Jump to content

User talk:Geogre: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Exclusive club: mum's the word
Everyking (talk | contribs)
Line 185: Line 185:
Geogre, I assure you I am quite well informed about the HW matter, as I've been following it for months. I started observing her edits back when she was Winnermario; we both edit a lot on pop music topics. I also have read most of the content she's added and the FAC discussions. I really doubt there is anything significant about the situation I'm not aware of. This "failure to research" business is insulting, and sounds like an attempt to discredit or dismiss me. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Geogre, I assure you I am quite well informed about the HW matter, as I've been following it for months. I started observing her edits back when she was Winnermario; we both edit a lot on pop music topics. I also have read most of the content she's added and the FAC discussions. I really doubt there is anything significant about the situation I'm not aware of. This "failure to research" business is insulting, and sounds like an attempt to discredit or dismiss me. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:I'm sorry you feel that way, but you showed no evidence of reading, much less addressing, the central issue of that case: a user was evading blocks repeatedly. Further, you didn't address any of the points raised by Bunchofgrapes, Bishonen, or me. Further again, feeling that the quality of ''that'' user's edits (or any user's) was such that we should ignore our rules against block evasion would make you, in my personal view, inappropriate for ArbCom. This is my view. I have said all along that you are a good editor with a few blind spots, but I couldn't support you for ArbCom. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:I'm sorry you feel that way, but you showed no evidence of reading, much less addressing, the central issue of that case: a user was evading blocks repeatedly. Further, you didn't address any of the points raised by Bunchofgrapes, Bishonen, or me. Further again, feeling that the quality of ''that'' user's edits (or any user's) was such that we should ignore our rules against block evasion would make you, in my personal view, inappropriate for ArbCom. This is my view. I have said all along that you are a good editor with a few blind spots, but I couldn't support you for ArbCom. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
::I didn't feel the block evasion was important. If we could all agree on something reasonable, no punishment for block evasion would have been necessary. Things can just be let go in exchange for a constructive solution. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:31, 10 January 2006

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

List of things with gaps

New Messages

Offence taken!

As a nation I don't think it wise for yours (in the form of you!) to discuss the "velour track suit", here [1] I will just say to you Roma and Milano, should you wish me to be to be more precise Versace, Gucci and Prada. I'm sure there are some very clever people indeed in North America designing some very "colourful" garments, (does anyone wear them?) and I wonder why they haven't exported them here - Oh : "Levi you say?" - well think Armani. I look forward to you correction very soon and govelling, yes very grovelling - puddle drinkingly apology on the talk page. Oh yes I forgot - Happy Christmas - I assume you do celebrate the holy season in those unfashionably nothern parts? Furious of Palermo

Hey, the velour track suit is a masterpiece of functionality. Wearing one, you can go from hanging out at the local social club to hitting a few mooks to a night out on the town without changing clothes! Besides, they look good in court. Up in Pelham Bay, we knew our track suits, and only the best would do. Besides, I was only reporting on one theory of one set of scientists. Geogre 00:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pelham Bay? And where exactly is Pelham Bay? I don't believe I know anyone in Pelham Bay - I see you live somewhere called Georgia! Which explains things somewhat. And please do not refer to my friends and family as mooks, if you wish to enjoy a happy Christmas in your entirety. now I'm off to that lamentable article to try a and sort it out - and I advise you to find a decent tailor, I assume they do have such things in ....er...Georgia! Giano | talk 13:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Georgia, we have no need of tailors. Overalls are one size fits all, and we believe in function over frippery down here. Pelham Bay is a famous spot. Certain people and their friends would meet at an Italian-American social club out there. Apparently, some of those friends lived two doors down from me, when I lived there. Nice people -- Goodfellas, you might say, but they weren't lofty enough to have the track suit (preferrably Adidas). There may be a reason why I'm in Georgia, you know. Oh, and Merry Christmas. Geogre 14:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well keep this up, and your next suit will have zip from head to toe! Giano | talk 14:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that's a joke, it's not funny, and if it's a threat, push off. We don't tolerate it here. 86.133.53.111 05:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the context, it is very funny. Best not to jump to conclusions about private conversations unless you are aware of the full story. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia? Geogre? Geo-ogre? Eogregay? I think I need to sit down. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And in a suit? Can I sit down beside you? Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in a suit. As I said, we just wear overalls and hang out at the "fillin' station" and drink Grape Nehi while we swat flies and wait for Yankees to come along and ask for directions, so we can tell them, "You can't get there from here." However, I'm wondering if Giano is actually an Expert on Sicily. After all, he didn't know about Pelham Bay! That's like not knowing about Statten Island or the profit margins that can be found in the waste disposal and building trades in NYC (but, mysteriously, nowhere else). Geogre 12:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And I do have a suit! I've worn it a couple of times, too. After all, I need to be buried in something. Now, though, Paul and Filiocht are sitting down next to each other. Ooooooh! (Down here, men do not sit next to each other. There's no room, what with the guns, and you need to preserve some distance anyway so that you have a place to spit with your chewing tobacco and/or dental snuff.) Geogre 12:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We Old World men have this thing called our "feminine side" and we like to get in touch with it from time to time. This means that we get to wait until much later in life before we have to think about what we want to get buried in. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has Fil been dallying with Paul? I'll get my gun. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I asked if I could sit down with you! Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so... I wasn't sure where this Paul chap came into the picture. Feel free to rest awhile - would you care for a cup of tea? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Milk, no sugar please. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok not only can't Geogre count, apparently he has a hard time reading as well (perhaps its a Southren thang). Any way just to set the record straight, "dilly" is the only kind of "dallying" this Paul has done recently. Paul August 18:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Ph.D. in Reading! You just didn't see the first draft, the unpublished manuscript of the message above, where it was definitely you that Filiocht was sitting next to. Besides "the margin is the center," and what is not said is very clearly something repressed. The fact that Filiocht hasn't asked to sit next to you only proves that he had to stop himself from asking, which means that it is the real issue. (At one notable institution, this type of reading was used to establish definitively that Wordsworth was a pedophile.) Geogre 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A PhD in Reading or from Reading? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Ph.D. in Reading and a girl in every port. I have a physicist in Berlin, an MD in Tokyo, and a paleographer in Kokomo. Geogre 13:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you people are talking about, but it do sounds like you're not being productive. I'm going to have to step in and demand you all go back to editing. This is what you are here for. We have assigned time-wasting as a separate task to more qualified people. Let's trim our talk pages in accordance with the Wikipedian lifestyle. JRM · Talk 08:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not disrupt Wikipedians to make a point. We have been highly productive and reductive. What we've been producing may not be in accord with all you eletist rouge admins snobs, and what we've been reducing is mostly server space, but we must never bite the newbies, must be gentle and loving and water them frequently and put them in windowboxes where they can get adequate light, and we must laugh merrily at the cute little articles they make. So there! Geogre 13:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not talk back to admins. This can be considered a personal attack on Wikipedia's integrity. As an administrator yourself, you should know this. I would never bite newbies; persistent trolls laboring under false pretenses of a cooperative spirit are another matter. Keep this up and I will make sure you are desysopped, defrocked, and defenestrated. I have met Jimbo once, so be assured that I have the connections and influence to ensure it. JRM · Talk 13:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo sez that he's going to get you for that. He's a close personal friend, and you had better start assuming good intent, or else! I never make personal attacks, and we do not tolerate threats being made. Consider yourself on double secret probation. One more, and I will invoke the injunction made against your sock puppets to block you forever and then some! No one is as inoffensive as me, and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly offensive. I always assume good faith, you troll! Geogre 16:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open mouth, insert foot

Me, that is. Is it perhaps a doubleplusungood idea to dare ArbCom to raise the level of sanction? But seriously, I just cannot give a flying fig anymore. I tried to be patiant, I tried to maintain a sense of homour. I took a little break and came back feeling nice, did some actual article space work. But this is a joke, and this is obscene. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug> You knew that Snowspinner or Tony would try to use your comments as ammo, I assume. Don't get excited. So far, the community itself has been stepping up to protest the lack of procedure. You're better off remaining as removed as possible. Let those without a play at the table venture the stakes. I think you over reacted, to some degree, because all that those findings were were "fact: it happened." I don't agree with Kat's endorsing of the "fact" that you edited deletion policy, but it's nothing to get worked up about. Call me Polyanna, but I just don't see anything coming of this. I'd continue to let it wither, which is what it's doing right now, and don't feed it. On the workshop page, at least, the arguments are overwhelmingly against Tony's prosecution. I know things are going slowly, but such is the case with ArbCom. I don't think many of the arbitrators are interested in getting into it (hence the lack of votes), possibly because it's getting clearer all the time that it's fairly poorly licensed as an RFar. Geogre 02:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adspam?

Not sure if you want the Christmas Eve Featured article promotional message I've crafted (the red one) here on your talkpage; do you? Shall I put it on? Merry Christmas, honey! Bishonen | talk 01:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel better, be well! Bishonen | talk 11:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


File:Happy Christmas.gif
Happy Christmas Geogre from Giano

Of course he want's it - he loves it, I've decided to award Geogre one of my personal limited edition Christmas cards.

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Geogre! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I wanted a bicycle for Christmas. Now I'm Geogre on Wheels! Geogre 12:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday greetings to my favorite "reactionary foamer" Paul August 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rabid xmas dog.jpg
A rabid reactionary foamer

'Oh! MY Goodness! I am flabbergasted. I'm glad that he came to the conclusion that I'm not a reactionary foamer (one wonders...right or left wing? I didn't know socialists were "reactionaries"), but I am left puzzled at what I had said that led him to make the assumption in the first place. Well, at any rate, it turned into a nice left-handed compliment. I don't know why, though, folks think that somehow we're against web comics or for them or anything else. I think most of us are just quite upset at going straight from "I'm ticked" to RFar, with none of the procedurally mandated steps between, and then ArbCom doing the inexplicable and accepting the case. Geogre 18:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be a reactionary, but admit it, you can foam with the best of them. Oh and has Foamer eaten Giano's little doggie? Paul August 22:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now we know that Foamer is crazy: he missed eating the hat! My non-foaming dog will routinely destroy plush toys, but she would never forget the squeaky bits, nor the hat. If it's soft and makes a noise, she eats it. (I do not foam! I thunder, often righteously.) Geogre 12:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I stand corrected, "thundered" is more apt. (A new epithet, "Zeus Ogre?") By the way, as I look back and forth between Foamer and doggie, I'm noticing a striking resemblance. Is it possible that Foamer is really some kind of an Ovidian Metamorphosis of Little Doggie? Am I just imagining the beginnings of a rabid gleam in Doggie's eyes? and the first frothings of foam on Doggie's tongue? And now I see of course, those are Foamer's actual ears not just red earflaps on the Santa's hat. Now I'm convinced, Foamer is Little Doggie" (I wonder if Giano knows). Now the chainsaw makes sense. Paul August 17:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Thor's New Year's Thunder for you, honey! Careful with that Molljnar thing! Bish
I fancy more Odin than Zeus, in that regard. After all, Zeus only hit titans and a few exceptional mortals, while Thor could be counted upon to throw Molljnar just about anywhere, and for any reason, and he had a thing about trolls. I think you're right about Foamer and Lil' Doggie. I don't think that a metamorphosis is necessary, though. It's just that Lil' Doggie is the more advanced case of rabies. After foaming, growling, staggering, and biting friends comes smiling vacantly. I see the exact same expression on the faces of Christian Coalition members and the people leaving the Primitive Baptist Church in town after the pastor has decided that one of his congregants needed his sins confessed for him, and no one can deny that those folks are rabid. Geogre 18:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
File:WWE New Years Revolution.jpg
Geogre in chains

Have you made your New Years revolution yet? Paul August 06:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Twain said, I think, a boy learns a lot from a dog: faithfulness, courage, and to turn around three times before laying down in bed. (That poster looks like something August Strindberg would have starred in during that phase of his career. More proof that he was an Anarchist?) I think I'll go edit the If I Had a Hammer article and point out that it's a clear neo-pagan song, where Phil Ochs and company show their desire to worship Thor again. (A Wiccan was in a medieval literature class I took. She wore hearts, moons, and clovers for earrings and kept suggesting that every female in medieval literature was a sign of "the people missing their goddess worship." After a while, the prof just began pretending that he couldn't hear her.) (She would later be a Dervish, then a Christian.) Down here in Baptistville, there are no revolutions, and evolutions are merely a theory. Geogre 13:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I bet she liked The Da Vinci Code. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, absolutely! It was all that folderol. Basically, Laura Ridding's masterpiece, The White Goddess, which she allowed Robert Graves to write, with all its amazing misunderstanding of medieval literature (e.g. believing that the material from the Dun Cow Book and Book of Taliesin was true and literal) as if it told the real story of history, with a soupcon of Green Man and a sprinkling of every conspiracy theory around, as an approach to literature and life. When she expressed the view that Geoffrey Chaucer's Book of the Duchess was an expression of this suppressed love of the goddess, I lost all patience with feigning to think about her comments and began allowing myself to laugh audibly. ("You're not being repressed because you're dangerous. You're being repressed because you're silly.") Da Vinci Code came out later, but I'm sure, had she managed to remain a wiccan for more than a year, she'd have loved it. (I have some real grousing to do with The Rule of Four, which isn't as stupid but isn't smart.) Geogre 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should never have said she probably liked Da Vinci Code. On reflection, it's an obvious violation of WP:NPA. (Or does that not apply for former classmates of other users? Somone should open an RfArb to find out.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me of one great gag we had. We used to say, "You read Longfellow!" and "Don't listen to him: he reads Fenimore Cooper!" as insults. When "enjoyed Da Vinci Code" is a PA, we know we're in the right company. Geogre 13:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Hollaback Girl?

I don't know if you noticed that Hollow Wilerding has been nominated for adminship. Bishonen | talk 04:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You left a comment on User:Bishonen's talk page...

I do plan on running at RfA again someday. If you want the full details on why I never revealed why User:DrippingInk and User:Winnermario are friends of mine, please access the following link:

This link. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wild

Thanks for the comment on my talk page! =) And again, I want to say I'm sorry for how I treated the Wild article. It was not at all deserved. Jon Harald Søby 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this?

You probably have, but I thought I'd point it out in case you hadn't. William Connolley,fights for two years to get Global Warming to an appropriate state... this quote is particularly cogent "It takes a long time to deal with troublemakers," admits Jimmy Wales, the encyclopaedia's co-founder. "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense." Global warming is, in the grand scheme of things, a bit more important than webcomics. (I watch talk pages I post to, feel free to reply here, I'll see it)++Lar: t/c 16:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking

Geogre, no, Everyking's dispproval of the HW block isn't recent. It was posted on User talk:Hollow Wilerding, early on, because Everyking is banned from commenting at the admin noticeboard pages (I'm pretty sure he is). You prolly want to delete/strike out that comment. I hope he doesn't think you're getting at him if he sees it (I know you're not). Thanks for commenting on the RFC, though I expect none of us should have, really, considering it was created (not "filed"—it's not listed on the main RFC page) by a blocked user. Blocked does mean that you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 06:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no strike through is necessary. You had asked about the block in the logical and licit place (AN), and the feedback there was unanimous. Everyking's opposition was not on your user page (telling the blocking admin that he disagreed) nor at AN nor at the mailing list. I don't know about his being blocked from any particular page, and it's a shame if true. I don't imagine Everyking can think I'm trying to get at him, as, after all this time, he ought to know that I pretty much stay out of the frays he has been in. I hope he knows my opinion of him (excellent editor with a sore spot that leads him to trouble). I don't think anything more needs to be said on the RFC. Geogre 13:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From you-know-what

That's like expecting Ken Starr to apologize to Bill Clinton for prosecuting him.

Huh. I didn't actually try to parse this until your latest comment, rather I had decided to stop feeding the troll. Now that you mention it, uh... hmm... let's see, Search4Lancer is the prosecutor and... uh, was Bish the defendant? Now I'm just lost. And would an apology from Ken Starr be all that bad? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Let's see: Ken Starr exceeded his mandate, concluded his investigation into the matter he was charged with in a year but kept going onto three matters he was not charged with investigating, employed evidence from illegal phone records, and produced no evidence of criminal wrong doing. Hmmm. A perfect example of a person who was righteously prosecuting and who should never apologize? Uh, not really. He could have said "asking the Neuremberg prosecutors to apologize for prosecuting Albrecht Spier" or something, but choosing Ken Starr is just one of those magnificently unconscious bits of irony. Geogre 13:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment on the FAC, and I certainly see where you're coming from, but I'm not all that sure how to fix it. While she's a fairly celebrated figure in the sport, she's not a household name, as even though netball is probably the most widely played sport in Australia, it doesn't get much recognition at the elite level - I think there's only about two players from the national team who'd be considered household names. On the same note, I don't think it could be said that her successes have brought any extra attention to the sport - only Liz Ellis has seemed to be able to achieve that one, and that's more because she's become a media personality than anything else.

I'm not sure what you mean by "wider career" - do you mean in the media? Virtually all netballers here (apart from the Australian captain) here have to take on a full-time job as well as their sporting commitments, but since Neele was a university student up until a year ago, and was unemployed for most of this year, there's really not that much to say besides what I've already added, I think. Please understand that I'm not trying to shoot the comment down; I agree with it, but I'm just not quite sure how to broaden the context appropriately. Ambi 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see where you're going, and it makes sense. I'll try and work some mention of that into the article in the morning. Do you have any other suggestions for how I might address this? Ambi 13:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of your university question, it's a bit difficult - many of the younger ones are university students (or even high school), but because their careers typically last for quite a few years after graduating, there's a lot that aren't. As for putting her in the context of the sport, I'm not quite how to go about it - while she's amongst the best in the country right now, to my knowledge she hasn't smashed any records or done anything to definitively etch a legacy into the history books. Ambi 14:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi,
I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography

Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wierd

Yes, my tendancy to be cryptic has not helped this at all.

The 1st user box was untenable, and the block was just if abrupt. The second was was rude and ill-advised, but blocking for it was a little hasty. Editing the user page of someone who has just been blocked for (in effect) saying he would be opposing her for ArbCom (something that we should be able to say, as long as we do so sensibly) reeks of gloating.

I have now, however, pushed my tendancy for necro-beastial sadism way beyond the point of diminishing returns.

brenneman(t)(c) 03:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent III

I noticed this page was linked from the WP main page on Jan. 8, but when I went to look at it I saw it was horribly unclear, so I rewrote it. If you'd like to clean it up even more, I'd be delighted. Halcatalyst 05:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a brief "information only" edit. I'll look over it for style later. It needs some rewriting and perhaps sectioning to make events a bit more clear. It seems, at this point, to concentrate so much on the Italian penninsula that the motives and objectives aren't clear. Geogre 13:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Mail! Bishonen | talk 19:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Activism

<blink>

I'm surprised. What have I done to cause your ire?

Kim Bruning 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ire? I have no ire toward you. I didn't support you on ArbCom, but I don't dislike you. It's just that the business where that fellow left after his RFA failed and you came along behind to wonder why I could oppose was a bit...intrusive and suggested that there was a right position and a wrong position and that I had taken the wrong one. I had been pretty well reasoned, and yet that whole episode suggested that the redefinition of deliberation to consensus and consensus as unanimity was something worth going along and bugging folks about. That was enough to make me uncomfortable with how you'd do on ArbCom. Let's put it this way: a great number of AC cases seem to come down to "he/she called me names and hurt my feelings!" Perhaps I'm radical on that, but I'm getting less and less interested in "feelings," as they more and more indicate the entropic principle of forum-speak taking over Wikipedia. We're less and less an article-based enterprise and more and more a community of chums and enemies. If I hurt his feelings by voting against his RFA on the basis of what he said, and if that made him leave, then, well, concluding that I was wrong or that I needed to be interrogated was a bad sign. Again, though, certainly no ire. I have no dislike, just discomfort. Geogre 14:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh! And my intent there was to actually soften the blow of Gmaxwells words, and to figure out what was actually going on. My apologies for failing to mitigate your discomfort. Kim Bruning 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, no one likes two on one in an argument, and it sure looked like Gmaxwell (or whatever name it is in this context) was upset and going off the beam, and then you were coming along to hold his coat. Very unpleasant. You didn't question him on his exceptional (and trollish) comments, did you? You weren't on his user page urging him not to go to talk pages and tell everyone who voted against his buddy that they should never again express an opinion, did you? The fact that you were, at least publically, silent about someone doing something that extraordinary and outrageous was a bad sign. Now, I didn't go ape over it. I figure Node is a good user most of the time and that he was just having an episode, but it was astonishingly bad form for him to do that. Geogre 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi :)

hey george, what did you mean by all this posts by one particular user may be i don't know what for a freshman I don't know what...? I'm really sorry, I didn't get your point, but if u wanna tell me something, go ahead, just please make it straight forward because I speak spanish. :) --Cosmic girl 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your asking so many open-ended religious questions. They are a bit more discussion topics than actual questions, and the reference desk is really supposed to be non-discursive. We're not really supposed to chat there, just answer questions. Questions that can't be answered definitively really shouldn't go there. When I was 15-20, I used to love to talk about religion with people with different points of view. I was trying to solve my own feelings on the matter. This is a fairly common time of life to have discussions like that, and they're wonderful things that are very necessary. (I'm not trying to accuse you of being any particular age, just explain what I meant by "freshman dorm room bull session" -- college freshmen meet up and talk about Life the Universe and Everything.) It's just not appropriate on the reference desk. I was trying to send a message to the other folks that we should keep our answers simple and not get into talking to one another. Also, since I am a Kierkegaardian Christian, I think that talk has little to offer us in terms of final answers to the nature of ultimate reality (see Linguistic determinism). Geogre 14:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, u r right :) thnx 4 pointing it out.--Cosmic girl 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps. what I understood from that article of linguistic determinism is that we can not know about a thing which we haven't defined linguistically, but I'm confident that some day we will be able to understand God by creating concepts for him/her/it, like the example of those people that only had 3 words to talk about cuantity (one-two-many) so they wherent able to distinguish or comprehend more objects, same with us and God, we can not comprehend him because we havent pinpointed any termns nor descriptions that are objective regarding God...but someday, as we evolve more, we may be able to understand even God's subjetivity, or at least, that's what I hope.--Cosmic girl 20:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Christian existentialism (Kierkegaard and his followers) say that we do experience God, but we can't "understand" God, for understanding implies limiting. At most, we experience an aspect of God. However, the thing about words is remarkably like what Ludwig Wittgenstein said. He said that we are like a fly in a bottle: it cannot fly directly up, and it will fly around and around until it dies. God is above the bottle, but we are only able to look left and right. As for the question of whether or not there is a God, Wittgenstein said that the question cannot be asked: when you ask it, you posit the answer already, since you used the word "God." Whether there is an objective existence of God, Wittgenstein said that there was simply no way for philosophy to say, "But, for me, I am too old to bend my knees that way." Kierkegaard said that philosophy is mute on the question because philosophy is a grammar of logic, and logic is incapable of approaching anything that is outside of the human mind. Geogre 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive club

Hey, we've both voted "oppose" on the fellow leading the arbcom voting. What's wrong with us? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, it's a long memory. Back when only admins would close VfD's, he allowed his personal opinion to over rule the votes and was simply deciding on his own to keep articles that the voters had decided should go. When confronted, twice, he cut it out. There was another, similar, case, as well. He didn't do like Tony Sidaway, where there were vows that "you'll never stop us," but there was a decision that put himself above the regular process. I don't have anything against him, but ArbCom is the wrong place for him, IMO. Geogre 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to keep quiet regarding my ArbCom voting rationales except for those based on candidate inexperience; I was just glad to not be so lonely down there in that one! I see Bishonen has joined us too. Now you know there's something wrong with us ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre, I assure you I am quite well informed about the HW matter, as I've been following it for months. I started observing her edits back when she was Winnermario; we both edit a lot on pop music topics. I also have read most of the content she's added and the FAC discussions. I really doubt there is anything significant about the situation I'm not aware of. This "failure to research" business is insulting, and sounds like an attempt to discredit or dismiss me. Everyking 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you showed no evidence of reading, much less addressing, the central issue of that case: a user was evading blocks repeatedly. Further, you didn't address any of the points raised by Bunchofgrapes, Bishonen, or me. Further again, feeling that the quality of that user's edits (or any user's) was such that we should ignore our rules against block evasion would make you, in my personal view, inappropriate for ArbCom. This is my view. I have said all along that you are a good editor with a few blind spots, but I couldn't support you for ArbCom. Geogre 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't feel the block evasion was important. If we could all agree on something reasonable, no punishment for block evasion would have been necessary. Things can just be let go in exchange for a constructive solution. Everyking 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]