User talk:Geogre

This user may have left Wikipedia. Geogre has not edited Wikipedia since 29 July 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Essays

It's new! It's exciting! It's an idea whose time came months ago: The Tags and Boxes Player's Guide Continuation: The Demotion Idea. If RFA is "broken," let's not make it FUBAR: The RFA Derby It's newer! It's not exciting! Essay on Wiki Cults of Personality My attempt at impersonating Marshal MacLuhan: IRC considered Blocklogz, A Wikiwebi Comix: My first attempt at hip artwerkx. Oh, more IRC bashing from an IRC hater, etc. You know -- just whining from a luzer.: People are still getting blocked by "unanimous" IRC consent. So You Wanna Be An Edit Warrior? An essay on how to tell if you may already have the qualifications to be an edit warrior and not even know it!

New: User:Kosebamse/IRC explains pretty well why Wikipedia lost three of its most serious content contributors to salve the egos of some few people and save the playtime of those same few people. The "IRC RfAr": An explanation of "What happened" during the IRC arbitration case, and why it cost Wikipedia far, far more than it gave. The long winded analysis of "civility," with a short and succinct page to follow

New Messages

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Massages

For the many readers, there is a new blog entry. (If this makes no sense to you, then ignore it.) Geogre (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like input from the people who have seen my ideas for how to form a council to advise on the future. I've written some up, and I've sent them to a few people via e-mail. Should I post them here? Geogre (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested too, Geogre -- please post here (or shoot me an e-mail). We seem to be coming unglued rather badly, at least in the matter of governance, and I fear the process is accelerating. Antandrus (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, I was concerned that my name is too "big." I don't mean that I am, but rather that there are people who will oppose anything simply if my name is near it. I had preferred the ideas to come out anonymously or from several directions, because I think they're good (well, I would) and should answer our needs without introducing new griefs. I'll post 'em here by tomorrow, I suppose, and, wiki-style, leave them for anyone to adapt as they see fit. Geogre (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed, at least in the past three years or so, that popularity on Wikipedia negatively correlates with content contribution, and sometimes even with integrity. But don't quote me: I'm just a nasty old fool. And people skilled with words are not always popular, for we are after all writing an encyclopedia, where words are important, and envy is more implacable than hatred (La Rochefoucauld was right about everything). But I'll shut up now. Antandrus (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see below for the big kahuna idea. I really, really don't care who gets credit for it. Let Kelly Martin take credit for it, if she wants, so long as they do get a policy council and get it in something like what I've described. You know, I was reflecting, the other day, when I was explaining why I don't need Wikipedia and it doesn't need me anymore, that it's not the same thing as it was when I heard a call on National Public Radio for over-educated, under-employed people to add stuff. I remember hearing that, when I was working as a librarian in a closed library. I thought it was genius that they were taking advantage of all the ABD's and grad students in the world, but those people are now the ones Wikipedia doesn't want. -Bot operators with less personal skill than their creation are "mediators," and "cool" is a long comment. Theses are all original research. Footnotes dominate here, where they don't even exist in academia, and people expect a citation to "the Earth is the third planet from the sun." O tempore, O mores. (But John Gay said envy's a sharper spur than pay for wits; it's a cudgel for those without wit.) Geogre (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you will need for this project: One Wikipedia, an estimate of a representative sample of active editors, and several stewards. You will also need an Initiator. That's YOU, and hopefully you are plural, not singular.

1. Outline a set of criteria that would make a person qualified -- experience with all elements of Wikipedia, breadth of edits, calm, intelligence. Think about the criteria very, very carefully and word them even more carefully. This is the one place to be excruciatingly careful, to get a great deal of input, and to be sure that the end goal is always in mind. That goal is wise policy, nothing else.

Why: Criteria keep people from wandering, and most people will be more honest, if they're given qualities to assess than if they're asked who they think is best. It's one of those paradoxes of evaluation that's pretty well known in business and education. This is why, for example, most employee and educational assessments are structured.

2. Ask editors to recommend someone other than themselves according to those criteria, rating the person on a 1-10 on each. The recommendations go to a group of coordinators or the stewards. They are not posted openly, and any person advocating or discussing voting or canvassing for members to the council will be in violation of

Why: Obvious, really. The idea is not to be competing, but rather looking for elements of trust. This cuts down on some of the, "Oh, well, that person is evil" stuff. Obviously, it leaves big weaknesses, but step 3 can help forefend. Additionally, prior and future attempts stall because of politics and personalities and self-love and self-importance. Provided that alternate accounts are not involved, this should avoid that to some degree, and since these are simply sent in rather than posted publicly, it will help. We don't want cadres and factions and points of view trying to fight. We want wise policy and we want trust. Have people assess for someone, not against.

3. Get a list of the top 60 finishers and then make them candidates for consideration listed on a namespace page by the stewards. There will be positively no statements by the candidates, and no oppose votes. Instead, there will be a two week assessment period, during which editors will, again using the criteria, give 1-10 scores on the various criteria for the sixty persons listed.

3a. Selection will not be a balance of oppose and support or anything so compromised. Instead, the stewards will have determined a representative sample of the editing population and divided that by ten. No candidate will be successful without an aggregate score above that mark (this functioning like quorum).

3b. If a person sees a very serious reason for disqualification, he or she will inform the stewards and coordinators. Disqualification criteria are that the person will be likely to act in a private, national, or special interest rather than a wide, international, or community interest. Disqualification will have nothing to do with "conflict" or "drama" or even "policy violations" of the candidate, as it is not up to the stewards or coordinators to tell the project who it trusts. However, if a person has a vested interest or a conflict of interest or has evidence of a private desire that trumps the general, then that would be a reason for disqualification.

3c. The coordinators and stewards simply tabulate the scores. All parties are prohibited from revealing or discussing results on any medium until the final 60 are posted.

Why: This council will not have "power" to harm or help people, so the idea that a person on it will get to be important is silly. When matters are "tied" in the minds of the stewards and coordinators, the presumption should be for safety/disqualification, but the criteria must be solely oriented toward communal/private interest and wisdom/folly. A wise thought from an unpleasant person is worth a dozen banal platitudes. Secrecy is vital, because any hints about how things will going, especially on non-portable, non-transparent media like IRC and e-mail, will result in "votes" and hate fests.

4. The result of the assessment will be a council of TWENTY people. Of the twenty, five will serve at a time for one month periods. Membership will rotate every month.

Why: This may be the most vital part of the plan. By having the groups rotate, it prevents personalities from dominating, so no one person can bully or dominate the rest. Additionally, it keeps one person or five people from becoming "important" or thinking they have power of any sort. All of the anxiety about the council being a "government" or being "power" or being a "revolution" should be put to bed instantly by the knowledge that it will be a continually shifting set of persons.

5. Method: The council should appoint or seek representatives to speak for separate viewpoints on a given issue. These "champions" or representatives will present arguments for their position, arguments against alternative positions, along with careful rebuttals of claims against their position. They will not involve themselves in direct, interlined conversation with champions/representatives of other points of view on council pages. The council will review all cases, plus any volunteer cases ("amicus briefs"), and submit questions to champions. They will then fashion their own policy recommendation(s).

Why: Again, we've seen death by argument too many times to count, and we especially see the routine "forest for the trees" sort of argument that Wikipedia is famous for. No one gets anywhere when discussing policy because every single person needs to offer his opinion, even if it's almost identical to the twenty opinions just above. All of the "me too" and the "yeah but" stuff gets so thick that no one can support anyone or any thing. If the council wants to actually review and fashion policy recommendations (only recommendations), then it needs to basically research policy alternatives. They can find the passionate true believers of the sides and let them get all the best ideas from their side together and speak with one voice, and then they can also listen to anyone who walks by who happens to have thought about things. Additionally, many times our best thinking is not found among the advocates, because people have gone away from an issue in disgust. Open the issue of infoboxes, and you'll see hundreds of editors who hate them but gave up arguing. The point is that the "champion" method and the "amicus" system allows clear presentation and consideration for the council.

6. When the council concludes its deliberations, it makes a policy recommendation to Wikipedia that Wikipedia must approve. It is not automatically policy, but it is also not for arguing about. It is an up or down vote, with a presumption of approval. This means that any proposal that garners quorum and an approval rate of 67% or more will be adopted.

Why: If this is a thing where the council makes a big RFC, the result will be "no consensus" to everything. Instead, the council should get a bit of a break, so that a council recommendation simply needs approval (say a 2/3rds majority, with quorum in place). If it goes to Village Pump where every person gets a brand new opinion, then we'll have every person trying to speak for the novelty of speaking, and then we'll get reiteration, and then....

What to do with these?

Use 'em. Claim 'em as your idea, if you want. I don't care. I just think it's a good idea, and I think it's a damn sight better than ArbCom picking their favorite warriors or votes or some other rot. Tell me, honestly, if I haven't avoided the problems.

The point is, there are ways of doing these things, people, if we just stop thinking in terms of power and appointing ourselves demigods. Geogre (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Geogre - I've pasted it to [1], on my way out.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it does some good. I don't care about the credit, but it seems to me that one of the reasons Wikipedia has been doomed is that the project is a good deal more socially adventurous than the people at it. While it does all kinds of interesting things to notions of authority and control, they keep looking for authority and control. It's as if they're here, but they don't believe in it.

If we managed to get 100,000 articles and to move up to the top 20 in Alexa with just people and no freaking out about power, then I'm going to bet we can negotiate among ourselves to find the possible and impossible solutions for policy, too, so long as no one gets to be in charge. (There are two ways to win. One is a dictator. The other is a monastery. I've never heard of a monastery accidentally wiping out the population of a country before.) Geogre (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Of course all the people here exist in the real world within structures of power and authority - more acutely for the kids of course, so it's hardly a surprise that they bring shackles of the mind with them to this place. Look forward to your paper G - buzz me when it's published will you? --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I gave too much of a preview, there, but, of course, that's what it's all about. The historical moment. No one is to be blamed for being in a historical moment, but when the reason they never look above and beyond it is neediness and personal psychology, it can get really distasteful. I would love to have real surveys of Wikipedia administrators to make my case, but no one can get such surveys. Anyway, I'm writing, forever writing, and the thing is a monster. It's taking forever to get down, and then it will take a while to trim and dress up, and then I'll have to find the right outlet for it. I'll let you know, though. Geogre (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't these paradigm shifts usually have some kind of Charismatic Leader, some agent of change? Or at least, some voices in the wind, from the same direction? Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Unfortunately we're still waiting for the man. up to Lexington......hmmm hmmm. Your fundamental material for the historical moment though, is still pretty much the same homo sapien of 200,000 years ago. "Fred.F.Stone likes hunting, screwing, acceptance and problem solving for profit, will gladly bash neighbour in pursuance of these, but recently finds more profit in cooperation." Whatever the future holds, it would be surprising if it wasn't affected by some abstracts of those fundamentals. In short, to overcome neediness and personal psychology, aren't crowds usually invited to put them aside in favour of he 'lofty purpose'? WP might have the lofty purpose, but somehow it rewards the needy and sick - hardly Darwinian, but perhaps the societal aspects of this place do have a use after all. Joopercoopers (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I told a friend, recently, I have reception aesthetics dentures, but they're fitted on Marxist gums. The great man theory's problem is that, after he chases all your women around, he inevitably turns insipid or nasty. The odd thing is that the Great Man is, interestingly, not at home in a real Darwinian model, and yet it seems to fit so well with our concepts of the "primitive" that we forget that every time, in history, that we see a great man arise, he is promising to lead us boldly to the future, to clear away the brush of the past and make the trains run on time (by changing the time tables to match their departure and arrivals).

I'll have to go with e-mail on the rewards of neediness. I think Wikipedia is curiously designed for that. There is a particularity about this project that attracts and promotes particular sets of psychological profiles that are very ill suited to analysis. In essence, I think Wikipedia is a second life, and people who are looking for a chance to reconstruct and who are seeking recompense for the wounds and grievances of the first life are going to devote their energies toward the reconstruction and mirroring of the social orders that "went wrong" in reality. Unlike Second Life, Wikipedia is an actual do-over for a good many people, and therefore one has varying degrees of attraction based on varying degrees of "wrong" suffered. Geogre (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about the 'great man' not being at home in the Darwinian model. Certainly it worked for Genghis Khan - what percentage of Asia now carries his genes? 1 in 12? [2]. It certainly didn't do JFK's chances of finding a date any harm either :-) An interesting question is, if Obama delivers on the promise invested in him, will that be a competitive advantage for his children? I'm not so sure about the inevitable corruption of 'great leaders' either (where's Luther King, Gandhi or Mandela in that model - apart from 2/3rds of them having the sense of timing to die at the 'right' moment?). My Grandparents are still firmly of the opinion, that without Churchill to demonstrate the bulldog spirit, to remind us of our national traits and to buck us up with brilliant rhetoric, we'd be lost by now. It's speculative of course, maybe we could have done better than the bad-tempered depressive alcoholic with a boy's-own-adventure sense of military strategy (the nation certainly thought so in peacetime), but leadership is not to be dismissed so glibly I think - that generation is still marked by the tangible excitement of having experienced a nation truly pulling together. Maybe what's really missing at WP is an external threat - but now I'm sounding like Rumsfeld - lawsuits anyone? In any event, it's not cohesion we need, but values embedded in the system that serve our purpose better - an encyclopaedia is a strange place to find systemic anti-intellectualism.

Really though, aren't we all fundamentally motivated by selfishness? Even if I devote my life to charity, I feel better, I'm rewarded in some way. I try to remember that about people's motives, it makes me generally less disappointed in people :-) The long term trouble with Marxism, in my v. humble and uniformed view, is it appeals to idealism. Idealism can sublimate these selfish desires in the short term, because the idea of being part of 'something new and consequential', works as a reward in itself, not to mention the reward of love/respect/acceptance from being part of the 'group'. But in the long term, we revert to more petty and prosaic behaviours. That doesn't deny though that lifting our heads once in a while and running after someone or some group with vision is an entirely useless pursuit. But, as you say Geogre, your essentially un-clubbable, so you'll probably see that differently to your ovine peers --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a surprisingly interesting and cordial conversation going on here about reliable academic sources, which you might be interested in bringing your laser scalpel to. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried, but the problem is that, although they're all on the right track, they're falling victim to Wikipedia argument. One can find exceptions to everything. There are always going to be peer reviewed bits of horse hockey, and there are going to be eminent people who lose their minds. The general guideline is sound, but once we start trying to use general guidelines as if they were predictive laws without employing individual consideration, it's hopeless. The problem is that we are never going to shed ourselves of someone trying to say, "Oh, but there are books supporting my crank view, and they're from academic presses." To see where things get really hot, look at the nationalism wars. The fringe science stuff is tame in comparison. In those cases, you have the most prestigious presses of two nations offering up officially sanctioned accounts that say opposing things, and then, here at Wikipedia, we get bloody battles, with both trying to throw fecal matter at the other's press and universities and nation. The Russian/Polish "arguments" are crimes in progress, for example, and they are entirely insoluble without saying, "Well, we're Anglo-Americans, and so we're going to use our nationalist points of view." Shy of that, there's practically nothing to say to distinguish or quiet them. Geogre (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions concerning your alternate account; you are invited to comment if you wish. --bainer (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what happens, I would like to have your input on Fielding related stuff. There are a few pages that you were directly involved in, and some others that your opinion would be important. I plan on finishing the later plays coming up this fall and try to produce the bulk of his major works (including some poems and the rest). The one priority coming up will be The Covent-Garden Journal‎. When I have a chance, I will be adding some more information on the literary criticism and other notable aspects in order to prepare it for GA level. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please weigh in on the above discussion? I proposed adding some more about specific criticism and the such. AD cut it down and left some in. However, you may have some differing opinions from us on what would be effective or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration has been filed. You may wish to make a statement. Durova²⁸² 02:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone (I'm not sure who) once said "Don't let the bastards get you down" a motto I have always kept, so I recommend it. Unlike you, I only do poetry that I was compelled to learn in school, but I think many would do well to remember this "IF you can keep your head when all about you - Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, - If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you - But make allowance for their doubting too" and so on, I forget the rest, but I think the meaning is clear, and then my own favourite line "Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch" which is something you do very well! You see the other day, someone kindly fixed up this thing for me, which makes all the admins names on my watchlist appear blue, and do you know? - They are so in the majority, it has led me to the conclusion that not being an Admin is almost an affectation these days - rather like saying "look at me, I'm special" Funny how things turn out isn't it?
  talk) 21:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have just added Motion 3 calling for your de-sysopping. It is in your best interests to respond on the arbitration pages urgently to this and the other interests raised. I am sending you a copy of this message by email.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that once you have taken something from them (in this case - the tools) then they can threaten to take something away from you. Everyone who knows you, is 100% certain, beyond any possible doubt, that deceiving or building false concencus had never even crossed your too philosophical mind. In that respect, you are probably the mosy naively honest person on Wikipedia. The reasons you created Utgard were completely understandable and justified; they are also none of Durova and co's business. However, an ignorance of those facts has proven a source of long sought jubilation and glee to certain editors - and those whose most philosophical thoughts probably concern only their digestion and bowels. This is the crux of the problem, those who have their minds on higher things, seldom give sufficient thought to matters more base in appearance. Hence, you are in this predicament. It's not as though you use the tools - so if I were you, I would tell them where to stuff their bloody tools, but of course you are not me - which is why they are still whooping with such obscene joy as they seek to take from you and you remain silent. At least, this way, you have a dignity that others in this sorry case appear to lack.

talk) 09:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• As silent types go, you are proving pretty affective. However, I and some others are having some problems here. Why has this very commonly known alternative account, known in the highest circles, suddenly become a problem, that needs such public and drastic attention? There seems to be a huge movement wanting you de-sysopped; you certainly seem to have attracted some once powerful people (a whole unprecedented platoon of ex-arbs, undermining the present ArbCom, anxious to see you disposed of) I am just wondering why they and so many others from a certain quarter of Wikipedia are demanding your downfall - As disciples of Machiavelli they are provincial and clumsy, but they are singing in unison almost like a heavenly choir - or at least an orchestrated body. Any ideas, you would like to share with us?
  talk) 21:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• All I need to know is- did you use the "secondary" account to add to discussions/voting anyplace that your Geogre account was used. If not, then wheres the harm? If so... well that's a whole'nuther can o' worms. Good luck, because I've always appreciated your abilities/intellect. Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have really enjoyed reading your work here, especially that which you've done on the older literature articles. I discovered the troubles you're having when I checked in on a case in which user:Abd had listed my username in his evidence. As you've now not edited since the case began, I'm afraid we may have lost you, and that makes me very sad, if true. While I hope it's not true, I just wanted to post a note here to let you know that your contributions here are greatly appreciated, by more people than you'll probably every know. As the thread topic says, Ego sum tristis. Unitanode 05:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do hope that those who clamored for his "administrative head" on a platter enjoy what they have wrought.
  UnitAnode 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Of your troubles. You have been kind to me in the past and very fair, and I wish you the best. Peter Damian (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I've moved your latest statement to the new motion I've posted to propose that User:Utgard Loki be unblocked and available for your use as an alternate account, provided it is clearly identified as such. This is partly to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to read your statement given that the motions they were attached to will close shortly and it would have been archived along with them. — Coren ^(talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Geogre, unfortunately the

Please note that another motion is also close to passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems a bit trite to say 'hope you're well' - but I do, so there you go..... Anywhoo... I thought I'd come by here to let you know that I've put a note on Utgard's userpage mentioning the connection to this account - I felt that the template was a bit rude, so replaced it. The only place therefore that a 'geogre sock' template is in use is over at my userpage, where it's a sort of poor man's satire / comment on the whole situation - I'm thinking of being Spartacus on tuesdays, thursdays and saturdays, and Geogre on mondays, wednesdays and fridays. Sundays I'll pick a new and exciting 'master' account, and wear that label with pride, don't tell anyone, but I've always wanted to be SandyGeorgia ;-)

Doesn't really need saying, but you should obviously feel free to revert, edit, or whatever at Utgard's page - certainly if you feel my oar is getting in the way. Take care, and insert a genuine 'I hope you can rise above all this, because your contributions to the project, in various 'spaces', really are among the absolute finest' type statement here :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, wish to convey my sympathy to you—and my contempt to the rash, harsh punishment you've suffered, of course, without being afforded a chance to defend yourself. Orwellian process, from start to finish. El_C 09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AC is far too incompetent to do Orwellian. This was more like a

talk) 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

They're as full of promise and ultimate disappointment as New Labour, we're clearly into the Brown phase. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone is mistaken about Orwell. Normally, people responding in such a manner to such a situation would say Kafkaesque. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an offer for you at

Why don't you just knit him a nice sweater instead...or maybe a scarf?--

talk) 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Or a noose. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if he accepts her nomination for RfA.--

talk) 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

(EC) Now, now, Joopers, I'm

sure Durova didn't mean her essay to sound at all conditional or baiting. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Really? Because it sounded awfully to me like Durova has offered to cut her toenails if Geogre cuts his throat - now that's reciprocity folk! --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well she should cut hers first, since they keep tearing holes in her favorite

talk) 22:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Given the level of almost paranoid distrust displayed by some individuals on this page, I can well understand why you might like to avoid the politics of this place. And, yes, I'm fairly sure that you and some others might count me as one of the "enemy" as well. I did and do think that it might be a good idea for you to be subject to a confirmation vote, primarily for two reasons (1) the fact that the two names could be seen by those with no prior knowledge of the dual identity as being two individuals taking part in one discussion, and (2) far more importantly, as a form of, well, warning, to any admin in the future who might take recourse to multiple accounts, and, like NYB said, probably by accident have eventually wound up using them for a purpose for which they were never initially intended, but which could be seen as being to some level problematic. Having said all that, I would also be honored to second (or third or whatever) your nomination for reconfirmation should that situation develop. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, Durova has to be allowed to disagree without being personally attacked. It was this vituperative atmosphere we've created around ourselves that caused Geogre to want another account in the first place. It would be great if we could learn from this that differences of opinion and criticism don't have to escalate into wikihounding and disrespect. We may be about to lose a really great contributor because of it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem the offer is being viewed with the distain it deserves, as an attempt to wash blood from stained sheets. I wonder if Risker whould have been given the same 'opportunity' if Durova had managed to bring her down as collateral damage. This is high politics of the kind Durova has been so careful to distance herself from since !!; so the slate can be forgiven and wiped clean. I think all that effort is ruined here. Ouch, opps. The self interest and politics here are so naked and obvious here, I have to agree with Geogre in that 'ye all bore me'. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the image was used on this very page, it seemed appropriate that we have an article about the things. So I've started off Stallo for you. Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geogre, just noting for the record that a new motion has passed relating to you at WP:AC/N On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment at the arbcom case "Little did I know that such a collection of impotent rogues would gather to express their grave displeasure and sober defense of the letter of the law. Each of them united solely by the fact that, in the past, I had been instrumental in exposing his misdeeds ..." I would be grateful to know what misdeeds you imagine I have committed or that you have exposed. DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do seek to regain sysop status, as I have already said, I would be honored to be allowed to be one of your nominators. John Carter (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honey, that is so beautifully written!

And some great quotes: "Ignorance is the mother of admiration"! Ha! :-D I'd never heard that one.

What's a divot? Bishonen | talk 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

'tis true. Reminded me of the much missed Alistair Cooke. (The beeb never did find a way to plug the gap he left and the ocean between us can only widen without it - How's your radio voice Geogre?). 'Replace your Divots' is parlance from that dreadful waste of a good walk, meaning clods of earth belted out with a driver. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Are we sharing this, with a link, or keeping it for ourselves?

talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Heel America Part One --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to correct you Joopers, but a driver is usually swung at a teed ball, so no divots there. Nitpickingly yours, Kosebamse (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly not seen the rare occasions I've teed off. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's Ok with you, but I have made this edit to your user page [3] it was upsetting some people [4] and causing concern that the ritual drumming out of the regiment had not been performed. It's funny isn't it, how on this case the honour was drummed out with you.

I miss you. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with the sentiment. At the risk of gushing, something I doubt Geogre appreciates much, I think he's the finest writer I've encountered in almost six years at this place. Geogre, be well; some of us do miss you more than you may ever know. Antandrus (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh what? I popped up merely to point you to this sensible proposal; can you really be gone? I hope it's merely a vacation. Come back rested and refreshed. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have any interest in participating in something like this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... you're gone? Oh hell. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

Please see Talk:Restoration spectacular#4 years on as an informal FAR. Simply south (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over three months since you left, you can't allow this shower to drive you off for good.

I have nominated

I have nominated

I hate to dredge up the past, but I just wanted to make a comment on [5], where it was stated that is was almost assured that I was using sockpuppets. I just want to set the record straight that I wasn't -- the other user in question approached me while I was a developer and notified me --- that community is -very- hotheaded, but he wasn't a sockpuppet and I asked him repeatedly in private (which is against policy but I didn't want more trouble) to calm down as I did.

No hard feelings, just want to set the record straight.

Antman -- chat 10:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Georgre ... in 17:00, 12 June 2009, I put a contribution material on wikipedia called Fashcool but you, as an editor removed it, if you have any dubt that the information is incurrect, please visit the Fashcool Gallery in the folowing link. http://www.facebook.com/fashcool#/pages/Fashcool/8241702429?ref=ts

If the deletation due that I cant write about my work as cartoonist hope you can help me in doing so .

Ramzy taweel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramzytaweel (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Afflatus, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afflatus. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is quite incredible. I suggest you withdraw it at once.

 Giacomo  18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thursday next, 29 July, will be the anniversary of the last time Geogre made a contribution to Wikipedia. Both you and your Norse alter-ego are very much missed. I just hope that you'll find the opportunity to let your fans and friends know you're ok, and allow us the possibility that one day you'll return. Best wishes --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was claimed by 173.186.127.134 (talk · contribs) on the talk page of Ormulum that this user had died. Hopefully that's not the case, but if it is that would perhaps explain his absence. Bob talk 18:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Geogre hasn't died. I was chatting with him just now, and asked him if he had, and he definitely told me "no". Bishonen | talk 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict, ... that itself is a chuckle, on this page) He appears to be very much alive, unless a ghost is doing the typing. I for one am happy to see one of my favorite editors returning, if but for a moment, as an anon. Giano, shall we dub this brief visitor the "

Ka of Geogre"? Antandrus (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Mr Antradus, how dare you mock the dead? I can assure you, young man (I assume you are a man, no woman would ever be so insensitive) that being dead is not a life-style choice! In fact, we are a discriminated against majority: we do not even have the luxury of "Proud to be dead" marches causing mayhem with traffic, such as are enjoyed by other discriminated against groups. Geogre is most certainly not dead, or he would be one of our leading campaigners for equal rights and recognition. Sometimes, I wish he were dead, then I could enjoy some more stimulating company;
  dearest Noel and warbling Ivor bitching and fighting to be heard over the luncheon table with dear poor Edie and her infernal megaphone is not my idea of heaven! Get a life! Young man and stop insulting the likes of myself! Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I too would very much like to see Geogre return to editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little late in the day to come here saying that - aweeping and awailing! You should have thought of that before the Arbcom drove him awf - with their stupid ill-conceived and ignorant sanctions playing to a dribbling and equally ignorant gallery or their peanutting supporters. Plus the fact, you have had months - a year to do something about it! Were I on that ridiculous Arbcom, things would be very different, of that you can be assured. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

This whole section reminds me of you [6]. Didn't you go on strike once years ago - in the happy days before the Arbcom decided they could dispense with your services and drove you off. Never mind, who needs dull boring old serious English literature, when one can read a comic.

Just my opinion here -- I think Geogre is on strike, and that's exactly why we haven't heard from him. He just hasn't used the word. He kicked the dust off his shoes and left. That part that's desperately sad to me is that very few people seem to have noticed the departure of one of Wikipedia's finest-ever content contributors at all; indeed some of the worst non-contributors were likely happy to have him go. I suspect the same thing would happen on a larger, and more tragicomic scale, if content contributors did as you suggest.

There's a story by C.M. Kornbluth called "The Marching Morons" in which a small group of intelligent people do all the work on a future Earth, while serving the billions of imbeciles bred by unnatural selection. These people go on strike, only to discover that they've but made the problems worse; the only thing to do, they learn, is to get rid of all the morons. Antandrus (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am normally in favour of the wikipedia model, but having just read the review process by which Geogre's work on A Tale of a Tub was demoted from FA status, I have some sympathy with critics of wikipedia and with the impatience of people who don't like to see excellent work being denied due recognition. The rules were enforced in a situation where they clearly need not have been enforced. Nobody wanted to suggest that Geogre didn't have massive command of the sources, but a lot of people wanted to bring him down for being an arrogant so-and-so, which to be fair he is; proof enough that it's one thing to know what you're talking about on wikipedia, but you'd better not annoy people because, unfortunately for the encyclopedia itself, if you want to be a star contributor it's at least as important to be well-liked as it is to know what you're talking about. This, of course, is merely my personal opinion. My opinion of the people who voted to demote the article from FA status for reasons that had nothing to do with its intrinsic quality but everything to do with politics and personal antipathy, and of the process that allowed their opinion to count for anything and not to be disregarded for what it so obviously was, is not fit to be expressed in public.

In the meantime, I am annoyed because I wanted to consult Geogre on a reference I found in an essay by Richard Porson, who inferred the authorship of A Tale of a Tub from a coincidence of numbers in both that book and Gulliver's Travels. But if he's not here, he can't confirm if he knew about it already.Lexo (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Slaveship.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is clearly stated as "British Library" within the image. I've added a template including that information to help the bots who can't read image text. It's a pity that

WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to apply to images. *Sigh* --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for uploading File:Slaveship.JPG. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

I don't think that it's a smart idea to place the notice on the page of a contributor who sadly has not edited for over a year. Despite the fact that the file actually had a description, I've added some extra information to try to keep the bot happy. --RexxS (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely not. It is probably on the same level as placing notices on the talk page of editors who just happened to revert some vandalism on the image in question but otherwise has no clue as to the origin or circumstances of said image. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and please accept my apologies, as I wrote the snotty comments for the bot, before I realised you'd justifiably moved the bot notification from your page here. I admit I find these sort of bot notifications irksome, particularly as the apparent reason for the notice turned out to be inaccurate anyway. Still, a few minutes of googling found some extra information on the image, so it should keep the bot from causing you further nuisance. Thanks for your reversion of the vandalism anyway! --RexxS (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Myrrha. Never even knew of it. What a deliciously wrong thing. And pushed forward by a new and young Wikipedian. Stop on by and edit. TCO (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to you [7], the name of the plot means "the treason at Maine" . Could you please cite the source for this information? Tks. Yone Fernandes (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red list, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. œ^™ 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to be without your contributions. Friday next will be another year gone by and so I guess we ought to report on the last twelve months. It's felt a bit like the Dutch boy trying to plug the holes in the dyke – not yet a disaster, but seems awfully close to one.

Anyway, Ormulum was saved, but at the cost of a vandal changing all the parenthetical references to harvard-style in a fait accompli – the upside was that we found Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), who worked so hard to answer all the carping and verified many sources.

The three image files above survived and had a few extra bits of info added to them to reduce the chances of being deleted. Main Plot had an extra sentence added to cover the possibility that it was so named to fit with the Bye Plot.

That's about it, as far as I'm aware. Ultimately, no measurable progress, but no obvious decay in your work, by and large. I just had a image of Dewey from the end of Silent Running flash through my mind. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,

]

Non-free rationale for File:Red-Man2.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Red-Man.png

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:E-Montagu.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:E-Montagu.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the

image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

This file is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years.

--RexxS (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Stephenblois.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Stephenblois.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the

image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

This image is in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law. The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection).

This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.

--RexxS (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply