User talk:Geogre

Wikiquote of the Week:

"But hey, you have CONTRIBUTIONS in the Main space of 4000 and deletions of around 3000 or more. This could be another reason to ban you from being an admin for some time. You should learn how to CONTRIBUTE Tobias Conradi"

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, Archive 9: July 12, 2005 - Sept. 20, 2005, Archive 10: Sept. 20 - Oct. 7, 2005, Archive 11: Oct. 7 - Dec. 5, 2005, Archive 12: Dec 5, 2005 - Jan 5, 2006, Archive 13: Jan 5 - Feb 7, 2006 Archive 14: Feb 8 - May 1, 2006 Archive 15: May 1 - June 8, 2006

Archive 16: June 8 - July 30, 2006

List of things with gaps

It's new! It's exciting! It's an idea whose time came months ago: The Tags and Boxes Player's Guide

New Messages

Move Request

I closed a move request for the Committee for the Safety of Nuclear Installations yesterday following the requisite five-day period because the request was malformed. But the editor who made the request is clearly correct in that the page ought to be moved from Committee for the Safety of Nuclear Installations to Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations as that is factually correct. Would you be able to perform the move for us? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, now I have a headache, but I think it's done. Geogre 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

and thanks from me too ! Bob aka Linuxlad 14:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

De nada. I just had to find the acetominophen. Quite an adventure y'all have got going, there. The article could use some beefing up, but I suppose you know that and were just starting. Geogre 14:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy

Just a note to let you know the article has been completely rewritten in the time since you voted on AfD. dryguy 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh god. I can't look. Letsee, how does it go; Lincoln had a secretary named Ford and Ford drove a Lincoln? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The keep voters, most of them, were not crazy. They suggested rewriting it to be like a Snopse page, an article about the "coincidences," including when it began, how it spread, how it got a boost by the Internet, etc. If they succeed in doing the rewrite, it will be worth keeping, supposing only that the rewrite doesn't reiterate the thing in the process of discussing it. It's no improvement if you write about it and then have "similarities" tacked on by an eager reader. I'll look after a while to see whether or not I can change my vote, but I'm wary even with a rewrite. Geogre 17:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The rewrite is very much worthwhile, so I got to vote to "keep." It's a nice thing to do and what Wikipedia is about. Gallows reprieves are always dramatic. Geogre 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Geogre! I'm very grateful to you and everyone else who has given the article a second chance. dryguy 20:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Geogre

Have something for that awful headache...

...and something to drink it with!

I'm sorry to hear your head is hurting, dear G - here's something to drive that pain away... and something you shouldn't actually have, but hey, it's Saturday! :) Hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 17:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Heck yeah! The funny thing is that the one I can't have is not the one you think. I take Coumadin (not because I'm that old, but because of a bit of a mishap of birth that required a fix), so I'm not allowed to have aspirin, but the beer is more effective and delicious. Thank you. Geogre 17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Lingeron

I decided to unblock Lingeron so we can get some more evidence, especially since controversy was starting to erupt. If this ends up being incorrect and based on speculation, it could lead to severe consequences. I had to take the safe route, at least for the time being. — Deckiller 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if this issue looks like bad practice — some objections were raised, and I wanted to make sure we had all the cards out on the table before we kept a block in place. I do think that, even if Lingeron isn't a sockpuppet, we should block he/she for the other issues. — Deckiller 06:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you link to a diff of the controversy? Again, it's fine if we want to run check user, but check user policy is to not request in the case of the obvious. I don't think there really can be severe consequences. Everyone is following policy in the various areas. Since I haven't had to deal with the user much, it's fine if she's unblocked while a check user request is processed. Geogre 11:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and don't sweat the lifting, etc. You did the right thing. I blocked an obvious one. Questions arose, and that's all it should take to shorten the block -- no hard feelings. The questions were valid. Check user followed. Confirmation came. Block reinstated. That's absolutely fine and no hard feelings toward anyone. Shoot, it's all encouraging for me. I wish more indef blocks were carefully considered. Geogre 12:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; glad to see it's all been taken care of now...until the next sock :) — Deckiller 19:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Afd philosophy

I wanted to tell you that I was quite impress with your essay outlining some of your AfD philosophy-in particular your sentiment I think that the logic of eventualism applies equally to absences as stubs. Eventually a Wikipedian will create a good article, just as eventually a Wikipedian will fix a stub.. It has an almost userbox-ish appeal to it and I find it a very even keel and moderate approach. I do believe there is value in stubs but there is also value in the AfD process. While I do think that the veterinary surgery page would have been expanded in time, the AfD prod quicken that growth and as a whole Wikipedia is better for it. The system is not perfect but in cases like this--it works. :) Agne 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of expansion. I don't mind changing my "vote," either. AfD isn't supposed to be clean up, but if it gets people to work, then that's a nice side effect. One of the things, I guess, that bothers me is that it seems like passions run high over something that is, to me, questionable. There are two reasons for leaving a "The sky is blue" substub. The first is that it is actually valid but stunted. The other is that one believes that the very sketchiness will invite contributions. The third reason, that we shouldn't disrespect the author, doesn't apply, if you ask me. I think a single sentence can't satisfy the first valid reason, nor do I think it will work for the second reason, and that's what bothers me. Are we keeping these because it's going to hurt the feelings or disrespect the author? Shoot, no one wants to be mean, but that's just not reason enough.

Again, I'm delighted if that article got expanded.

Thanks for the compliment on the philosophy. Some of my stuff is out of date, probably, but I do feel like it's somewhat my duty to be consistent and to be explicit in the way I interpret the policy. The most vital part, to me, is that we don't treat AfD as a battle or weapon. It's an ugly part of the site, but I'm convinced that it's necessary (and overburdened and unweildly and in danger of collapsing). Geogre 11:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that AfD is not suppose to be about clean up but in a way it sort of has evolved to serve that purpose. To be honest, I think there needs to be a little better "notice" system for when an article has been AfD so that more editors could get involved in improving the article (if it can be). The 6 day AfD timeline is sufficient time to see if an article can get better if adequate notice can be given. If it's crap, then very much like your organism analogy (which I also like) then the waste should be expelled. I have to admit, I'm personally bewildered at the need for all the obscure anime characters, schools, and articles dedicated to an individual album.

I think the area that we most agree on is the need to keep AfD away from being a battlefield. While I have been very impressed with your moderate demeanor, I do think "Ugly interaction" with more aggressive and not so tactful deletionist is what breds inclusionist and the more ugly the encounter the more extreme the reaction. Just as I think that extreme deletionism is bad, so too is extreme inclusionism--which again I think is a reactionary position. Trying to bring the AfD back to more common and civil ground is a worthy goal. Agne 18:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Lingeron

I wasn't sure if Lingeron was right or not about you, and if she really was a puppet or not, but after that response, I at least now know one out of two. - MSTCrow 22:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. Geogre 23:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you dear G!

Yummy!

Thank you for the lovely birthday wishes, dear Geogre! :) As I inevitably approach the dreadful age, I get more and more concerned every time I hear it, I must say... but I'll postpone this thoughts for next year, I swear ;) I kept you a piece of cake - now don't be shy and eat it all! Hugs, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the cake. You see, there are some serious advantages to passing the midpoint in things. For example, you can start telling everyone how you remember when things were different. You can excuse being irrascible. You can start complaining about the routine aches and pains and get actual sympathy. Similarly, I realized a month or so ago that I had gotten fat rather than overweight. What a wonderful realization that was. Now, I can look at that piece of cake, and where otherwise people would have said, "That's fattening," I can answer, "Too late!" and gobble it down. Congratulations on another year and for that other business. Geogre 14:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am expecting the "what am I doing with my life / what would I like to do with my life" existential angst in the next few years, but how do you known when you are half-way? A person might live to be 100, or 120, or just one more day... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel like you're growing up or dying? If the former, you're not there. If the latter, you're past it. If you feel like you're a grown up who will need to make important decisions, then enjoy those 3 months. Geogre 14:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am definitely growing up. More cake please. :)

In other news, I have 2 1/6 of my own new catgeories - 2/3 of Category:Famous rhinos (sharing with a less notable Canadian rhino) and 1/2 of Category: Famous hippos (sharing with an odd hippo/tortoise couple), and all of Category:Famous giraffes.

And I saw the skeleton of Jonathan Wild on Friday. If you are in London, he is at the Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons on Lincoln's Inn Fields. Free entrance. He is the one hanging up in the background here. Couldn't see the remains of Chunee, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that is just silly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't me. Category:Famous tigers is a bit sparse too. User:Mike Selinker being rather thorough in Category:Famous animals. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have about 30/32nds of Category:Literary dunces, but if we get a category of famous dogs, we'll have to start a new wiki. There is one famous giraffe, eh? I wonder how many famous lemurs? I also wonder how long it will be before someone starts up the inevitable "people are animals" argument. Let's keep the dog far hence that's friend to men. Geogre 16:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we have 70-odd articles in Category:Famous dogs, one of the most populous sub-categories of Category:Famous animals, along with the slightly pedantic Category:Famous cetaceans. But then there is Category:Famous lobsters and Category:Famous red pandas (but for some reason no Category:Famous crabs or Category:Famous giant pandas, let alone Category:Famous puffer fish...). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Workshop

Thank you for your supportive comments here [1] They are appreciated. That Fred Bauder thinks I can be banned instead of Eternal Equinox has caused me to have a severe sense of humour failure. In retrospect, of course instead of making light of Eternal Equinox, I should have taken her very seriously - which is what she wanted - but frankly she and her edits on our talk pages were (at best) a joke - so one could either laugh or cry, and crying has never been my style. That Fred Bauder thinks Bishonen should be "cautioned" is, in short, disgusting. She seems to spend hours and hours trying to create harmony on the site, and takes her responsibilities as an admin 100 times more seriously then most of the others. I think the Arb-com now needs a huge kick, and to rid itself of insulting and incompetent buffoons. I expect I shall stick around Wikipedia, but at the moment mu entheusiasm for it is at an all time low. Sorry this is a (sort of) spammed message, but when I saw all of your comments for the first time this evening, I felt a quick response was necessary, but that makes it no less sincere. Thanks once again, it's nice to feel supported. Giano | talk 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I understand your frustration, but you have to always remember that Fred's one voice. I disagree with him, of course, and in strong terms, but you simply can't let his view shape your mood. If you do, you are ceding power over your moods and edits to someone else. Secondly, though, I have a feeling that there is a backstory to his motions that we're not aware of, but he could also just be making a mistake. People make mistakes, sometimes say hasty things, and sometimes misapply, but the most important thing I can say, I think, is to feel as bitter as you'd like, but don't let it color your edits. Let him back out or back down, if he chooses. If he chooses not to, then wait to see whether anyone else agrees with him. I very much doubt anyone will, and remember that several people have your back in this instance. I know that your previous experience with that truly absurd pedophile thing has jaundiced your view, and rightly so, but this is not a replay. Things are going to work out, and Fred's voice is alone here. Let's let that slide as much as possible, because there's nothing good that's going to come from pointing out his error more than once. Geogre 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Youth Ministry AfD

You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth ministry. Apparently, long after the AfD was well underway, someone moved the page and then put a (mostly) empty stub in its place. The article actually being discussed is now at Youth Ministry (Evangelical). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• If that's so, then someone is vandalizing. Doing the redirect while under AfD is rude but permissible. Replacing the redirect with a junk article, on the other hand, is absolutely out. This is something I may have to put on my boots for. What a mess. Geogre 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It was definitely not a good idea to do it during the AfD, but I don't think it was done in bad faith. The user had gotten a consensus for it on the talk page, and probably didn't think it would make any difference since the AfD seemed to be headed towards a certain Keep consensus anyway. So it was jumping the gun a bit, but I wouldn't call it vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the redirect that's vandalism, but the overwriting of the redirect so that the AfD header pointed to the wrong direction. Without word, the closing admin would delete the stub and not touch the other. Now, if it's a sure keep, that's no big deal, but if it had been a consensus delete, then it would have basically protected the article from the AfD. That's why it's vandalism. Let's suppose that you know that an article is going to get deleted after it's listed on AfD. If you moved and then overwrote the redirect, the closer would delete the former redirect, preserving your bad article. It can't be allowed. Geogre 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Input

Could you please take a look at this and see if you can offer any useful advice? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have a couple of thoughts. My first attempt at the thing was [2] this. Additionally, I got into a longish exchange a week or so ago with someone from the "other side" on schools. I'm not sure it's at the level of a Platonic dialog, but it does outline some of my thoughts in a clearer (maybe) form. Here [3] it is. Later today, I'll try to come up with something less verbose, more schematic and objective. My central point, over and over again, is that each item in an encyclopedia must be unlike the common run of things. Almanacks, directories, censuses and the like list "all" of something. Encyclopedias contextualize concepts and explain the singular. To the degree that a school, or a restaurant or statue or building, sets out an uniqueness and importance (the stuff you're outlining on your page), to that degree, it's a proper and necessary article. Geogre 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm intentionally sidestepping the issue of what's subjectively notable and what isn't; instead, I'm just deferring to schools that can support an article, however inane. As long as we aren't taking the school's word for everything, I'm happy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• See, I can't accept that position. It's not that I don't think there are schools that should have articles, but I'm hard line on this. I think every article has to establish its usefulness, and that usefulness must be explanatory. If it's not, then it's just not encyclopedic. I wouldn't do the "nn must go," but I would take the time, each time, to explain that there has to be a reason for an article. The question "What harm does it do" is not the right one. "What good does it do" is the proper one for all articles, schools and pizzareias alike. Geogre 17:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Usefulness" isn't really a useful measure, is it? As I'm fond of pointing out, tonight's TV listings for a major city are useful to millions, verifiable and NPOV -- I'm not sure if what makes them inappropriate for Wikipedia can be encoded, in fact. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Usefulness is an excellent criterion. That usefulness must be explanatory. I.e. it has to explain the meaning, context, history, and effects of the subject. This is not "useful for starting my car in the morning." It is not "useful to students trying to find their class." It is not "useful for oatmeal eaters." It is useful in explaining the full range of meaning of the subject. That full range includes several things that might have as minor components all of the above, but the more useful the article is at explanation, the more appropriate the article is. If it fails to include cultural context, history, and effect, it's entirely out. "Tonight, Lucy will be on" is not explanatory: it is a fact. The fact might be used by someone, but there is no discourse involved. The fancier term I use most often is "discursive element to the article." Geogre 17:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, kneejerk reaction when I see "useful". Agreed that articles should be usefully explanatory. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning on WP:V pretty heavily for a definition of "notable" or "useful," here; if the school is sufficiently noteworthy to have multiple non-trivial sources, then it's notable. Considering a school is going to have to be in the news or controversial or historical to meet that objective standard, it excludes the vast majority of "Foo Elementary School is in Foo, Bar, and has X students and classes in Y and Z" while not encumbering users who are making actual articles (instead of inane, unexpandable stubs) on schools. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Charles Augustus Murray

He seems like an interesting, hippo-obsessed chap. Could I interest you in adding some quality research to my scandal- and anecdote-obsessed oeuvre? (Or is that oeuf?) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in the last week (cum laude, laudamus ad te Christe) of this second summer semester. I want it to end. I want it to end. Oh, please, Lord, let it end. Anyway, it ends on Friday, and there will be MUCH rejoicing. Next week and the week after, I get to not teach (gratia ad Deo), and I may actually go in to the library again at that point. Geogre 14:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

TTJ

Hi Geogre, this is bloger I accept the changes you made and I added as per your request. please review, and tell me what you think.

BTW I took out the fallowing sentence,

“As part of an ongoing debate in the Orthodox Jewish community, the True Torah Jews effort represents one of the more vigorous defenses of the messianic expectation.”

since in Orthodox Jewish circles even with a positive opinion on Zionism the messianic expectation is not a subject of debate. (Or didn’t I understand your point?)

Bloger 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello anybody home?????????????

Bloger 01:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't answer because I didn't really have a comment. You know the subject far better than I ever will, I'm sure, and I wish you nothing but success with it. What would probably be the wisest course now is to either go back to DRV with your new version or go to AfD with it. You could simply reintroduce it to article space, with a note on the talk page explaining that this is a complete rewrite that addressed the concerns of the original AfD, so it is not a G4 speedy delete candidate. That's the least "legal" course. If you recall who nominated the first article for deletion on AfD in the first place, I'd drop a note on her or his talk page and invite a look at your new version. I think you're doing everything the right way and trying very hard to make a solid article that serves your organization, and I wish you every success. Geogre 22:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for your time and encouraging words.

Just so that you know, the TTJ is not my organization nor am I a member of the board the only relations I have with the TTJ is, that I happen to know the president of the org. and being that he was born before the PC, he asked me if I can help him publicize his org. on the web.

I have since Written three other articles and edited several others completely unrelated to the TTJ article.

Now to the point:

I will consider reintroducing the article. Would you be so helpful and indorse it – if not on content - at least on the basis that it satisfies “verifiability” and “notability” in your opinion?

Bloger 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I will, but I'm not clear, still, what you mean. You're going to simply move it to article space, and you'd like a comment on its talk page? Or are you going back to DRV, where I can move to all recreation? Geogre 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I’m leaning towards a new article space for several reasons 1) more people look at it this way 2) you get seven days until deletion as apposed to five in DRV Etc.

Bloger 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, not true, actually. If people think it's a recreated article, it becomes a speedy deletion candidate as G4, and that can happen very fast. That's why I wanted warning and why I think you're better off going to DRV at the same time at least. Geogre 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand a G4 is only a A substantially identical copy is it not so?

Bloger 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I confused

Have I picked up the wrong end of the tree here [4] I cannot beleive this has come back to haunt us yet again, tellme I am mistaken......please? Giano | talk 07:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I've had a year to digest my feelings on the subject, and so, if it does come up again, I think I can present them in a clear manner. If we're having this again, let's not dilly dally. Instead, straight to comment RfC. Geogre 11:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

agreed! Giano | talk 12:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I meant content RfC. Anyway, there has to be a solution beyond TfD, which will result in the same garbage as before (most people saying, "don't force it on anyone" and others declaring, "See?! There is consensus to put this on every page!"), but rather try to establish some policy on the placement of templates and boxes in general. I think I can make a decent case for how we should go forward that won't alienate the box turtles or template cutters and which will still enable those of us who work on biographies to preserve our formatting. Geogre 13:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Supposing I ever catch my breath again, I'll start a page in my user space outlining a ... well, let's not say "policy," because my policy suggestions always get rejected, reformulated, and then adopted a year later. I'll signal the other concerned writers when I get a draft going. Geogre 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, folks, tell me what's wrong with boxes and templates. I've [5] begun writing up my idears. Geogre 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all you have written so far, would you be very kind and place this [6] on your watchlist, as I will soon loose the plot completely with them all, and I don't feel very eloquent at the moment! Who are they to say it is "mid-importance" but very kind of them to rate it FA standard seeing as it is! Giano | talk 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Who read the article aloud for the spoken word version? I've always thought that was one of the stranger things -- huge amounts of disk space so that there can be a books-on-tape version. Geogre 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, all done with the Template Thoughts. There is one thing I could have added but didn't, and that's that non-unanimous Project boxes should always be allowed on the talk pages. So, feedback welcomed. Geogre 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No they should not always be allowed, as they seem "official" so are hence misleading. The biog project being a prime example with their ratings system which in truth is completely meaningless. Giano | talk 21:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

On a talk page, I don't have a problem, as they constitute just another comment. On the article page, I have a big problem, as they jump in front of the article. This is in addition to their heraldry claiming to be official. Geogre 02:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Geogre, you are the first admin I could think of. Template:Welcome is protected, and someone has suggested on the talk page that some interwikis be added. So, could you copy and paste this text to the bottom of the template whilst going around the block? It should take all of 30 seconds. I appreciate it, AdamBiswanger1 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm so efficient I do favors even when I'm not here. (Truly, I am a wonderful being.) Geogre 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All hail the Geogre! Let us sacrifice fruit and incense so he doesn't eat our children! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

(Try a sacrifice of friéd cheese sticks, for truly they are pleasing to me, and I prefer them to thy children.) Geogre 11:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My mother always said, when you don't have any fried cheese sticks, just eat your children. I couldn't let you get away without any work, so here ya go: [[:q:Template:Welcome]] [[:wikt:Template:welcome]] [[:b:Template:Welcome]] [[:n:Template:Hello]] [[:s:Template:Welcome]] [[:wikispecies:Template:Welcome]] [[:commons:Template:Welcome]] [[:m:Template:MediaWiki Welcome]] [[:mw:Template:MediaWiki Welcome]] AdamBiswanger1 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's more fun to make children than fried cheese sticks, but it's easier to know what to do with the cheese sticks than the children. I'm unable to do anything with the tags just now (on an outdated Apple), but, if Grapes or one of the other actually knowledgeable and industrious admins doesn't do it before me, I'll be able to do it after I get home and to a more uptodate computer. (If you need a powerful argument in thunderous prose, I'm your man. Stuff with codes and things, I muddle through.) Geogre 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

a HEM (suggestive throat-clearing) AdamBiswanger1 00:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Blenheim

Hello Georgre. I have rewritten the article. It is now a much better and clearer and is now also fully sourced. If you the time and/or inclination, I would be interested to see if you think it has improved, is less Anglo-centric, and deserving of FA status. Thanks. Raymond Palmer 22:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Blenheim

A pleasure to read. This is my first detailed reading of the battle itself. From my point of view, it's always that thing that happened that set the rise of Sarah going and led to the Tory triumph in a few years, the rise of Walpole, etc. I was glad to support and delighted to see our articles on the Augustan era pick up some scholarly artillery. Geogre 12:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

IRC

I was rather surprised to find, upon reading your comments at AN/I, that some other people take the same view of IRC as I do. I personally find it totally inappropriate when people "find consensus" on IRC and act on it on the Wiki. There's no getting people to stop using it, of course, but it's good that people are aware of the potential for harm there. Friday (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer here so that things can stay consolidated, in case we later feel the need for an essay coming on. The big thing about IRC is that it is neither good nor bad. Like all technology, it's primarily innocent, but its effects aren't. (Sorry for speaking as if there is an audience, but it's high danged time that someone write something policy-like on the matter as a reminder.) (It's a reminder because the IRC pages themselves say that IRC is not Wikipedia.)

1. Rapid communication is a wonderful thing, but it is a different thing from Wikipedia, which is slow and recursive.
   1. Wikipedia means writing something, leaving it for all to view, all to change, all to hash out, whereas IRC means the moving finger writing and having writ moving on.
   2. IRC's rapidity means impermanence and, in fact, that it is an action rather than a document, even if that action takes the semblance of writing.
2. IRC is a conversation, an ongoing conversation that is always in the middle, so it cannot have an end.
   1. You cannot have a conclusion in a conversation that is predicated, by its very existence, upon being forever. You therefore cannot reach a conclusion, because someone is always joining the channel and saying, "Why is the topic the way it is?" The conversation is endlessly repetitive and yet never capable of a definite position.
   2. Consensus is never final on Wikipedia. If there were, for example, 90% saying that all high schools must go or stay, that would be near consensus, but it could be reopened and reconsidered and undone the next month by a new discussion. On IRC, consensus is never extant. Because IRC is a process rather than a document, there is no definite moment at which consensus can be measured, much less announced.
3. Quorum is the biggest problem on Wikipedia, and it is the fatal problem on IRC.
   1. One source of fights on Wikipedia is that someone announces that meta/pages/projects:imaginary numbers has discussed this issue thoroughly and agreed that all imaginary numbers should be accompanied by a sound file, and then that someone goes along and begins plastering the sound file everywhere. The rest of the editors never heard about that discussion, never saw it, never agreed to it, and then find out that there were three people there and only one vote. We similarly have "policy" announced from obscure areas. The difficulty is that "consensus" is always "consensus of whom?" In other words, unless a representative sample of the involved editors and readers takes part, pure unanimity is meaningless. On Wikipedia, determining how many people have opinions is difficult, ensuring that a representative sample takes part is very difficult, and reaching agreement among them is a Herculean effort.
   2. On IRC, you have a list of channel participants going along the pane, but you never know how many are actually "there" at a given moment. Further, you have no idea whether those names represent Wikipedia names, if the names represent even Wikipedia editors at all, and whether those names are experienced Wikipedians.
   3. On IRC, silence is consent. If one person announces an action and there is one person agreeing, that will be taken as universal in-channel agreement, or can be passed off that way. Given the number of simultaneous conversations, the private tabs, etc., it's an absurdity to think that quorum ever existed, much less that it was aware and infinitely less that it agreed.
4. "Votes are evil," they say, but only because votes are subject to artificial influence on Wikipedia. On IRC, votes are Satanic.
   1. People argue that voting on Wikipedia can be influenced by "associations" and factions. These people are right. I have seen School Watch blow up an AfD discussion on a hoax article, because the people voting didn't read either the AfD discussion or the article in question. It's true that votes are unreliable. I have also written policy proposals that confused the hoi poloi, who voted against it because they were sure that it would do something that it expressly forbade. Despite that, I remain convinced that in all areas a vote is better than a unilateral action. Since I trust no one, I trust everyone. When everyone speaks, the aggregate voice is better than any solitary voice. Additionally, a high participation ensures that dissenters at least feel that they are not being targeted or oppressed.
   2. IRC is Satanic when it comes to votes. A person who is a "regular," who passes witty and pleasant comments all day, can easily distort an on-wiki vote more effectively than any talk page spammer or meta association. We disallow talk page notices, in general, and yet in 5 minutes I can summon more voters via IRC, which leaves no logs and no traces, than I could with a script talk page spamming the entire Wikipedia project. Similarly, pleasant fellows from IRC can get astronomical "pro" votes on an RFA, when they may not have actually had more than a few hundred edits, very little participation in policy, and vague answers to the questions. It is not that these voters are wrong, nor that they are right, but that the vote has been amplified one way or another by a trackless medium.

Anyway, that's what I think about IRC. It's a cool tool, and it's a fun place to hang out and talk. It's a great pressure valve for the frustrated. It does great things all the way around, and I don't want to see it banned or anything. However, it is paramount for us to be explicit and monotonous about the fact that IRC is not Wikipedia and should not be part of Wikipedia. Geogre 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This so needs to be an essay somewhere. I am a big fan of IRC and I use it a lot, including gathering advice about what to do, and dare I say it, a little politicking from time to time but you are nevertheless spot on in most of what you say. Plus you're just such a good writer. ++Lar: t/c 11:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, on both fronts. Where do you reckon it ought to be? I'm all for letting folks know about it, and letting folks improve it, as I'm sure that I've missed a thing or two, but right now it's sort of "Thoughts about IRC." I use IRC a bit, as well, mainly to blow off steam and practice my puns, but I get really itchy thinking about the people who spend all day there gathering unto themselves powers. Geogre 18:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN, WP:AN/I

I often find myself to be in accord with your comments here passim, but I must offer special compliments for your participation at AN and AN/I; on several occasions of late I have read there a contribution from you and thought Wow, his thinking mirrors mine almost exactly (save for its being more coherent and more cogently expressed). I came hither to write that in ignorance of your remarks apropos of IRC, and so now I've something more for which to give you props. I'd not recommend using your rhetorical and analytical skills whilst amongst those native to the state in which you now reside :) , but their use is appreciated here, at least by this editor. Joe 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! I wish I could turn it off when the redder members of the red state were watching, but the most I've managed so far is a reputation as a mumbler because of my sotto voce running commentary. The only way I have avoided the pitchforks and burning rail so far, I think, is that I have cultivated a zen-like adherence to the center of indifference. "You think that Zionism is good, but only because it will usher in Armageddon? How nice for you. I never could be sure of the solution to the problems of the middle east." I really appreciate the compliment, as I had noticed you, too, saying things that I was about to say. Geogre 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-unblocking

The Geogre, where did you get the impression that crzrussian brought the issue to ANI himself? (Or any of the other issues that dmcdevit brings up, either.) I don't see him expressing any notion of doing that, rather the opposite (going his merry way, as you say). These are his messages on Fred Bauder's page,[7] [8] and this is the original thread on his talkpage, now archived. Bishonen | talk 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

First, I waited for the subject to change from "should this guy be in trouble" to the more portentious "unblocking is a demotion offense," and I commented on that. In general, I don't think there is an "always" on Wikipedia, and not one for "admin unblocking self" by any means. I also think that a single admin blocking another could very easily get out of hand, if the blocking admin knows that the other fellow will be demoted for unblocking. So, first, I didn't comment on that particular case, and, second, I thought what was being enunciated was seriously enough wrong that someone had to show some dissent. I was thinking about what would happen if we let this stand as a capital offense. However, if I had to say something about this particular user, I would argue that this incident by itself is insufficient for arguing for recall. I don't know what else there is, as I have not investigated the longer history, but this particular incident would be sufficient for a stern talking-to, but not "recall." Geogre 12:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me add to the above: I don't think he should have unblocked himself, but what I see in those messages was a pretty open willingness to endure the block but a belief that Fred was making a mistake. If Fred were wrong about what was intended, then the block would have been a nothing and Fred himself would not reblock. It's not proper, but it's hardly a horror. Secondly, though, you know how I feel about the NPA "semi-policy." I see this episode as some justification of my fears. What he did was tasteless, but then he got blocked for the non-existent portion of NPA. He undid the block, and nearly immediately someone else was posting it on AN/I, where he said that he'd take whatever was coming. My arguments against "Personal Attacks are Blocks" were that the whole thing depends on someone interpreting the difference between an attack and a personal attack and a strong argument. I don't want the most blushing lily to be judging me -- there is enough of that in life. If anyone wants to block anyone for a personal attack, then make sure the attack violates community standards by taking the matter to a wider forum. Single handed blocking is questionable in any but the clearest cases. This wasn't a very clear case. Geogre 13:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You two keep disagreeing and I'm going to stop believing you are sockpuppets. My two cents, unasked for and unwelcome -- self-unblocking is a litmus test, a possible early warning sign that you haven't thought it neccessary to study up on what things admins should and shouldn't do with their buttons, and have been instead playing it by ear. The act itself is nowhere near enough to mandate desysopping, but I think it is enough to open up a broader check... and if someone's added themselves to the category that says "I don't mind people asking for a recomfirmation" (which to my mind is what Category:Administrators open to recall means), then asking for that check is appropriate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was with you for the first part, but the second part...huh? Ok, if you want to see it as a canary in a coal mine, that's fine. I also think it should trigger careful looks at the person who did the blocking. If I blocked Tony Sidaway because I felt like it, would he have to wait for the block to expire or for someone to notice, carry it to AN, get feedback, and get it shortened? If he unblocked himself (my block summary might be, "Felt insulted"), would that be a trigger that he was suspicious? My point is that I don't buy Fred's block. I agree that unblocking himself wasn't proper, but if we let something like that rise to the level of mandatory investigation, we may be handing a tool to wheel warriors and factions to use against one another. Geogre 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't like Fred's block. It was hasty at the least. Not the point. If you blocked Tony Sidaway because you felt like it, he would have to do what any non-admin would: scream on his talk page and post {{unblock}} templates. Any other course of action, including self-unblocking, is completely the equivalent to a non-admin using block evasion to either make their case or go on their merry way after a block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not equivalent to block evasion. I agree that it is not proper, and I have agreed all along that it is not proper, but it is not hiding. It is, in fact, a rather obvious gesture, one designed to attract comment. If he were to create a new account or use an old puppet, then it's likely no one would notice. That's my point: there is something inherently more honest about saying, "I'm unblocking myself. Let's force a discussion" than "U block me O Noes i can not B blockd!" (Also, I'd love to see either Tony or Snowspinner do what any non-admin would have to do, but that's another matter.) Why, though, is the discussion solely upon how evil Crazy Russian's unblock was and not on the hair trigger block Fred handed out, when he didn't have a handle on the context? Why isn't the attention back on the absurdity of NPA, where it belongs? Geogre 22:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Fred isn't in Category:Administrators open to recall? The debate is really more about what that category means than about the self-unblock, I think. But as for block evasion, there are two types -- sneaky and open. I was thinking of the "open" type, where the person announces who they are and why they are evading their block (usually because it was "illegitimate"). EE did this all the time. So did Freestylefrappe/KI/Tchadienne, very recently. Is the "open" evasion more acceptable than the sneaky type? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

EE wasn't open about it! She would get caught and then confess. Even then, she would try to deny it for a while, and she was no more open than Maggie is. So, is open evasion better? Yes, if it is designed to draw out the discussion and is done with a clear expectation of respecting the community. The point is that a unilateral block is worth what the blocker is worth, and blocking for NPA is extremely tenuous. Unilateral blocking for NPA is absolutely out, in my opinion. You must report such a block to AN/I and get feedback, IMO. If the person throwing the block won't do it, I support the person unblocking and doing it. The point is that such a unilateral block for something that isn't policy is totally outrageous. In this case, the autounblock was not sneaky, not criminal. It was improper, but improper and sanctionable are different matters, and improper and impeachable are shockingly far apart. I regard the users who try to hide the fact that they're evading blocks to be the actual evaders. The others may be scofflaws, but they're not sneaking about. We know where to go to find them, and we can hit them with a real block through ArbCom action any time. The sneaks are walking away from their positions and words. Geogre 02:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Geogre for ex-sysop!

From DRV:

no, you should lose it because you support admin right abuse. Disagreement iss not the thing here. But hey, you have CONTRIBUTIONS in the Main space of 4000 and deletions of around 3000 or more. This could be another reason to ban you from being an admin for some time. You should learn how to CONTRIBUTE Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do I sign? 4000 articlespace edits is atrocious, you should be desysopped immediately... because clearly with only 4000 edits you have NO IDEA how to make contributions! Now who's with me in this noble quest? Bishie? Giano? Grappa? It would be for his own good. ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, apparently the contributions is not the issue. If I had only 10 contributions but zero deletions, I'd be up for a medal. (I kept hearing strains of "March of the Clowns" while reading his comments.) (I also was reminded, again, of Henery Hawk.) Geogre 11:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thinning seedlings and pruning are so very hard, but the garden won't develop to its best advantage if the gardener is not brutal from time to time. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I still prefer the organism analogy: empty calories go right through the body, and AfD/CSD/xfD is the alimentary canal of Wikipedia. The troll above is even funnier in context, though. Y'all should see DRV for the really comical shadowboxing he was doing. Geogre 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of the story where all the body parts try to determine who's the boss, and the asshole, to support its claim, just shuts down for a week... You might like this one too btw: User talk:Tobias Conradi#Mails received. Cheers, trialsanderrors 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Precisely the point: all creatures must excrete or die, as one friend of mine put it. If'n we don't poop (and flush), we die. Tobias really can't tell the difference between an attack and a joke? Wow. If that's the case, I don't think we can help him. That's the sort of deficit characteristic of... well... certain psychological differences. Poor little bunny rabbit. I really should do some more non-contributing soon, but I've been enjoying not going to the library. Geogre 11:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Microstub restorage crusade the second: Bad Eisenkappel is up at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 11. ~ trialsanderrors 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness! What is with that guy? If he wrote articles as long as his insults, he wouldn't be having trouble like this. That he doesn't write English very well isn't even his main problem. Geogre 02:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Geogre for the Main Page!

Hellooo! Bishonen | talk 03:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Saturday? Eeep. Well, that means no sleep for me that day. (I really should learn out to contribute.) Geogre 11:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

Have copyediting manuals been written by people who share your perspective? I'd love to improve my skills as a copyeditor, and with that goal in mind I've been using Tony's exercises to improve my ability to identify redundancy and such. As you point out, however, there are other schools of thought. It seems to me that writing is both a science and an art—some things are just badly written, while some things are stylistic differences. Can you recommend anything that accepts a broader array of "stylistic differences" while still identifying characteristics of poor writing? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Strunk and White Elements of Style is still the standby from my point of view. I approach writing from a more scholarly point of view than Tony1 does. I don't regard either as wrong, though I regard both as "wrong for this or that." I.e. if the goal is to write with minimal ambiguity, then the stylesheets favored by corporate America work. They sacrifice some entertainment and most of the aesthetic pleasure to achieve clarity and actively discourage elaboration. On the other hand, scholars in my field frequently speak of how well written a given article is, and they presuppose that it's clear. This, then, is when they are assessing for variation in sentence structure (e.g. using complex sentences and compounds generally and then using a simple sentence when seeking to deliver a "point," or using simple sentences generally but then going to a compound-complex when summarizing), precision in nouns and adjectives, and variation in verbs. (Verbs are the most important way to improve one's style. See how many sentences you can go without using a to-be verb, and it will probably surprise you.) However, there is nothing, really, that can be used as a single sheet -- at least that I know of. I spend my days teaching basic college writing, so I don't run into advanced style guides all that often. That said, I loathe style guides that would forbid the periodic sentence, which most business writing sheets would do. I still think Joseph Addison and Jonathan Swift are models. (Yes, I am an antique.) Geogre 16:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I had a professor who forced us to take a paragraph from an essay we had written and rewrite it without any "to be" verbs. It was brutal. I probably don't remember that teacher's advice often enough these days. Thanks for the style manual suggestion; I didn't realize that E. B. White had written more than the fantastic Charlotte's Web and other children's books. I haven't read Addison, but Swift is one of my favorites too ("A Modest Proposal" is pure genius). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• They should make a public-service tv spot, featuring a craggy-faced native american shedding a tear that America allows people to grow to adulthood without knowing Strunk and White. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(Fade in) [Scene: American Indian, single feather in his hair, staring in the middle distance] Voice: Every year, tens of thousands of sheets of paper litter America's landfills. (Camera moves in tighter.) This paper is enough to deplete our forests, pollute our streams, and contribute PCB's to the environment. (Camera zooms, revealing a tear rolling down the face of the chief.) And the worst crime of all... (Camera begins to zoom out) is that this paper has been used for meaningless business memos. (Camera pulls out to a 2 shot, revealing that the chief is reading a piece of paper that says, in bold, "MEMO for coworkers doing lunch.") Please, only use paper if you have something to say and can say it clearly." (Fade out to super of chief's face and graphic: "This message brought to you by the Strunk & White Society for the Abolition of Business Writing.) Geogre 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Awesome! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have crossed a Wikipedia threshold - I went to one of those public depositaries that allow you to take away written materials without payment and I BORROWED A LIBRARY BOOK!!! Just to write a Wikipedia article. Wow. You should be so proud.

Look at Dürer's Rhinoceros! I need another volume to complete the task (which will entail me walking to another branch to get it) but FAC here we come. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you alright, ALoan? Do you need an aspirin? A muscle relaxant for your back strain? New lightbulbs for your eye strain? Books, you know, don't light up from within, the way computer screens do. Anything we can do to help you in your time of crisis, just let us know. :-) (I'm definitely going to check out the article. You should also look to see if Norfolk did any of those boastful interviews/essays of his. He likes to reveal, after the fact, all the incredible references he dug up for his novels. If he does, he'll turn you onto a great many discussions of the plots surrounding that Pope getting the rhino.) Geogre 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Very strong article already. What I was getting at, and this is entirely optional, is that there were worlds and worlds of plots involved in getting that rhino. There was a genuine rivalry and question of due subordination with Portugal and Pope. Geogre 11:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you, by chance, actually read Quicksilver? (Have we discussed this before? It's ringing a bell.) I've read plenty of books I thought were awful and it doesn't usually hurt my feelings, but that one was especially stinging as prior to it Stephenson had been one of those authors for whom I really looked forward to their next work. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I have read that one, and I was pleased that I couldn't knock it apart. He did the best job of accuracy, especially to topography, of any author I've seen. Further, he kept the anachronism to a minimum (and lost it altogether in vol. III, where he gets quite sloppy). I actually thought his portraits and places better than An Instance of the Finger Post and Lempriere's Dictionary, although the latter was cleverer and better researched. (I didn't care for the Ian Pears novel at all. The narrative trick of it was old news to me by then, since I read 18th c. novels, and I'd read The White Hotel by D. M. Thomas already, as well as The Collector and others that did the trick less pedantically and faddishly.) I'm about 1/2 way through The System of the World, but I'm reading Imaginary Cities by Italo Calvino at the same time. It lends itself to reading in bursts (Calvino, I mean). Geogre 02:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Quicksilver was actually my introduction to Restoration England and contemporary Europe, and a brutish and nasty one I must say it was. Stephenson's (much-touted) conceit of writing it in fountain pen and (I deduce) without the interference of an editor of any sort left me quite bitter. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? Oh, I could sense the absence of an editor. He could have tightened almost everything, and his descriptive passages are clumsy, but he did a great job of accuracy. In the third volume, he gets near to the people I know very well, but he shies away at the last minute from actually discussing Swift or Wild or the others. He stays with his imaginary lords for the most part, which is wise. What put you off about Quicksilver? You're the first person to actually dislike it enough to comment that I've encountered. Geogre 02:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I just found it long, dry, and wildly unrewarding. Without a grounding in the era, most of it was either an uphill struggle or a plain bore. If I read it again, I might appreciate the accuracy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked vol. 1 so much that I grabbed vol. 2. I regretted ever reading vol. 2. In fact, it left such a bad taste in my mouth that I didn't touch vol. 3 for months. Now, I'm reading it, but I'm watching for juvenile bullsh*t like what he did in vol. 2. So far, we have a plot with Waterhouse (fine) and one with Jack (juvenile and stupid and anachronistic). Geogre 02:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Template wikilove

Bishzilla has stared at you! She can't wait to see Augustan drama on the Main Page. Dinosaur stares promote fear and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the fear by staring at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. With luck they'll turn to stone. Angry editing!

I love it. I will go practice my basilisk love freely. Oh, what's this? A DRV debate dragged to my page? What luck! Geogre 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and best wishes on a main-page day! I see the lead words have already acquired some italics that appear well-argued for and in some sense correct, but still strike me as just unpleasant. I'll also note that when I was TEN I enjoyed defacing things with naughty words, tee-hee: I sincerely hope the current torchbearer for that occupation is around that age, or mentally retarded. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The fuckcuntpissshit vandal has been at it. What's unusual about him is that he's at it every night, practicing his lonely artform, trying to get his message out to the world. He is tireless and thankless and unhonored among his kin. Poor little bug eater! I have to rely upon the kindness of strangers, as I must sleep at some time, some time soon. Geogre 02:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_10#.5B.5BStar_Wars_Galaxies_Emulator.5D.5D

I have proven without a doubt that SWGEmu exists via thousands of links on google, as well as ones that I myself have posted to private sites. In fact, it was even on the frontpage of Slashdot. Let me put it this way -- if this article gets deleted, again, I am enough against it that I will simple put every other article that qualifies for deletion under the same pretexts up for deletion as well, such as Duke Nukem Forever -- I will also repaste the SWGEmu article again, and again, because I am so far against it being deleted that I am willing to put the time and energy from my schedule into doing that. Ameise -- chat 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I love a nice cogent argument. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I stopped giving out cogent reasons for it to not be deleted, as the fanatics who ignored them and deleted anyways, even though absolutely no Wikipedia regulation supported it's deletion. Ameise -- chat 20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

DRV is not a new AfD. The only questions on DRV is whether the AfD was conducted legally (it was) and whether new information would be likely to change a re-run AfD (it won't). Barring evidence of improper procedure or new information, the default decision is to endorse. Now, please conduct your campaign on the DRV rather than talk pages. Geogre 02:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Geogre

Wild Boar/Domestic Pig Hybrid, Part Admininstrator Part Pig

How are you, Darling?