, it's up to you and all, but er, did you see it..? (And you ARE the article machine, we know.) Bishonen | talk 23:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Heroic drama

And suddenly the link was blue... thank you very much, sweetheart! It's a fine short article, too. Geogre, do you think I'm ready for FAC? It turns out Antandrus isn't ready to accompany me yet, maybe not for some time, I don't know; anyway, I don't want to wait, the music isn't so central anyway. Probably the linking needs a spit polish, I've got a feeling it may not be very logical. The length is now, lessee, 33 kb. Ow! Too much! Please, Geogre a) do you have any suggestions for stuff that can be cut? And b) Is it OK? Do you think that stuff amuses anybody besides me? Bishonen | talk 17:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, heroic drama just got considerably better, as I figured out something to say there that wasn't self-evident from context. Anyway, my personal feeling is that you're not at FA yet. I'm Mr Prolix, so I may be the wrong person to ask. I want it always longer, and I'm good at suggesting complications that must be dealt with. (That's my function in life.) In a sense, you don't need the music. In fact, music is somewhat of a distraction, since your topic is the spectacle theater, so music is good supplementary information, but not pivotal for the effect of the visuals. It would be nice to know if there are orchestra pits and where the players are in these productions, but much more on when opera and how opera is going to make it a different article. Also, though, I think there is something of an odd conclusion, in that you have the super-massive spectacle as your topic (right? the topic isn't the English opera or just the machine house, right?), and you can say that it kind of stops with Dryden, but the mini-spectacle, or the machines without the expense of a lot of players or an important playwright is the lesson the houses learn. I.e. Lun is just down the street, and he can dance around a real live giraffe, if you're tired of seeing a play about last week's naval battle that was written by someone whose name isn't even listed in the playbill because it's "Mssrs Cibber and Wilks present." Let me read the whole of the article from start to finish with fresh eyes, and I'll get back to you. Geogre 17:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Heroic drama, which you recently created, has been 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.

consensus

The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were

• Delete - 21 (58%)
• Keep - 11 (31%)
• Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).

Would you be prepared to re-add your vote there? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It's Here

Not ready for ripping apart yet. Geogre 01:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's now in name space. It can die of attrition or neglect now. Geogre 00:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD thoughts

I noticed at User talk:Ambi that you were thinking about some of the problems at VFD. I recently wrote of my thoughts on just one small part of the problems in the VFD morass that I've explained at User talk:Radiant!#WP Merge? if you want to take a look at it. BlankVerse ∅ 13:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• This sounds interesting; please keep me posted. Radiant_>|< 15:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

African American Literature

I posted the African American literature article a while back on the Misplaced Pages talk:Tomorrow's featured article page so it had a chance to be seen on the front page. After two weeks, it seems that this is not going to happen. Could you go there and voice your support for the article? I think it would be great for a lit article to be seen on the front page. Thanks. --Alabamaboy 12:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me get a little perspective on the issue. If you get a chance, could you check out an item I posted at Talk:Charles Bukowski. Essentially, I did a major rewrite to the Charles Bukowski article a while back, at which time I added an external link to A critical look at Charles Bukowski’s poem "My First Affair With That Older Woman". My thinking was to present the pros and cons of Buk's writing style and this article presents the con view in a very blunt way. Now another editor doesn't like this article's critique of Buk. I know that the author of the article doesn't present his arguements in the standard "academic" fashion, but I think this is ok b/c Bukowski didn't write his poetry in that manner either. For what it's worth, the site the article is on has a high Google page rank and has been mentioned by a number of sources, such as the New York Times, as a valuable source of poetry analysis. Any thoughts on this? --Alabamaboy 17:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. It looks like the editor and I worked it out.--Alabamaboy 12:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Reversion and revulsion

No problem. You'd have done the same for me. Yeah, AOL sucks. Rob Church 21:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew the sequel

The POV that was in Authentic Matthew, an article you voted to delete, before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

1000000000000000000

Hi Geogre. In Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000, I noticed you voted to delete the article 1000000000000000000. Could you please look into Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000 (number)? Thanks. --A D Monroe III 00:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

For showing so much concern when speediable articles are walking up stairs or using lifts with weak cords, and for banning vandals left, right and centre, I award Geogre this "rouge" admin barnstar. Rob Church 04:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Handy award

Gee, Ogre! :) Thank you so much; come Wednesday, I intend to proudly display my rouge-ness for the whole world to see. :) In return, I offer you a couple of Mer Rouges, as well as the Moulin Rouge. :) Func( t, c ) 21:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how to get these images to line up the way I want them to.... :) Func( t, c ) 21:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Jorge Pinzón

Thanks for not treating my recreation of the article as bad faith. I am not abandoning it as it stands -- I intend to research it more fully, but it takes some time. Eliot 16:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Margaret Roper, which you recently created, has been 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.

re: email

I sent you an email reply the other day. Forgot to leave you a message until just now. Sorry. Thanks for your interest. Rossami (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sonnet form

What do you mean, didn't quite work? Seriously though, I realize that the rhyme scheme wasn't standard Italian or Shakespearean, rather a mix of the two, but that was deliberate and I claim artistic license. I will concede, however, that although I carefully counted out syllables, I came up rather short of the mark in terms of giving the sonnet a natural metrical flow. Given that failing, it probably shouldn't be advertised as a real sonnet — perhaps you might consider it a NutraSonnet instead. --Michael Snow 04:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

THANK YOU!

To say that I was humbled and moved by your eloquent and heartfelt vote of support is the understatement of the year. It means more to me than I can possibly express. I promise to wield the mop and bucket with care and love. Anything I can do in return, just ask. All the best, Lucky 6.9 05:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Unilateral undeletions?

Hi there! You certainly have a point about this, and I suppose it would be inappropriate to undelete a VFD'ed article without resorting to VFU. I believe the community didn't notice this issue because it was later added to an already-controversial RFC. TINC notwithstanding, people are generally unwilling to be too harsh on long-term strong contributors. The other main issue there was that deletion results depend heavily on which admin closes it. This is unfortunate, but I can't think of a practical way of changing this (other than by going back to straight binary voting, which solves this problem but raises worse ones). Anyway if deletion reform comes to one or more useful proposals, it may be desirable to establish clear consensus on such issues as which votes mean 'keep' and which don't, and when VFU must be employed. Radiant_>|< 09:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed

You think it might be a good idea to confiscate this kid's peashooter? Bishonen | talk 11:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hell yes, but I think Tony has lost his sh*t altogether and is now arguing troll points of view, calling names, and altogether doing a yahoo act, and, for direct comments, he has been more offensive and disruptive than Ed's only-occasional whoppers. I am amazed and shocked at the outright hate being taken as normal on that talk page. I'm glad I never have seen it before. Geogre 13:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Tony inspired me to write that. Uh, are you saying you do want to confiscate my peashooter..? Or you meant Ed's? (That's not what I picture him wielding.) Bishonen | talk 13:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed's! Tony's too, when it comes to that. Disagreeing with everyone is a noble pursuit. Disagreeing with everyone and then deciding that you'll just go ahead and change deletion results or blow away project pages or "making a mistake" on a project page is quite another thing altogether. Believe it or not, I have no personal dislike of either of these users, no dislike of their edits, no matter what I might think of their points of view on policy, but, damn it, there is no enforcement right now. Looking at that arb talk page made me think that some people really aren't here for the -pedia and only want the wiki.

BTW, I wonder if there would be any consequences if someone blocked, without RfC or determination of ArbCom, Ed or Tony or someone and then said, "Hey! It was just a mistake!" The fact is, there are things you shouldn't take so lightly that you make a mistake with them. Geogre 13:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Congrats and hope you're holding up

Congrats on Augustan literature being on the front page. I hope the vandalism and idiotic edits that I'm sure the article is suffering through isn't driving you crazy.--Alabamaboy 16:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Me too, and thanks for all the good stuff on my FAC vote! Have a dahlia! Bishonen | talk 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You know I live in via dahlia, right? (Really, that's the commonly offered explanation of the town name.) I'm having to alt-L quite often (watchlist) and revert more than I'm accustomed to and block a bit, but, yeah. So far, one great edit, a few over-linkings, and 3-4 spray paintings. Geogre 19:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on the autism FAC!

Thanks! Its now a Featured article. --Ryan Norton 03:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Apart from Jtd, you were the only administrator that commented on my entry on the Administrator's noticeboard. Humour me by explaining how my understanding of blocking policy bears no relation to reality.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here..." Third paragraph of the board page. The block I dispute was not for 3RR (that was previously), but a 72-hour for making edits Jtd disagreed with. I made a complaint and now I'm trying to figure out why almost everyone decides to focus on the disputes over some of my edits rather than the behaviour of the admin in question.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, but I did'nt realise the transgressions had to be so blatant. I did say the board was not the place to go into the disputes, but a lot of stuff was written it was hard for me to leave just hanging there.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin standards

Well, the Ed issue is now at the ArbCom (isn't it?) as is Stevertigo. Regarding Tony, I suppose the best bet would be to 1) take a leaf out of Misplaced Pages:Deletion reform and get some agreement on what acceptable standards for closing actually are, or 2) keep an eye out for his closings and inform the community if you disagree, most likely on VFU. That's not an ideal mechanism for cases such as this, but it beats AN/I and it's the best we've got; in any conflict on deletion-or-not the article is likely to be deleted at some point so VFU would work (yes, that sounds stupid, but it's what's been going on lately). Radiant_>|< 13:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway

Hi. I read your comment when you signed under Smoddy's view. Since it goes beyond Smoddy's view and reflects my own opinion in a large way please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway#Outside_view_by_User:Texture if you haven't already. - Tεxτurε 18:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

I didn't get a chance to finish telling you how much I like Augustan literature. Obviously, it is still a stub...but I'm sure you're working on it! ;-)

Geogre, contributions such as yours represent the core of what an encyclopedia is all about. Feature Status == Geogre Status!!! :) (This, in fact, is the true definition of to geogre-ify.) It is for this reason that your support of my adminship meant so much to me, thank you. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Like bold Briareus, with a hundred hands"

Hi, Geogre, and thanks for your comments about my Dunciad tweak.

I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages and admire the vast amounts of time you have put into that entry, especially the summaries. The "stall" is understandable, given the detail you are putting into it and the vast amount of other things you have going on judging from your user page. I think what Pope wrote about Handel, cited in my title just above, might also be applicable to all your many activities in writing and enhancing entries on these pages! Whew!

Your comments on the "Elegy to the Memory of an Unfortunate Lady" are well taken. I did try to choose the word "celebrated" carefully--certainly it's anthologized a great deal, as in the Norton Anthology of English Literature I still have on my shelves from my college days some two decades ago. Whether it is the most significant or great of Pope's poems is entirely another matter; I tend to agree with Maynard Mack that it's a bit out of focus. But even people who have big problems with it (such as John Wesley, cited in my entry) can't refrain from quoting it--it is a memorable piece, at the least.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments and certainly defer to your expertise in these matters. I look forward to seeing more of your work hereabouts. -MollyTheCat 23:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your further comments on my talk page. I've put the bare minimum "something" on my user page now, as you suggested. To your other comments, I can only say "whoo!" and "wow!" and even "whooee!" at your breadth of knowledge. I'm more of an 18th century enthusiast myself except for the 19th century delve into Austen (who as you point out is better represented than other 19th c. authors on Misplaced Pages); hopefully there will be some efforts to enhance the 19th c. by those who are lovers of, and specialists in, that literature. Until later, best regards. -MollyTheCat 09:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting Vesa Ahonen. I must say, this was the first time I've seen Finnish schoolchildren insult each other on the English Misplaced Pages. — JIP | Talk 15:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep it up

I'm genuinely sorry to see you disappointed with the community and the project, but you have every right to be. Some seriously outlandish mistakes and silly, ideologically tainted behavior has been going down. If anything, a lot of inclusionists should take a long, good wikibreak to get some perspective on the situation and hopefully come back convinced that keeping lists of Simpson-episodes and Harry Potter-characters isn't really boosting the credibility of the project.

I hope I never see the day when you actually leave the wiki for good. Though I have still to actually teach myself much about 17th century literature, I see that you are clearly an extremely productive, qualified and generous editor that has contributed more to this project than most of us will ever hope to do.

And who would help me get subtlety up to standards? Don't let stubborn mediocracy get to you, dude...

Peter 18:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Warren Benbow

Restored. The original version clearly described him as a "drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator". Looks like an assertion of notability to me; your mileage may obviously vary. --Tony Sidaway 21:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Amazingly brave after it has been expanded. When it was created, it was a CSD. It got tagged. It got deleted. Now it's not. Hooray for that, but it changes nothing about its initial suitability. When people comply with the rules and standards, their articles don't get deleted. When they don't, the articles get deleted. Finger wagging is deeply appreciated. Geogre 21:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't a social forum, is it? We're supposed to intepret their contributions as genuine attempts to create an encyclopedia unless there's pretty good evidence to the contrary, not make them jump through hoops.

Anyhow I'm not wagging my finger, I'm sorry you think that. I'm letting you know you speedied an article about someone who probably should have a Misplaced Pages entry. I only noticed because I specialize in this kind of cleanup. --Tony Sidaway 21:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you follow VFU? Indeed, I interpret them as genuine when there is sufficient evidence in an article for it. In fact, in the state it was in when I deleted it, it could also have been speedy deleted under criterion #1. So, again, if people write articles with enough information to guide readers, if they follow the rules, they don't get deleted. If they don't, then the articles get deleted, and you ignore all process to undelete them. I followed a tag, evaluated the contents of the article, and executed the decision. You just undeleted. Congratulations on the wisdom in telling the process to sod off. Geogre 21:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If the process gets in the way of writing an encyclopedia, it gets trashed. --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)