User talk:Orthogonal/archive 18 Jun 2004 - 28 Jul 2004

Jacek Kuroń

Thanks very much for corrections in Jacek Kuroń article. The good think in Wikipedia is any entry from person not fully fluent with English will be immediatelly corrected by some helpful soul. Przepla 10:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure; thank you for adding to Wikipedia the facts about Kuroń, a true hero. orthogonal 01:26, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He's still the vicar

I love the fact that you created the page. My own specialty is really 1660-1745, and in particular that knotty bit of cultural history that entangled every author worth reading (IMO). My problem is likely to be going on too long on the subjects of the annotation. This is one reason why I've created relatively few 18th century pages: I have trouble remaining disciplined enough not to go long (see my A Tale of a Tub for an example of what I do when I don't restrain myself). I'll be happy to add to the annotations, but I regard you as author, so feel free to cut down mercilessly, if you think any information is extranneous. Geogre 19:15, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm frankly unconcerned about nearly any article being too long, so long as it is well written and well organized; with a well organized article the reader can skip the details that don't interest him. More annotation is better, especially given that, in the Bray case, the issues are rather abstruse, especially for 21st Century readers. By knotty bit of cultural history, you mean what? orthogonal 19:23, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, by that I meant the whole confusion that occurred when, 1) the official religion changed (per our article now), 2) the print revolution really occurred (because presses got cheap, paper got cheap, the Interregnum prohibitions were lifted), 3) science as we recognize it now began to happen, 4) the mercantile economy meant that the rich and the noble weren't the same, 5) Parliament essentially elected a king, thereby throwing political theory into flux for everyday people, 6) philosophy exploded. In other words, it's a period in which more happens in less time than in any era, IMO, until 1945-2000. Things were very important to them but extremely political, so we have no access to them. It's not just that it's a time of freedom by law, but freedom in culture, because they couldn't figure out what rules they wanted to live by. By 1750, they've pretty much figured out the rules they wanted, and the world in England settles down (until 1789, but that's a different kind of chaos). Most people who read in English history either get all the way into this period or kind of speed by it. Geogre 21:44, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Voigt

Out of curiosity, what about the material you removed from the Voigt article struck you as POV? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:19, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What I removed was

"Voigt breaks somewhat from her densely realistic and contemporary style for these"

and

"While the world is invented, however, it is realistic in its construction, and resembles"

The style very much apes a certain type of safely conventional book review, and indeed I'd not be surprised to find it on a local or college newspaper's review page. Unfortunately, book reviews inherently show a "Point of View", wherein the reviewer explains what he likes or dislikes about the book, its author, or literature in general.

That POV shows up in the phrase "densely realistic", which is clearly a value judgment, and (admittedly to a lesser extent) in "contemporary style" -- "contemporary" being rather a matter of judgment, and indeed more a matter of judgment than an adjective more settled by passage of years, such as "Elizabethan" or even "Post-Modern". Similarly, "it is realistic", is the reviewer's opinion of the veracity of Voigt's fictional world. While I'm sure your opinion is well-founded, it remains "mere" opinion and therefore POV. But please don't allow me to discourage you; again, I think your effort would be well received, by, say, your local newspaper or as a web "blog" entry. orthogonal 21:40, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::laughs:: Wow, dude. That is one of the most tortured analyses of language I've ever seen. The material you removed simply pointed out that the vast majority of Voigt's work is set in the contemporary world and obeys the basic rules of reality, and that while some of her work differs on the first point and not on the second--as would be obvious on any serious reading. However, I'll happily clarify the language and reinsert. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:15, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me that the "English 101 essay" language lacked clarity, but is re-inserting it essential to the article? Rather than immediately re-insert, and give the impression that it's an ego-driven issue for you, why not allow it to lie fallow until some independent others can have a look at the article? orthogonal 22:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::sigh:: I have no special interest in going twelve rounds with you over this, particularly when you're in an abusive mood. I'm re-inserting the material because it's pertinent, it's accurate, and Wikipedia isn't paper. If "independent others" have concerns with it at some later juncture, well, this is Wikipedia and they can join the editing and discussion party. BTW, I hope you weren't offended at my VfD'ing your "Annotated lyrics" page; it's not that I'm against the information, but I do try to observe the guidelines about what goes where. Nothing personal. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm not offended. But you do seem to be taking this personally. Since Voigt is so important to you -- and indeed, you already to have re-inserted your text before making your comment above saying that you would re-insert it -- please re-insert with my blessings. orthogonal 22:48, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Governor General

Thanks. That was way more information than I needed. :) moink 19:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So you're saying I'm a wikipedia natural? ;) orthogonal 19:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's just too bad I can't think of a good place for your knowledge trivial. moink 19:35, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ha! I almost didn't get your joke -- for about twenty seconds I kept thinking, "knowledge trivial" sounds like a line from Gilbert & Sullivan, and then I realized it sounded like that because it's in noun-adjective form, just like Governor General! Nicely done sir, nicely and subtly and self-referentially done! orthogonal 22:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Vicar...

You are likely to be right on pudding time if you have any sources. I just know what the phrase meant in the 19th century, and since there was no annotation I wrote it. Although I've known the song for ages, I hadn't ever really thought about this phrase in the song until I saw it marked for a note and lacking one. -- Jmabel 15:57, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Hey, breaking in here. Sorry about the intrusion, but when I saw "vet" on the history, I figured it was my "pudding time" that was involved. I was afraid of that, too.

Ok, so here goes.

1. "Pudding" as an insult was current in the 18th c. It's pretty nuanced, but calling someone a pudding was to call someone thick (a meaning still current), but, more particularly, to call someone a 'heterogenous mixture of ingredients.' That hardly seems insulting now, but it was then. Why? Well, it's complicated, but the Tory satirists, at any rate, weren't fond of things that were neither fish nor foul ("these damned amphibians," as Pope said), and Swift was responsible for making the "olio, fricasee" a particular object of loathing.

2. Did anyone call George I a pudding? Well, not directly. One daren't. Anyone dumb enough to call him a pudding in print was in gaol the next day, if he could be found. Therefore, there is a lot of code going on. Vin Caretta's The Snarling Muse, as well as the venerable The Canker'd Muse, talk about how these codes get formed. You either use a substition (Jacobites called George I "The Captain"), or you introduce an elaborate metaphor for the state where you can leave an unattached allegorical element that readers will add up. In this context, George I's court was often referred to as a pudding (well, "often" is relative). This was a double whammy. It meant that you could say that he is a bad king because he's foreign and that he's doomed because he's made a pudding of his court, and it allowed you to hint that he was stupid.

As for whether "pudding time" was supper or not, I'd have to look it up. I'm better at political slander 1660-1745 than truth. :-) Geogre 01:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's always a useful specialty. Especially in a election year. Let's come up with the words to "The Vicar of DOJ". As the the indented bit, it that your original work or is indented because it's a quote? If it's yours, add it to Annotated Vicar. I figured there had to be more to the Pudding stuff, and this is great stuff. -- orthogonal 02:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yep, everything from "Sorry" to "Geogre" was me. Anyway, I was worried that expanding on pudding would be a bit much. It's really interesting, though, reading all that stuff from an era when they were debating democracy (which they concluded was "mob rule"), and seeing a nation find itself able to really dish out the dirt for the first time. The print revolution was huge, and very, very much like the WWW explosion now. They had the same problems: for a little money, anyone could print up his opinions. Similarly, there were armies of "index" people (like Cliff's Notes of the 18th c., but on scientific matters). Similarly, there were hundreds of pamphlets of "dark matter" proving that anyone you want was the Anti-Christ. It was an information riot. Anyway, they also had different eyes from us. They didn't like mixtures, didn't see much call for pluralism (but they were well aware of it), and wanted stability at the same time that they demanded "liberty" (no doubt the word of the century).

As for the "Attorney General of Bray (not dead)," I've been at a loss with this administration. The man's so much of a boob that he had to put a bra on Justice. He lost an election to a dead man. There is no parody one can think up that these people won't do in earnest. It used to be a joke to say, "I'd better stop, or they'll take me to Gitmo." That it isn't now is so frightening that satirists need to all stop hurling insults and begin hurling bricks (metaphorically). Geogre 03:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My Pet Goat (book)

Hiya.. I think the identification of that book as My Pet Goat is incorrect.. see [1]. —Stormie 01:36, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting points -- and precisely the kind of article I was looking for when I was writing the Wiki entry. Could you add that to the Wiki page? Maybe we'll change the name later, although I suspect that, even if that's not the actual name of the book, it's the name by which it's best known now -- and therefore the entry under which Wikipedia readers will look for it. (Hmm -- an article on famous misapprehensions would be a good addition to Wikipedia.) -- orthogonal 01:42, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, if it doesn't end up at My Pet Goat (book), then there should be redirects from there, My Pet Goat, The Pet Goat, etc. to wherever the story lands. I might leave the rewrite to someone who has seen Fahrenheit 9/11 though - I haven't, it doesn't open here in Australia for some weeks yet. —Stormie 01:47, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, I can buy that. Are you able to boil down the doubts about the book title and add them to the article? -- orthogonal 02:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hiya, that Goat looks fine now.. I was going to give it a polish when I got a chance but you did it first. I certainly don't have any factual dispute with it now. Cheers! —Stormie 23:07, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Meelar did most of the polishing, and a good job of it too.

Beholder

Well, the intro sentence does start off with "In the [D&D] fantasy role-playing game...". I think that this is a sufficient indicator that it's fictional. As it was, the text you inserted wasn't grammatical and disrupted a well-flowing lead sentence that already made clear it was fictional. Thus, I removed it. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but both real (donkeys, horses, dogs) and mythological (dragons, griffons, harpies) appear in D&D, so saying the beholder also appears leaves it ambiguous, no? So, I've grammatically inserted "fictional" into the well-flowing lead. I hope you find this a reasonable compromise. -- orthogonal 13:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The difference being that horse does not start out as saying "In the fictional D&D RPG...". An intro like that is a tipoff. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:23, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please see my (rather long and tedious) plea for the reader on the Beholder talk page. -- orthogonal 14:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Join the discussion" links

Thanks for weighing in on the Willmore VfD. But i noticed you made many contributions on the VfD page, where they need to be moved before the votes will get counted.

I'm unsure whether you're confused abt how to vote, or just find the repeated reloads of VfD too onerous. If the second, may i recommend right-clicking & selecting "Open in new window", or equivalently, Shift-RClicking. (Assuming you use MS IE; others probably offer a similar facility.) If you're not following me, let me know.

In any case, i'm about to use that technique to transfer the six votes i spotted on

[2]

to their articles.

(I'm confused about the Ted Kennedy article, which doesn't sound like you started it but does look like it; you may want to check to be sure i didn't screw that one up.

--Jerzy(t) 03:25, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

Jerzy, thanks for pointing this out to me. I'd been hitting the "[edit]" links to edit just that section of the page. I had no idea that meant the vote ended up somewhere else -- and I confess I'll still not clear where it did end up, as I saw my text on the VfD page after submitting the edit. If you care to, please explain to me where what I wrote went, and why I saw it on the VfD page but you were able to tell it wasn't "really" there. and please, explain it small simple words, as I'm thoroughly confused. ;) -- orthogonal 21:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saddam Picture

In the edit summary for Donald Rumsfeld, you said that: "Rumsfeld meeting the Eritrean President is not noteworthy for an encyclopedia; meeting Saddam is. 100 years hence, only the latter will be relevant. Thus, the change is POV. Therefore, revert."

On the Jacques Chirac talk page, they said:

Donald Rumsfeld's page also has a photograph of him shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. David.Monniaux 06:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not suppose to balance one article with another, but to be neutral in every single article. So let's remove both pictures. Mentioning Chirac's former links with Saddam in the "Political contention with the United States" section is sufficient. Thbz 09:38, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Therefore, do you propose that the Saddam Hussein picture be removed from the Donald Rumsfeld page, or that the Saddam Hussein be added to the Jacques Chirac page? 69.111.79.123 04:17, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I propose neither, you're proposing a false dichotomy. I propose rather that it's evidence of POV when we attempt to "balance" unflattering information in one entry with "corresponding" unflattering information in another entry. The photo of Rumsfeld meeting Hussein is pertinent to the Rumsfeld page; whether a photo of Chirac meeting Hussein is or is not germane to the Chirac page is an unrelated, independent, one night even say orthogonal question, which should be made by those -- not me -- best informed about Chirac. -- orthogonal 22:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Annotation precedent

Too late a random link sent me to On First Looking into Chapman's Homer. It's a Keats sonnet, of course, but the article annotates it, though all inline and in a narrative. Makes it very confusing to read (and the annotations are nowhere near complete, but, since the Romantics are my natural enemies, I'm not going to add more). Thus, there is precedent for a non-Wikibooks explication. Geogre 13:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think our format is more useful: the reader can click those links or footnotes for whatever is unfamiliar to him. I wish that copyright allowed us to similarly annotate some of Tom Lehrer's songs. Have you seen the (inaptly named) Major General's Song? I a big Gilbert & Sullivan fan, so seeing it was a treat. On another subject, I googled yet failed to find the lyrics of Lilliburana (I spelled that wrongly, didn't I?). Can you provide a link, by any chance?

Heading in templates

If you understand why an unbalanced hdg (more =-signs at start than end) produces a broken heading & succeeding broken section-edit links, you're in a position to make about as exact a guess as i about why it's a problem, and i think the problematic effect is an exact parallel. (If you don't already understand, just say so & i'll write a short 'graph on that.)

We had a problem from it when we first used transclusion on VfD, perhaps first time it was observed. I don't know that this hasn't been fixed, nor that transcluding a talk page is equivalent in this aspect to a template, but i assume so until told otherwise (and even then suspect a mistake). Appreciate your interest. [smile] --Jerzy(t) 05:26, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

Absolute Sex

It is my understanding that when the article was originally listed it contained nothing but a title and two links to Unification Church websites or articles: Moonie substub. It doesn't say anything, but it links to two Unification Church sites. Geogre 17:45, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC). When I came to assess whether the article needed deletion or not it had grown to include other material, by the original poster (Uncle Ed) that was added after all but one of the delete votes had been made. Therefore the article had been added to after consensus had been reached.

I try to clear off old debates from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old because I do not believe that having them hanging around there gains anything at all. Following the guideline from Wikipedia:Deletion policy The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for listing no longer applies. and from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators When in doubt, don't delete. I felt that the best course of action in this case was to remove the page from vfd with every expectation that it could be re-listed at any time, hence the comment that if you believe this was incorrect please discuss this after the archived debate (below) or you are free to renominate the article for deletion. on Talk:Absolute sex.

In my opinion I was acting in the best interests of the community and the only 'abuse' (a word used to describe my actions by -- orthogonal on my talk page) here is to omit to sign my name on Talk:Absolute sex, for which I apologise.

Graham ☺ | Talk 08:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have taken certain parts from your reply on my talk page rather than copy and paste the whole lot, for ease of reading:

Thank you for getting back to me so promptly. You have me slightly at a loss, as I don't know if you prefer to be called Francs2000 or Graham?

Either is fine; I have an appalling memory so Francs2000 is what I use on any website where I create a log-in, my real-life name is Graham.

Since when is hagiography and POV improvement?

I hadn't seen improvement in that sense. I have nothing to do with the Unification Church and wouldn't know Sun Myung Moon if he jumped out from behind a bush at me. That said I am now thinking that perhaps re-listing the nomination myself considering the later additions would have been the best course of action; I still don't think I should have deleted the article because the additions were made after most people had made their vote.

you overrode a majority vote

That is a matter of opinion. As stated above additions had been made to the article following consensus being reached, therefore in my opinion making that consensus invalid. As I have already stated my best course of action at that point would have been to have relisted the article; because I didn't do this I admit that I was at fault.

allows less well-intentioned sysops to point to what you did as cover for their rescuing their favorite pages from deletion

I would never support this course of action and believe that sysops should act as objectively as possible when doing sysop things.

democratic process (vast majority of this paragraph snipped for brevity)

The problem with this is that Wikipedia policy allows for this to happen. Had I not read in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for listing no longer applies then I would have followed a different course of action. The matter for debate here is the whole notion of "improved" which is why I should have relisted the nomination to get others' opinions on the matter.

Did you consult any other sysop when you made your decision?

No. I have no access to other sysops most of the time because, being English, I make most of my edits while America sleeps and I do not have access to #wikipedia or other such IRC channels. I have asked the question (informally only) before about whether people should be allowed to act as sysops when they have little or no access to these 'backstage' discussions and no firm decision was made, however if it were to be discussed in open forum my opinion is that it shouldn't make a difference.

Did you consult anyone at all?

No. My interest was merely to clear up a back log on the Old page.

Graham ☺ | Talk 13:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IRC

I'm trying out the IRC now, keeping a weather eye out for your logon. It's really easy, and I can see the criminal danger of it. :-) Such a disappointment, though, to see a general discussion running along the lines of, "I like sex." "Yeah." "Sex is fun." "I like sex too!" Gee, folks, lets surprise ourselves with the news. Sheesh. Geogre 00:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cuba

Hi Orthogonal, Yes "dissident", "reactionary", "opponent of the revolution" are not identical and have slightly different implications. Since it's a very serious allegation, it's important to get the term right. I suggest we look at what kind of people were executed before we make further edits, preferably from sources that are not partisan. I'll put my comment on the article's talk page, please reply there.pir 12:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[Copied from Talk:Cuba]

I have no idea who was executed for what immediately after Castro came to power; I reverted on the assumption that the original author who used "dissidents" had a better idea than either the Old Bolshie who maintained that "dissidence" is by definition impossible (immediately) after a revolution, and that Pir's well-meaning attempt at reconciliation could be (I don't know if is is) technically wrong, as "dissident" does not necessarily equate to "opponent of the revolution". (And shouldn't it be capitalized "Revolution" here, as we're referring to a particular Revolution, in this case Castro's?) Again, my intent was simply to revert to a previous author who presumably had a better idea what he meant to write. I have no dog in this fight, and will accept whatever the consensus opinion agrees on, as I have no inclination to research the matter. -- orthogonal 12:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Konrad Henlein (Everyking)

That certainly was hostile. My edits were spelling fixes, minor grammar improvements and such -- pretty noncontroversial stuff, so I don't think I need my own web page for that. You edited over my changes to the article, so I restored them, because I didn't want the article riddled with the same problems I had already spent several minutes fixing. You're the one responsible for merging the edits, not me. Everyking 00:07, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it was hostile. I think you'll find in life that when you act in a hostile manner, you will receive a hostile response. I replaced your minor improvements with what I thought were improvements as good, or better -- and saw no reason to retain yours. I frankly felt the changes were roughly equivalent, and didn't realize you'd be so personally attached to your own prose.

Now, in the face of that, you could have high-mindedly merged back in any changes of your you felt really were superior, or mentioned to me on a talk page that you felt slighted, or in a fit of pique, you could choose to behave hostility and revert. That you chose the latter course, rather than one more moderate or conciliatory, speaks either to an essential lack of maturity or an excessive attachment to your own edits.

In either case, it's evidence of a hastiness to anger and a tendency for precipitous action that calls into question your fitness to continue as a wikipedia administrator. If you can so quickly and so easily turn what should be two people both trying to improve an article into a potential edit war because the only response that comes to your mind is to revert with a hostile message, I can't see how you be expected to defuse conflicts between other editors, or be trusted to ban users.

If you can't better channel your anger, perhaps it is time for you to reconsider your role on wikipedia. -- orthogonal 13:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You restored spelling mistakes and removed wikification! Everyking 13:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If I did, I didn't notice. Had you pointed that out on a talk page, I'd have humbly apologized and immediately endeavored to correct that. But that is not what you did. Instead, apparently deciding that two wrongs might actually make a right, you wiped out my improvements with a revert with an attached snarky comment. Was that the best way you could see to handle the problem, or were you just being lazy and throwing your weight around?

Is that why we elevated you to adminship, to allow you to impose your arbitrary will wherever you feel slighted? To create more hostility because you prefer to begin edit wars rather than discuss matters politely? This is rapidly going beyond the article in question, as you continue to demonstrate an unwillingness to compromise or even consider the possibility of error on your part, to call into question your fitness for the role you play on wikipedia. -- orthogonal 13:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice, but you just edited over me with disregard for the standard etiquette that whoever receives the edit conflict should merge the two versions. Anyway, it looked like all you did was split up some paragraphs, which I had already done to a lesser degree, while simultaneously restoring a bunch of problems I had spent several minutes working on. I wouldn't have reverted it if you had actually added content. And I don't see what being an admin has to do with anything, considering I used a standard revert and not a rollback. This seems like much ado about nothing. You're welcome to go back and do whatever work you did over again, as long as you don't restore any bad spelling or remove any useful wikification. Everyking 14:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, had you said that at the time, I wouldn't have taken issue with your actions. This has to do with your being an admin because the principal duty of an admin is to prevent conflict, not to start personal conflicts. That requires a certain maturity, which you insist on not demonstrating. You make this even more clear with your arrogant and dismissively words: " You're welcome to go back and do whatever work you did over again, as long as you,", as long as it's done subject to your conditions. You seem to have some idea that you own wikipedia, or have some right to give commands to other users. I think at minimum you should undo your revert and merge both changes, rather than telling me what I am "welcome" to do. That you think this is "much ado about nothing" simply suggests that your arrogant and bullying conduct is "business as usual" for you. -- orthogonal 14:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Surely you don't expect me to say you are welcome to restore all the problems? Because you aren't. Edit like a civil wikipedian and adhere to customary ettiquette, please. And don't angrily insult people if they don't like to see their work undone. I think you are just trying to pick a fight with me for some reason, and I don't have any interest in discussing this further. Everyking 14:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that I wanted to "restore all the problems", and for you to claim that I did is frankly disingenuous, a intentional misunderstanding on your part. I expect you to say you'll correct the problem you created with your hasty and hostile revert. I have no interest in picking a fight with "everyking" -- but I have no interest in seeing an arrogant bully who is unwilling to compromise throw his weight around. As you're unwilling to discuss this further -- or discuss it without disingenuousness --, I won't waste my time on you. But having had my attempts at discussion rebuffed, you leave me no choice but to take other measures to address your conduct. -- orthogonal 14:58, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)