User talk:F. Simon Grant

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Theatre_of_the_Absurd&diff=179192235&oldid=179065067

[[:Image:Europe After the Rain.jpg|thumb|left|260px|Max Ernst, Europe After the Rain II, (1940-1942)]][[:Image:Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (1944). Tate Gallery, London]]thumb|left|300px|La Leçon de Ski Promontory Palace, 1931thumb|left|200px|Insomnias, oil on canvas, 207cm x 146cm, 1957 by Dorothea Tanning. right|thumb|170px|Man in a Cap (c.1943) [[:Image:Head VI (1949).JPG|right|thumb|170px|Head VI (1948) (Arts Council of England)]]right|thumb|150px|Abstraction from the Human Form (c.1936) (Destroyed)

Welcome!

Hello, F. Simon Grant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Erosion, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Earlier vandalism, which went unwarned ACBestDog and Bone 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please DO NOT Delete your warnings. ACBestDog and Bone 18:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, geez, that wasn't even me who did that erosion thing. No need to be testy. Why no defense option for minor warnings? Something to think about, oh Uber-Wiki-Gods. F. Simon Grant 18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It was you : http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Erosion&diff=156940517&oldid=156938313 ACBestDog and Bone 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It may have been my screen name, dude, but it wasn't ME me. Screenname does not equal personhood. No need to insult my autonomous personhood. Am I one with my computer? Are all who use my screenname me? Don't be so presumptive with your "It was you" when the "it" and the "was" and the "you" are all suspect at best. Such rude treatment gives me a mind not to volunteer my time to give MUCH needed help to this poor excuse for an encyclopedia full of so many rude, presumptive people, thank you very much. F. Simon Grant 20:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Beat Generation page

About what you were saying on the Talk page for the Beat Generation: "I definitely think we should drop this nonsense since we keep saying the same thing over and over again" You have a point of course, but if I understand the wikipedia dynamic right, it could be a good thing to accumulate evidence that a certain user has a few screws loose. If we get into an edit war and have to ask for intervention or whatever, it might smooth the way quite a bit. -- Doom 18:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention, if you're sincerely looking for an excuse to talk about Bob Kaufman more, it can easily be done by playing the identity politics card, and adding a section about "black beats" or some such. -- Doom 02:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a reply to your last remark over in my page: User_talk:Doom might as well keep it in one place. -- Doom 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Working on chart citations

Year	Membership
1919	Andre Breton, Louis Aragon, and Philippe Soupault started Littérature, began an association with Dadaism.
1922	Breton appropriated the term "Surrealism" as a group -- which now included Paul Éluard, Benjamin Péret, Man Ray, Jacques Baron, René Crevel, Robert Desnos, Georges Limbour, Roger Vitrac, and Joseph Delteil -- organized under Breton and pulled away from the influence of Tristan Tzara and the Dadaists. Marcel Duchamp frequently associated with this group but never officially joined.
1924	The year the first Surrealist Manifesto was published, members also included Antonin Artaud, Andre Masson, Raymond Queneau, Joan Miró, Max Morise, Pierre Naville, Mathias Lübeck, Jacques-André Boiffard and Georges Malkine. Giorgio de Chirico briefly associated with the group but never joined.
1925	Jacques Prévert, Yves Tanguy, Pierre Brasseur, Marcel Duhamel, and Michel Leiris joined the group.
1926	Rene Magritte, E. L. T. Mesens, and others started a Surrealist group in Belgium. Pablo Picasso associated with the Surrealists but never officially joined.
1927	Soupault, Artaud, and Vitrac were kicked out of the group.
1929	For various reasons, including the political direction Breton was taking Surrealism, several members -- Prévert, Baron, Desnos, Leiris, Limbour, Masson, Queneau, Morise, Boiffard -- broke with the group and organized under Georges Bataille. However, several new members joined: Salvador Dalí, Luis Buñuel, Alberto Giacometti, René Char, and Lee Miller. Breton also reconciled with Tzara. When the second Surrealist Manifesto was published, it was signed by Aragon, Ernst, Buñuel, Char, Crevel, Dali, Eluard, Ernst, Péret, Tanguy, Tzara, Maxime Alexandre, Joe Bousquet, Camille Goemans, Paul Nougé, Francis Ponge, Marco Ristitch, Georges Sadoul, André Thirion, and Albert Valentin. Federico García Lorca was friends with Dalí and Buñuel and is often called a Surrealist though he never officially joined the group; he broke contact with Dalí and Buñuel in 1929 when he interpretted their film, Un chien andalou (An Andalusian Dog), as an attack on him.
1932	Aragon and Sadoul left the Surrealists because of the conflict between Communism and Surrealism and their dedication the Communist party. Meret Oppenheim, Victor Brauner, Roger Caillois, Georges Hugnet, Jehan Mayoux, Henri Pastoureau, Guy Rosey, Claude Cahun and J. M. Monnerot joined the group.
1934	Óscar Domínguez, Dora Maar, Richard Oelze, Giséle Prassinos, Kurt Seligmann, and Brion Gysin joined the group.
1935	Wolfgang Paalen, Pierre Mabille, and Jacques-B. Brunius joined the group. Hans Bellmer's work was published in Minotaure. Brion Gysin was expelled.
1936	Joseph Cornell debuted Rose Hobart. Though Cornell was influenced by the Surrealists and friendly with many of them, he never officially joined the group. Dalí's negative criticism of Rose Hobart further inspired Cornell to distance himself.
1937	Kay Sage met Tanguy, and Leonora Carrington met Ernst.
1938	Breton had a falling out with Eluard but reconciled with Masson. Also, Breton met Frida Kahlo in Mexico; she is often called a Surrealist though she never officially joined. Roberto Matta, Gordon Onslow Ford and Bellmer joined the group.
1939	Caillois and Hugnet left the group
1940	Wifredo Lam joined the group.
1941	Breton met Aimé Césaire in Martinique.
1942	Breton, Duchamp, Ernst, Calas, and Carrington gained a following in New York with the publication of VVV. Newer members included Dorothea Tanning, Enrico Donati, Charles Duits, David Hare, Robert Lebel, Isabelle and Patrick Waldberg. Other artists directly influenced by the Surrealists in New York include Robert Motherwell, William Baziotes, Alexander Calder, and Frederick Kiesler.
1943	The View published the poetry of 15-year-old Philip Lamantia who later became aquainted with Breton and others in New York.
1944	Breton and Matta met with Arshile Gorky. Seligman left the group.
1948	Matta, blamed for Gorky's suicide, was kicked out of the group.
1951	In what was called "The Carrouges affair", Michel Carrouges, a writer associated with the Surrealists, was found to be a practicing Catholic and was expelled. Maurice Henry, Jacques Hérold, Marcel Jean, Robert Lebel, Patrick Waldberg, and Henri Pastoureau were also expelled.
1954	Ernst recieved the Grand Prix of the Venice Biennale and was subsequently expelled from the group.
1959	Jean Benoît and Mimi Parent joined the group.
19

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Frank O'Hara quotes

"I don't ... like rhythm, assonance, all that stuff. You just go on your nerve."

"As for measure and other technical apparatus, that's just common sense: if you're goinng to buy a pair of pants you want them to be tight enough so everyone will want to go to bed with you. There's nothing metaphysical about it."

"It does not have to do with personality or intimacy, far from it! But to give you a vague idea, one of it's minimal aspects is to addess itself to one person (other than the poet himself), thus evoking overtones of love without destroying love's life-giving vulgarity, and sustaining the poet's feelings toward the poem while preventing love from distracting him into feeling abou thte person."

Personism, written in 1959 published in 1961 in Yugen.

"My formal 'stance' is found at the crossroads where what I know and can't get meets wht is left of that I know and can bear without hatred."

"It may be that poetry makes life's nebulous events tangible to me and restores their detail; or conversely that poetry brings forth the intangible quality of incidents which are all too concrete and circumstantial. Or each on specific occassions, or both all the time."

Statement

Doctor Strange reorganization

Hello, friend. My aim in seeking you out was merely thus: kindly, if you will, take a few minutes to look over the Doctor Strange article and the Talk: Doctor Strange page (at the reorganization section) and offer your own opinion at the long discussion and of the article's major revamping. Please note that the article is still under reconstruction, and thus may seem missing certain elements. P.S. I came to you not to incite any poor feelings from anybody or to force you to do or support anything. I just, like, saw your name as the suggestor for reorganization and I ask your personal opinion of how it is going thus far. If you wish to edit the revised Strange article, then please do so by all means, but with regard to the concerns of other Wikipedia users. Your friend, Aidoflight (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Publication history

They appeared in several 1990s multi-issue crossovers of Marvel's supernatural titles. The first, "Rise of the Midnight Sons", launched several books in the Midnight Sons line, including Morbius, Nightstalkers, Darkhold

They also appeared in the nine-issue anthology comic book Midnight Sons Unlimited, which ran from April 1993 to May 1995. Their final crossover was the seventeen-part “Siege of Darkness” which ran from December 1993 to January 1994. It was featured in two consecutive issues of each Midnight Sons title as well as four issues of Marvel Comics Presents (#143-146), and two issues of Doctor Strange, a title that was newly included in the line. It was advertized with an eight page insert in several comics in October, November, and December of 1993. According to the text of the advertisement, written by Jefferey Lee Simmons, “For the first time in the history of Marvel, one of our family groups is getting its own distinct family imprint and cover treatment. On the outside of the books, this means all titles in the family will share a new cover symbol, the Midnight Sons dagger as well as similar cover treatments. Inside, the Midnight Sons titles will have stronger continuity, making for a more exciting, tightly knit sub-section of the Marvel Universe.” The advertisement also claims the Midnight Sons is the “first distinct family group”. However, “Siege of Darkness” marked the cancelation of “Darkhold”, and the Midnight Sons brand didn’t last much longer. “Nightstalkers” only lasted three more issues. A “Blade” and “Blaze” series failed to catch interest. The Midnight Sons logo was eventually dropped from the remaining titles. A different incarnation of the team was featured in Marvel Zombies 3 and in Marvel Zombies 4: Midnight Sons.

Fictional team biography

Rise of the Midnight Sons

The team was formed by the Ghost Rider and Johnny Blaze after Ghost Rider received a vision in which he learned that Lilith, Mother of Demons (not Dracula's daughter, another Marvel character of the same name) was being resurrected and posed a great threat. She planned to use her demon children, the Lilin, to take over Earth. Though Lilith had many children, she had four children who were very loyal to her. Their names were Pilgrim, Nakota, Meatmarket, and the most powerful of the four, Blackout, Ghost Rider's old enemy (Blackout was not an actual child of Lilith originally, but rather a grandchild. He was later killed and Lilith gave birth to Blackout along with her other children, thus indeed making him one of her actual children). Though she would have a lot more children help her, the rest had forsaken Lilith. After she was imprisoned, many of the Lilin were either scattered or killed. Those who were scattered forgot the ways of Lilith and moved on with their lives, except Lilith's most faithful servants.

The team consisted of the Nightstalkers (Blade, Frank Drake and Hannibal King); Morbius the Living Vampire; The Spirits of Vengeance (Ghost Rider (Daniel Ketch), Johnny Blaze, and later Vengeance (Michael Badilino); and The Darkhold Redeemers (Sam Buchanan, Victoria Montesi, Louise Hastings, and later Modred, and Jinx). Doctor Strange joined the team during the Siege of Darkness storyline.

Midnight Massacre

The second major meeting between the Midnight Sons occurred when Blade, with a page from the Darkhold, became the demonic creature Switchblade. He killed most of the Midnight Sons, subsequently taking on the power and weapons of each. He was finally stopped when Louise Hastings used a counter spell from the Darkhold.

Siege of Darkness

The “Siege of Darkness” consisted of two subsequent story in which the Midnight Sons fought groups connected with the two major villains, Lilith and Zarathos. In the first story arc, covers were black with vague outlines, and the Midnight Sons fought the Lilin who were invading the earth in a mysterious smoke emanating from Cypress Hills Cemetery. Lilin included in this arc include Blackout, Bad Timing, Meat Market, Pilgrim, Nakota, Dark Legion, Sister Nil, Stonecold, Out Kast, Martine Bancroft, and Bloodthirst, who was possessing Morbius. In the second story arc, covers featured a dripping blood design, and the Midnight Sons fought The Fallen, a group loyal to Zarathos. The Fallen include Patriarch, Metarchus, Atrocity, Embyre, and Salomé.

The Lilin

At the beginning of the story, Ghost Rider and Blaze tell The Nightstalkers, The Darkhold Redeemers, and Morbius that they have killed Lilith and Zarathos. The Nightstalkers, who are skeptical, investigate but find mist containing Lilin now emanating from Cypress Hills Cemetery. As the other Midnight Sons join the fight, they discover that, instead of killing Lilith and Zarathos, Ghost Rider and Blaze have opened a portal to Shadowside where the Lilin had been exiled. They split into two groups, one led by Ghost Rider and one led by Morbius. Vengeance, Caretaker and Doctor Strange also join the fight. Caretaker claims Zarathos is more powerful and they must protect the Medallion of Power. Doctor Strange teleports Ghost Rider’s group to his Sanctum Santorum. They find out from some Lilin that Morbius’ team has a traitor. The team following Morbius, which includes Louise Hastings, hide out in one of Morbius’ old labs. Louise Hastings finds out Morbius has been infected by Lilin blood, and Morbius secretly kills her. Morbius has been taken over by the Lilin Bloodthirst. He then requests entry into Doctor Strange’s Sanctum Sanctorum. Unaware that Morbius has been possessed, Doctor Strange allows him to enter which allows other Lilin to follow. Doctor Strange convinces Morbius to fight the control of Bloodthirst. Doctor Strange then casts a spell that causes the Sanctum Sanctorum to explode. The Spirits of Vengeance then confront Lilith and Zarathos in Cypress Hills Cemetery and use the Medallion of Power to send Lilith and the Lilin back to Shadowside. The Medallion of Power disappears.

The Fallen

After Lilith is exiled, it appears as if a group called The Fallen, loyal to Zarathos, have returned from exile. The Fallen are an offshoot of The Blood, the group to which Caretaker belongs. The Fallen left The Blood to follow the wizard Zarathos. The Fallen quickly beat the Midnight Sons and take Caretaker captive. The Midnight Sons regroup at The Nightclub, and Caretaker sends a message that The Fallen plan to recruit or kill surviving members of The Blood. The Midnight Sons then find Patriarch, Truthsayer, and James Raydar with varying degrees of success; Patriarch joins Zarathos, Thruthsayer is killed by Modred, and James Raydar joins the Midnight Sons along with Embyre, Raydar’s daughter and one of The Fallen who turns against Zarathos when she sees Morbius’ nobility. Meanwhile, Victoria Montesi finds out, in a letter left by Louise Hastings, that she has been impregnated by Chthon Doctor Strange helps her just as he is being attacked by Salomé, one of The Fallen, who claims she is the rightful Sorceress Supreme. Doctor Strange disappears into another dimension and places Victoria Montesi in a mystical stasis. In his place appears Strange, a mystical construct Doctor Strange based loosely on himself. Strange joins the rest of the Midnight Sons in the fight against The Fallen. Ghost Rider confronts Zarathos one on one, and Ghost Rider is apparently destroyed and his power absorbed into Zarathos. The Midnight Sons then fight Patriarch, Metarchus, and Atrocity to a stand still, and the Fallen retreat. Caretaker reveals that there is one more member of The Blood they haven’t contacted, Foundry. The Midnight Sons track down Foundry who gives them a sword called Justiciar. She claims it must be tempered in her own blood and sacrifices herself. Blade then uses Justiciar to kill Patriarch, Metarchus and Atrocity with the help of the other Midnight Sons. They believe the destruction of The Fallen will weaken Zarathos. They attack Zarathos directly. Embyre and James Raydar also attack and are killed. Ghost Rider, whose spirit was absorbed by Zarathos, now apparently attacks him from with in and Blade stabs Zarathos with Justiciar. Zarathos, with the sword through his chest, turns to stone. Johnny Blaze, Vengeance, Morbius, Blade, Hannibal King, Strange, and Caretaker then go through a ceremony in which they are branded with the symbol of the flaming dagger. Caretaker says they have become the successors to the original 'Order of the Midnight Sons' This brand is placed on the arms of all the members of the new team aside from Frank Drake, a member of the Nightstalkers and a human descendant of Dracula and the Ghost Rider who had apparently been destroyed.

Aftermath

The Ghost Rider eventually returned, but it seems Marvel never intended to reveal whether or not the Rider had accepted the brand. The brand appears and causes pain to the bearer of the brand whenever there is great danger to the world, and the brand would continue to cause pain until the bearers of the brand answered the summons. With the disappearance of Noble Kale (Ghost Rider), as well as Michael Badilino (Vengeance), it seemed the idea was dropped entirely and no other mentioning of the Midnight Sons has been made. Most of the members of the team have since faded back into obscurity.

Originally consisting of "The Nine," (and once referred to as "The Circle of Nine") mystical characters necessary to maintain the magical borders between realms, the team stopped Lilith and became what was to be the Marvel Universe's primary line of defense against magical and mystical threats. Lilith is still at large, though she has only been seen once (in Witches), since the apparent demise of Zarathos. At one point, she claimed to be pregnant with a child of Zarathos himself, but her single subsequent appearance showed no signs of this pregnancy. However, even when claiming to be pregnant with Zarathos' child, she did not show signs of the pregnancy. So she may still be pregnant, or may have already given birth.

Although it has never been officially stated by Marvel, the motto or perhaps credo of the group was 'to bring light to the darkness', as said by the mysterious Caretaker, a member of an ancient race called The Blood. Caretaker is apparently phenomenally old and may or may not have known the original Order of the Midnight Sons, as he claims "The Order has a long history. Not all of it clean. But always on the right side." He also claimed to have known an older version of the Ghost Rider. It is highly unlikely that he was speaking of Zarathos, so the Noble Kale version is likely the most logical version to assume he knew, possibly from before the Rider's memories were sealed away, or perhaps just after it, as he claims the Ghost Rider he knew was much more powerful than the one that was active at that period of time. Kale did grow in power towards the end of the series in which he starred, as he began to remember older powers he possessed (such as those that could affect the undead), which can be viewed as lending support to the idea that it was in fact this version of the Rider whom Caretaker claimed to have known.

Plagiarized sections of pomo to be fixed

Intertextuality

Interdependence of literary texts is not based on the theory that a literary text is not an isolated phenomenon but is made up of a mosaic of quotations, and that any text is the "absorption and transformation of another". One literary text depends on some other literary work. An example of this is Tom Stoppard´s play Rosencrantz and Guildestern are Dead

Since postmodernism represents a decentered concept of the universe in which individual works are not isolated creations, much of the focus in the study of postmodern literature is on intertextuality: the relationship between one text (a novel for example) and another or one text within the interwoven fabric of literary history. Critics point to this as an indication of postmodernism’s lack of originality and reliance on clichés. Intertextuality in postmodern literature can a reference or parallel to another literary work, an extended discussion of a work, or the adoption of a style. In postmodern literature this commonly manifests as references to fairy tales – as in works by Margaret Atwood, Donald Barthelme, and many other – or in references to popular genres such as sci-fi and detective fiction. An early 20th century example of intertextuality which influenced later postmodernists is “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote” by Jorge Luis Borges, a story with significant references to Don Quixote which is also a good example of intertextuality with its references to Medieval romances. Don Quixote is a common reference with postmodernists, for example Kathy Acker's novel Don Quixote: Which Was a Dream. Another example of intertextuality in postmodernism is John Barth’s The Sot-Weed Factor which deals with Ebenezer Cooke’s poem of the same name. Often intertextuality is more complicated than a single reference to another text. Robert Coover’s Pinocchio in Venice, for example, links Pinocchio to Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice. Also, Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose takes on the form of a detective novel and makes references to authors such as Aristotle, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Borges.

Faction

Faction is fiction which is based on and combined with fact. Notable examples are Truman Capote´s In Cold Blood, Norman's Mailer's Armies of the Night and Alex Haley´s Roots. It can apply to historical novels which combine a great deal of period fact with fictional treatment or to novels which incorporate actual living personalities (e.g. the President of the USA, the British Prime Minister etc.) in a narrative about recent events which pertain to historical fact.

Fabulation

A term used to describe the anti-novel. It appears to have been introduced by Robert Scholes in The Fabulators. Fabulation involves allegory, verbal acrobatics and surrealistic effects. This style can be represented by Salman Rushdie´s Haroun and the Sea of Stories.

Fabulation is a term sometimes used interchangeably with metafiction and relates to pastiche and Magical Realism. It is a rejection of realism which embraces the notion that literature is a created work and not bound by notions of mimesis and verisimilitude. Thus, fabulation challenges some traditional notions of literature -- the traditional structure of a novel or role of the narrator, for example -- and integrates other traditional notions of storytelling, including fantastical elements, such as magic and myth, or elements from popular genres such as science fiction. By some accounts, the term was coined by Robert Scholes in his book The Fabulators. A bood example of fabulation is Salman Rushdie´s Haroun and the Sea of Stories

In this genre, a story purports to be about one narrative, although it is really about something else. Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children, is a story about India after its independence. The poioumenon goes back through Samuel Beckett´s trilogy, to Thomas Carlyle´s Sartor Resartus, and also Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy. Vladimir Nabokov’s Pale Fire is a poioumenon as is Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook, John Fowles's Mantissa, and William Golding's Paper Men.

Poioumenon (plural, "poioumena") is a term coined by Alastair Fowler to refer to speciic type of metafiction in which the story is about the process of creation. In many cases, the book will be about the process of creating the book or includes a central metaphor for this process. A common example of this is Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy which is about the narrator's frustrated attempt to tell his own story. A significant postmodern example is Vladimir Nabokov’s Pale Fire, in which the narrator, Kinbote, claims he is writing an analysis of John Shade's long poem "Pale Fire", but the narrative of the relationship between Shade and Kinbote is presented in what is ostensibly the footnotes to the poem. Similarly, the self-conscious narrator in Salman Rushdie’s Midnight's Children parallels the creation of his book to the creation of chutney and the creation of independent India. Other postmodern examples of poioumea include Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook, John Fowles's Mantissa, and William Golding's Paper Men, and Gilbert Sorrentino's Mulligan Stew.

Counterculture Awards category

I emptied your category additions to Counterculture Hall of Fame because none of those articles discussed the award being given. Furthermore, such awards are often seen as too promotional, with the organization giving the award getting one over on their competition. One such category that got shot down in flames was something like "Rolling Stone's Top 100 Guitarists"—that was deleted for being promotional. In this case, the category Category:Counterculture Hall of Fame inductees may yet fall to the same fate, proving to be too promotional for the magazine High Times. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, F me then, just trying to help a brother out

W. S. Burroughs

I have recently begun work on a "Burroughs in popular culture" article, which you can find here. If you are interested, I would like to hear your input on the subject. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I just saw your response over there. Sorry it took me so long! Your input is appreciated.

Great work on the Surrealism article as well! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Surrealism

Concerning this paragraph that you added to Surrealism in March 2007

Many significant literary movements in the later half of the twentieth century were directly or indirectly influenced by Surrealism. This period is known as the Postmodern era; though Postmodernism has many definitions, many common aspects of these definitions are nearly identical to Surrealism. Perhaps the writers with in the Postmodern ere who have the most in common with Surrealism are the playwrights of Theatre of the Absurd. Though not an organized movement, these playwrights were grouped together based on some similarities of theme and technique; these similarities can perhaps be traced to influence from the Surrealists. Eugene Ionesco in particular was fond of Surrealism, claiming at one point that Andre Breton was one of the most important thinkers in history. Samuel Beckett was also fond of Surrealists, even translating much of the poetry into English; he may have had closer ties had the Surrealists not be critical of Beckett's mentor and friend James Joyce. Many writers from and associeated with the Beat Generation were influenced greatly by Surrealists. Philip Lamantia and Ted Joans are often categorized as both Beat and Surrealist writers. Many other Beat writers claimed Surrealism as a significant influence. A few examples include Bob Kaufman, Gregory Corso, and Allen Ginsberg. Magic Realism, a popular technique among novelists of the later half of the twentieth century especially among Latin American writers, has some obvious similarities to Surrealism with its juxtaposition of the normal and the dream-like. The prominence of Magic Realism in Latin American literature is often credited in some part to the direct influence of Surrealism on Latin American artists (Frida Kahlo, for example).

An editor - User:SummerWithMorons has sub-divided the paragraph and is requesting that all claims be referenced. Since you added the information please supply references, especially as to why the Surrealists were critical of James Joyce. I would greatly appreciate your input concerning Summer with morons additions to the article. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ashley Austin Morris

The article Ashley Austin Morris has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ashley Austin Morris is an actress who has played Francine Carruthers on the PBS revival of The Electric Company since its debut in 2009. According to her website, she graduated from The University of North Carolina Scool of the Arts and has been featured in several Off Broadway productions including Die Mommie Die, Paper Dolls, Isabel and Bees, and Love Loss and What I Wore. Her television acting includes appearances on Ugly Betty and Gravity. She also appeared in the music video for "K.I.A" by Jet and the film Be Good Daniel.

Category:Surrealist films

As an editor who has worked on Surrealist-related articles, I would like your input in this discussion, if you would not mind. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ginsberg

While we have a good faith, if not heated dispute, you should be careful about stuff like this. Someone not aware of our history might not realize how much we admire one another ;-) Lionel (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha.

Tao2911

If he were just a philosophical extremist, I'd be interested in arguing with him, but I'm starting to get a "crazy" vibe off of him. It could be he's an intentional troll: using inflammatory language and then accusing the other guy of making personal attacks. In any case, I'd recommend avoiding taking the bait, he's not worth wasting time on.

As I'm sure is obvious to you, the problem is not finding stuff people have said about the beats, the problem is identifying what commentary should be considered the mainstream critical opinion (slightly problematic, when the central subject was and to some extent still is outside of the mainstream). I myself am inclined to use my impression of what's actually true and reasonable as one of my guidelines when evaluating a source, and I suspect that most of us do. -- Doom (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, engaging crazy people just feeds them, but I'm a sucker for an argument like that since bad argument just annoys the hell out of me, and he's making a bad argument. At the end of the day, this is only Wikipedia which means the crazies and the people who care about truth cancel each other out -- but then again, what does it really matter? If we were arguing for content in the Encyclopedia Britannica, we might just kick him out, but this is sport more than science, so I'll engage him until it stops being fun. Then I'll ignore him which is the easiest way to depower the crazies.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Boy, that was a fun rant. Very cathartic. Let's see if he can outcrazy crazy. (Two ways to deprive a fire of oxygen -- lets see if this works).F. Simon Grant (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of Beat vs. No such thing as a "Beat" artist, Round 2: The Formal Argument Edition! (rough draft)

Now let's get down to some actual business. Formal argument is necessary because this argument has degenerated so far (by me, mostly, just for fun). I'll break it down piece by piece so it's easier to digest for people unwilling to read what others are saying:

Purpose of this argument: To fix a very serious problem with structure, clarity, and reader friendliness inherent in this page and in the topic as a whole. The problem is that the term "Beat Generation" is used in multiple ways to the degree that it becomes confusing for the general reader and leads to arguments about who "is" and "isn't" a "beat."

Proposal: We should fix the structure of the page in order to clear up the confusion in an accurate but reader-friendly way.

First claim from opposition: The term "Beat Generation" is only accurately used for a small group of writers. Sub-claim: The term "Beat Generation" cannot be used for writers and artists outside of this small group. Example: Bruce Conner is not a "beat." (I'm working backward here.) Support: Bruce Conner claims he is not a beat.

Counterclaim: The oppositions argument is weakened by two fallacies. Fallacy 1: cherry picking. With a broader analysis of evidence, we can perhaps come to a more accurate understanding of how it is used; if we accept the claim that the term is used multiple ways, choosing only one source without broader context is highly problematic research methodology. Fallacy 2: the fallacy of identity. An author is not the final word on how he or she is defined.

Support for my claim: I have presented evidence from Jack Kerouac that goes agains the opposition's first claim (that the term is used solely for a literary movement). I present below another piece of evidence from one of the core members of the movement, Allen Ginsberg. He gives a thorough explanation of the different ways the term "beat generation" is used. This is meant to counteract the first fallacy in the opposition's argument, the cherrypicking. To fully counteract it, we need more evidence, but this is a positive step, the right kind of step to make. Admittedly, it contains the second fallacy the opposition's argument suffers from, but compared side by side, the Ginsberg quote has significant advantages in two areas: 1) authority on the subject matter; 2) thoroughness. To address the opposition's original argument: this does little to prove that Bruce Conner was truly a "beat". However, this does much to counteract the more significant claim, that "beat generation" can only be used one way. Notice Ginsberg includes Frank O'Hara and Kenneth Koch, from the New York School, and many others not within what the opposition claims to be a small literary group. Notice also Ginsberg mentions visual artists. We can parse out some ambiguous phrasing -- that's a valid approach and a conversation worth having. However, what's hard to argue against in that way is that "Beat Generation" is used in at least two ways: to refer to a group of friends and to refer to a genuine "generation".

Allen Ginsberg, "Definition of the Beat Generation", Deliberate Prose: "The phrase 'beat generation' rose out of a specific conversation with Jack Kerouac and John Clellon Holmes around '50-51 when, discussing the nature of generations recollecting the glamour of the lost generation, Kerouac said, Ah, this is nothing but a beat generation ... not meaning to name the generation but to un-name it."

He discusses the origin of the term "beat" in "hip language" froom Huncke and then discusses how it became associated with "beatific" in 1959 (and on a side note, that reinforces Doom's side of a previous disagreement, though Ginsberg says "articulated" which could mean it was conceived of earlier).

"A fourth meaning accumulated, that of the 'beat generation literary movement.' This was a group of friends who had worked together on peotry, prose and cultural conscience from the mid-forties until the term became popular natuionally in the late fifties. The group consisting of Kerouac ... Neal Cassady, William Burroughs ... Herbert Huncke, John Clellon Homes ... Allen Ginsberg, myself; we met Carl Solomon and Philip Lamantia in '48; encountered Gregory Corso in 1950, and we first saw Peter Orlovsky in 1954.

"By the mid-fifties this smaller circle, through natural affinity of modes of thought or literary style or planetary perspective was augmented in friendship and literary endeavor by a number of writers in San Francisco, including Michael McClure, Gary Snyder, Philip Whalen and a number of other powerful but lesser-known poets such as Jack Micheline, Ray Bremser, and ... LeRoi Jones -- all of whom accepted the term at one time or another, humorously or seriously, but sympathetically, and were included in a survey of bet general manners, morals, and literature by Life magazine in a lead article in the late '50s by one Paul O'Neill, and by the journalist Alfred Aronowitz in a large series on the Beat Generation in the New York Post.

"By the mid-fifties a sense of some mutual trust and interest was developed with Frank O'Hara and Kenneth Koch, as well as with Robert Creeley and other alumni of Black Mountain ...

"The fifth meaning of the phrase 'Beat Generation' is the influence of the literary and artistic activities of poets, filmmakers, painters, writers and novelists who were working in concert in anthologies, publishing houses, independent filmmaking, and other media. Some effects of the aforementioned groups refreshed the bohemian culture which was already a long tradition (in film and still photography, Robert Frank and Alfred Leslie; in music, david Amram; in painting, Larry Rivers; in poetry publishing, Don Allen, Barney Rosset, and Lawrence Ferlinghetti) extended to fellow artists such as Susan Sontag and Norman Mailer." etc.

Proposal based on this support: More thoroughly flesh out this notion, using Ginsberg's article as support. This will not solve the problem of reader-friendliness, but it will go toward the problem of accuaracy.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Broad search simply for the definition

Here's another approach. To make sure my research isn't tainted by cherrypicking, I typed a neutral term into google: "Definition Beat Generation". Here are the defnitions that I found going through four google pages, only excluding repition and irrelevant sites. These are hardly formal sources, but the purpose of this exercise is to show that confusion about this term and how it is to be used is a genuine issue. Simply saying the one definition is the "majority" without putting effort into supporting the claim is not a valid way to prove a point.

Sources that place subculture/generation first and group of writers second: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/the-Beat-Generation

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861685998/Beat_Generation.html

Sources that place group of writers first, subculture/generation second, and also mention "artists": http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Beat+Generation

http://www.directhit.com/ansres/Beat-Generation-Definition.html

Sources that only mention the group of writers, not the subculture/generation: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/beat+generation

Sources that only mention the group of writers, not the subculture/generation, but also mention "artists": http://www.answers.com/topic/beat-generation

Sources that only mention the subculture/generation, not the group of writers: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=beat%20generation

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/beat_generation.htm

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/the-beat-generation

http://www.bluesforpeace.com/beat.htm

http://www.mnemonicdictionary.com/word/beat

[If this method genuinely points to a "majority" opinion, then clearly this would be it]

Iffy: http://www.gradesaver.com/dharma-bums/study-guide/section8/

http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/beat-generation

Now for serious sources I encountered when typing the same term into Google Book search: Lawlor here identifies the exact problem I identified as being the major problem with this page. A page like this which strives for accuracy should acknowledge that there is no set definition (no "majority", no consus) on how the term should be used:

"Several key questions are central to the study of the Beat Generation. The first is whether a Beat Generation actually exists. If the Beat Generation consists of Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs, and a few others, then the Beat Generation does not exist because a generation cannot be based on just a few people. On the other hand, if the Beat Generation includes dozens and dozens of artists, including not only writers but also dancers, painters, sculptors, musicians, then the Beat Generation does not exist because the concept is too loose, too vague."

William Lawlor. Beat culture: lifestyles, icons, and impact. ABC-CLIO, 2005 ISBN 1851094008, 9781851094004. pg. 78.

For this one, there may be some confusion by what Kerouac means by “people who had been beaten down” since that could apply to either the small group or the broader subculture. However, Morgan provides the same definition I presented earlier in which Kerouac identifies it as “certain members of the generation that came of age after World War II who affected detachment,” etc. It’s conceivable that one might argue Kerouac meant his group of friends by “certain people, but from many other sources, he meant the broader subculture (open for debate, but let’s have that debate instead of blindly dismissing without evidence to support counterclaims). Here’s the quote from Morgan:

“Once the press began to identify those writers collectively as ‘the Beat Generation,’ some within the group began to struggle with a definition for the word beat. Since it was Jack Kerouac who had originally coined the phrase, he was asked repeatedly what he meant by it. Initially he said that the Beat Generation was composed of people who had been beaten down, worn out, and exhausted. As time passed, he refined his definition to emphasize the beatific, blessed, or sympathetic qualities of his generation.”

Bill Morgan, William Morgan. The Typewriter Is Holy: The Complete, Uncensored History of the Beat Generation. Simon and Schuster, 2010. ISBN 1416592423, 9781416592426.

There's more, but I'm out of time.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have blocked your account for 48 hours due to personal attacks at Talk:Beat Generation, including "you dumb bastard" and "you're an idiot" among others. As a suggestion for when you return to editing, you are likely to gain more traction in discussions if you can find a way to make your points more succinctly. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

F. Simon Grant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thanks for blocking me. I called Tao an idiot and a dumb bastard because I truly belive he/she is one. You have these rules to prevent harassment. Fine. I was just doing it for fun, got it out of my system, I'll quit now. However, you should seriously consider a NDB&LP rule, or No Dumb Bastards and Lazy People. Wikipedia is currently a laughing stock, a punchline to a joke. The reason is that it facilitates lazy people like Tao. If you read the entire entry, my intention is to improve the page. I provide sources, I provide a sound argument, I provide what's necessary to provide in circumstances like this in order to improve the page. What does Tao provide? Nothing. He clearly has not read the page, he clearly does not know the subject, and he clearly is uninterested in doing what needs to be done in circumstances like this: making valid claims supported with evidence. True, I don't take Wikipedia seriously, but I believe in its potential. I wouldn't do anything that I believe harms it in a substantial way. Tao, on the other hand, is an insidious virus who does little but undermine the value of Wikipedia. In a just world, he would be the one being blocked. This is not a genuine appeal against being blocked because I'm the one who asked for it. This is an appeal for you to actually read the conversation, read my swear-filled diatribe as me antagonizing someone who is genuinely very, very, very lazy in what he is doing (how long did it take to get me blocked after I even begged and taunted?) -- please tell me, of the two of us who really should be blocked? Of the two of us, who is doing the most harm? Thank you.F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Of the two of you, you're the one wasting my time with what you admit is not a genuine appeal and appears to be a admission that you do not intend to constructively contribute following your block. Which could be a very long time from now, as it's now of indefinite length. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block extended

(edit conflict) I have extended your block to 1 week due to block evasion with another account and an IP address. Your block will now end 1 week from now. You are reminded that any further block evasion will result in your block being extended to indefinite. You really should not call yourself an "idiot" or a "dumb bastard". Regards, –MuZemike 18:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Block conflict - the block is still of indefinite length, as my change went in after MuZemike's. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I will defer to Hersfold's judgment here, as he seems to have more knowledge of the situation than I do. –MuZemike 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't, really; I didn't do a check as you did, but personally, if someone is going to take part in good hand/bad hand vandalism and does it so badly their "good hand" gets blocked, then we definitely don't need them here. I'll fix the block reason, but the indefinite block holds. I am willing to be talked down to an expiry time, however you'd better be really careful about what you say from here out. I take a very dim view of dishonesty, particularly when you know full well that we know you're being dishonest. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now that I've done a check myself I see I misunderstood something; there is no GHBH vandalism going on that I see, just another account made specifically for the purposes of block evasion and continued harassment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

F. Simon Grant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here F. Simon Grant (talk) 3:18 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Heeding your repeated pleas to "read what [you're] saying", I read your entire post below. You continue to attack other editors and blame someone else for the actions that led to your block. No one is responsible for your actions but you. I'm afraid that, until you realize that, your block will remain in place. TNXMan 20:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please actually read what I'm saying. You are suffering from the same problem as Tao. You are not actually reading what I am saying. I plan to constructively contribute to the page. My sockpuppet was not meant to evade a ban. I was very honest that it was a sock puppet. There is no dishonesty there. Please read very carefully what I said as a sock puppet. I am not wasting your time because there is a basic, intrinsic problem with Wikipedia as represented by this process: people do not read, people do not listen, people do not consider actual intention. I have only positive intentions for the Beat Generation page. Tao has negative intentions for the Beat Generation page. Therefore, i have negative intetions for Tao. I promise from here on out that I will be kind and gentle and what have you, mostly because I simply did it for fun and it is no longer fun. Tao, being as lazy as he is, is a very uninteresting person to argue with. But my ultimate intention is to positively contribute to the page. Please look at my record. Please look at what I have contributed to Wikipedia in the past. Look at the Theatre of the Absurd page. I essentially wrote the whole page. Look at the Howl page. I wrote most of that page as well. Look at the Beat Generation page. I wrote very large portions of that page. The indefinite block should be very short because my intentions are very positive. Please read the first part of the post I did in which I very honestly identified myself as a sock puppet. I begged -- and I would have been on my knees, if that was possible -- for Tao to actually do the work necessary to positively change the page. And what did he do? He blocked me further. Why? What does that contribute positively? It's just a power game. That is the cancer of wikipedia. And as you have demonstrated from your comments, you are functioning only to continue that cancerous effect. Please, please actually read what I'm actually saying. Why is nobody actually reading what I'm actually saying? Add up all the things I said on that talk page. My swear-filled rant was short. My genuine attempt to engage Tao in a positively focused debate was much, much, much longer. Please just, one of you for once in your life actually read. Look at the post entitled "Cite Off: Formal Argument edition." I say nothing in there insulting. That represents my true intention. I want to say this again because I'm afraid none of you are actually reading what I'm actually saying: Please, actually read what I'm actually saying. I don't know how much plainer I can make it. Please do not be lazy with the sort of laziness that destroys Wikipedia as a source. Read the section with "formal argument edition" on it and tell me if that in any way represents a "diatribe" as Tao claims. Then look at the way Tao says he's not going to read it because he assumes it's a "diatribe". That section represents my genuine inention for the page, as does the "let's get down to business" section. Ban me based on my rant, sure, but you can not seriously think that I'm the sort of poster it would be worthwhile to ban. I'm willing to follow your rules and to be cordial for the sake of the page. I am contrite to the degree that I recognized I broke rules and promise I will abide by the rules from here on forward, but I seriously want to urge you on a larger level to recognize the faulty bizarro world catch-22 of this system, where someone with only good intentions for the content of the page stands up for himself and for what is right and he's the one who gets punished, yet someone who undermines the value of Wikipedia as whole with laziness and stupidity is rewarded. Thank you.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC) {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~ Okay, here's what you need to do to prove a point on Wikipedia and to request a positive change. Look back at the history of revisions on the Beat Generation page back to between the summer of 2006 and the fall of 2008. I literally created the entire section of the page called "cultural context" and wrote most of it. I wrote the section now called "writers" -- which I don't believe is accurately named, but that's another issue -- as a section called "usage". Look at the Allen Ginsberg page. My intentions are positive; up until my antagonization of Tao, I have been cordial and have worked in a postive direction for over four years. What I want is the truth. What I want is accuracy on pages. That's what drives me in situations like this. Blocking me is not working toward the end of improving Wikipedia. Please actually listen to me -- and I mean actually listen to me. Don't scan. Read carefully. I urge you once again, read the "Formal argument edition" entry and the "get down to business entry". Please actually read it. If I'm wasting your time, you are not doing your actual job and your blocking becomes meaningless -- what if a police officer threw someone in jail and then claimed he didn't have the time to do the investigation? That would completely invalidate the judgement, especially when so much of the evidence in this case has been completely ignored. You claim I was dishonest in creating my sockpuppet; I was nothing but honest. Your claims demonstrate a lack of concern to find the actual truth in this situation, so I urge you, please, consider the actual truth carefully. This is a genuine appeal because at this point I think the blocking represents a total absence of justice. I promise to not attack Tao or anyone else ever again and comply by the rules. Being blocked was fun but it got boring quickly. Now that that motivation is gone, I have no motivation to try to get blocked again. I swear to you. If you do your job, actually read what I'm saying, and consider this very seriously, I believe you'll find there is no good reason to block me beyond the original punitive length. Thank you for your time.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a claim at WP:WQA that you have been editing Beat Generation since 2006. I have not looked, but presumably those edits have been helpful so perhaps you may want to hear my thoughts. It is not acceptable to violate WP:CIVIL (not to mention WP:NPA). If an editor does break that hard rule, they have two choices: (1) point out that they were well intentioned or correct; or (2) accept situation gracefully and acknowledge the necessity of WP:CIVIL in maintaining a collaborative atmosphere, and offer an apology and undertake to not repeat. Admins will respond negatively to (1) and positively to (2) because that is what the community requires. When faced with what you think is an editor who is causing a problem, you must find some other way of reacting. For example, you could ask for other opinions on a suitable noticeboard or wikiproject (using very neutral language), or follow WP:DR. Re the sockpuppetry: That was a bad idea, and you can use strategies (1) or (2) to proceed. In order to continue developing the articles you are interested in, you need to show that you have read the relevant policies, accept their value, and undertake to respect them. It is best to not talk about extraneous issues until this is resolved (much of your above comments are extraneous because they do not concern the fact that two serious problems have occurred (civil/sockpuppet); explanations for why they occurred are not relevant. A final suggestion would be to start with reading the policies and the links in the block notice, then write a short comment here. After that, consider making another unblock request. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

F. Simon Grant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am aware of wikipedia policy and don't need to reread it. I broke policy knowingly. I apologize for doing so. It was for the sake of whimsy. That impulse has left me, and I make the promise that it will not return. I do not retract anything that I said. The bigger issue which I have been addressing is the flaw within the system itself. After repeated requests to actually read what I'm saying here and what I actually said on the Beat Generation page, you clearly have mistunderstood me. Your claim that you have ignored evidence in the prosecution of my punishment is one among many disturbing signs of the flaws within the Wikipedia system. What you call extraneous issues are indeed central issues. You have done little to convince me otherwise. For example, the sockpuppetry was a bad idea when considering rules of civility, and I won't let it happen again. It was a good idea in that it was funny, but like I said, that's out of my system. The bigger issue -- a central issue, not extraneous -- is that admins claimed I was being dishonest. This is evidence of laziness and lack of real concern for the real job you are meant to do. If the real problem is that I was uncivil, then I apologize and make an honest promise that I will never do it again. I don't believe that really is a central issue. I'm not blaming anyone else for me being uncivil; I chose to do it and have never claimed otherwise. The problem is Wikipedia is a toilet. Why is it a toilet? Wikipedia is a punchline. Why is it a punchline? Because people who passionately care about truth get angry (even if it was pretend) on occassion? No. I realize uncivil behavior can be a contributing factor in that it can fail to lead to a positive change; I was practically begging for a positive change on the Beat Generation page, and nothing was happening. Certain other editors were relying on Wikipedia rules to stymie progress. Block me or don't block me, I don't care (and judging from the history of this process and my history with Tao -- I fear you'll scan this for trigger words, see "I don't care" and say, "If you don't care, why are you wasting my time?" totally missing the point of what I'm actually saying) -- but please look in the mirror and think about the real problem here. If you skip the first part where I genuinely apologize for the actual infraction and said I would never do it again (just as I genuinely apologized for the infraction last time and said I would never do it again -- and I can keep saying this over and over again) and if you once again just look at this part and claim I'm focusing on extraneous issues and incorrectly claim that I'm blaming others -- blaming others for my rant? no, please actually see: my rant is my responsibility, and once again I apologize for it -- whatever you do, despite my lack of faith in anyone's ability to genuinely take some time and think about these things, please just consider what's right and what's wrong here on a larger level while in the short term focusing on my genuine heart-felt apology. (Not short, sorry, but I do have a soul and genuinely care about truth.)F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: user Grant blocked for multiple offenses

Beyond insulting other users, Grant used a sockpuppet to avoid a ban. Sock's name was an insult to another user, and has been excised from record. User Grant then used an anonymous IP to avoid that block. That IP was then blocked. THEN he used ANOTHER IP to avoid that block in order to harass me on my talk page. That IP was then also blocked. This is just to make very clear (as if comments above didn't make the case) that the indefinite block of this editor should remain in effect for quite some time. Like, forever.Tao2911 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)