Open main menu
MEH
Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield!

Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain.

--Friedrich Schiller

Floq's statementEdit

I think what you said is what I meant, but was perhaps I was too short? I hope they will listen to a former arb, rather than to one with "battleground" painted on her back by the almighty arbcom ;) - I just heard Otello, the opera with the 5 tenors, and before intermission, black paint was smeared on many costumes, and finally "OTELLO" on the marble wall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I probably burned a whole lot of gravitas with ArbCom when I unblocked Fram. I said "per Beeb" so I could try to ride the coattails of his gravitas. I've never seen Othello performed; but it was one of the few things they made us read in English Lit (many, many years ago) that I actually enjoyed reading. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
How did you like my statement (the short one, before an arb who sentenced me baited me by a reply to say more than I wanted)? - Othello is by Shakespeare, Otello (famous) is by Verdi, Otello (less famous and hard to do - where do you find 2 tenors, and now you need 5) is by Rossini. Nice to have the "Opera House of the Year" (2018) around the corner. Today I spent with a famous and great woman who taught in the same city, on her wedding anniversary, - bicentenary tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll have to go check your statement; I didn't read that whole page! Will return in a bit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Take your time, will return after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that was a nice concise statement. I assume you're using "baited" in jest or exaggeratedly or teasingly; I think ST's reply was well thought out and honest. Pretty sure you were teasing, right? But I know what you mean about making a laconic comment and then feeling compelled to go back later and expand on it, only to (even later) wish you'd left it alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Though we have won the battle the cause is lost. –xenotalk 23:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
New potential redirect for ArbCom: Wikipedia:Requests for Pyrrhic Victories. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
"baited" - well what is the word for "you are determined to make one short statement and no more", and then someone comes and you feel an urge to respond? It happened before, twice that I remember, in the Laurence Olivier discussion (2015, got me to AE), and in the Stanley Kubrick RfC (just over and not closed). The first time, I got defiant, the second, I regret. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Probably "tempted". "Baited" has the connotation of bad faith on the part of the person doing the baiting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 
Clara Schumann
13 September 1819 – 20 May 1896
Imagine the face expression
when I think of arbcom.
I got that mellow
compared to 2013.
thank you, "and lead us not into temptation" - When I (admittedly) provoked to take me to AE for a formal violation of a restriction (not its 'spirit'), the closing admin found the term for the tempter: "They are also advised that implying misconduct on the part of editors like User:Gerda Arendt who are restricted from replying/responding to such accusations may be seen as misconduct itself." Such is the language of arbcom. The RfC is in the process of being closed. I clicked thank-you to the one who made a note that the discussion is still open. I didn't know that he was also the one to close. Won't be long and I'll be told that I tried to influence the close by that thank-you click. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
A good friend of mine got to see a reverse-race production of Othello featuring an all-black cast except for Patrick Stewart as Othello. My friend said it was quite good and the acting was strong all around. I on the other hand went to see a community theater production of Othello and the (black) actor cast as Othello fell ill before the show and was replaced with a white actor wearing blackface. It was horrifying. Also, the actress playing Desdemona chewed gum the whole time. 28bytes (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The Unwoke Theater Company, sponsored by Wrigley. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I found this: [1] – rather funny! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Here - as already in a performance long ago - the outcast Otello was a Muslim. He offered his bride a veil (Kopftuch) and prayed. He was welcome, even hailed, as a business partner, but not welcome as a family member. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware there were two different operas. I suppose I'd always just assumed the story was invented out of whole cloth by Shakespeare, and that the opera was based on his play. Learn something new every day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Some folks feel that Shakespeare may not have been an individual, but an amalgamation of multiple authors. Personally I was never an Othello fan, although I did enjoy The Taming of the Shrew. — Ched (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading Othello. I enjoyed watching The Taming of the Shrew. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Listen to Rossini if you can! - At our opera house, it was the first performance ever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
... and Shakespeare based his play on Giovanni Battista Giraldi's story "Un Capitano Moro" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That hyphenEdit

Hi, Thanks for making that change. It makes a lot of sense not to have that hyphen; once it was explained to me I developed quite a loathing for it. It's about ambiguity; a "well known man" generally needs a hyphen, as otherwise it could mean a "known man" who is also "well". With a "newly painted room", it's obvious that "newly" qualifies "painted", as a "newly room" makes no sense. So no ambiguity and no hyphen needed. But perhaps you knew that? Ericoides (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I know the rationale, but 3 things in response:
  1. "Loathing"? it's just a little dashed line....
  2. Writing isn't governed solely by logic; it's also adding little unnecessary touches that, while not strictly required, make it marginally easier for a reader to decode what's going on without having to think about it. Like extra commas that aren't strictly required logically, but help break up a long string of words. Or the extraneous hyphens I prefer using to make it marginally faster and easier for a reader to mentally group two words together, even if it wouldn't be strictly necessary logically.
  3. At this point in my life, I usually make most grammar decisions in my own writing based on what looks/sounds right, not on The Rules. I'll sometimes grudgingly follow The Rules even when I disagree with them for something on the main page when they're unambiguous; mostly to save another admin the work I've already done of reading the request and thinking about it and (gulp) reading the MOS.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
NO NO NO ... NOT the MOS. Anything - but not the MOS — Ched (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
An underutilized sanction at ArbCom/ANI: "User:Ched is not blocked or desysopped, but if he uses his tools in a dispute again, he will be required to read the MOS. The. Whole. Thing." --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Well - I haven't done anything at Antonio Brown ... YET - although much more of the back and forth and .... IDK. :-) — Ched (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nancy NavarroEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nancy Navarro, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Floq. I know this isn't your doing, but I am not a happy camper right now. It's a damned fluff piece and I have tagged it for CSD. My gut is telling me this thing should be zapped with a generous dose of salt thrown in for good measure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Disregard the above. The recreation was done by an entirely different editor who had no clue about the recent history. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
All settled now, I think. While all this was going on, the user has emailed that they're OK with re-deleting the userfied draft. I've move it back to the article so the history is there, re-deleted, re-added the redirect, and (per the issue above) salted. If there's still anything that needs doing, let me know. Or, obviously, do it yourself, but then let me know what I dropped the ball on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

My decisionEdit

As an editor in the community, I plan to retire and have complete no-access to this account. I have reviewed looked at my contributions and yes I have lacked helping the community much. As you are an Admin could you get me (blocked/banned) etc on Wikipedia as I am not just leaving Wikipedia (as an editor)/ I will still be interesting in reading articles. but I am also retiring my email associated with the account. Do you recommend me putting the account on a disposable email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBritishEditor (talkcontribs) 18:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

But then you're just going to create yet another account, right? If we're being honest? That seems pointless. Instead, stick with this account, which is not blocked, but stop screwing around. Read to your heart's content. And if you want to help out once every 6 months, or every day, or somewhere in between by making small useful edits that don't attract a lot of attention or aren't part of a lark, just do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For posterity: they kept lying, so I blocked them indef for trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thank you for your support I appreciate that. How is 2001 17 I was born 1999 May 19 only 2 years younger so 20-2=18 years old. That’s it🤩 BrandoLikesMoney (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@BrandoLikesMoney: You're welcome. Your birthday was in May. Before that you were 19, after that you were 20. Her birthday is in October. Before that she's 17, after that she'll be 18. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I did something unusualEdit

I made a request on ANI, or WP:Great Dismal Swamp. Need an admin to decide if something needs a revdel or not. It should not look like this. I was already told how disruptive I am, so could need help, - just look for my name, or a joyful noise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gerda,
From a quick-ish review, it looks like there are two issues:
  1. Is the English translation taken from the chabad website copyrighted or not?
  2. What should the page look like until that determination is made?
For the first, I wouldn't be able to judge without taking more time than I have to research. My first instincts are that the Hebrew text is public domain, but a relatively recent new translation copied directly from a website could very well be copyrighted. On the other hand, it might not be.
For the second, it's pretty clear that the tag should stay until that's decided. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is simply non-optimal sometimes; it isn't the end of the world if an article look hideous for a couple of days until a volunteer gets to it. If no one does so in the next day or two, I should have more time and I can look at it then. In the mean time, it's doing the reader a disservice de-linking links to that article in other pages, isn't it? You're taking away an opportunity to learn something, because you think the source of that knowledge looks ugly. I'd counsel patience. Wikipedia is a work in progress; sometimes it looks more like that than other times. Whether maintenace templates should appear on the article page or the talk page has been a disagreement probably 1 month younger than Wikipedia itself. That isn't going to get resolved today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the tags and am about to head off to ANI. The editor seems to argue that the Hebrew text was copyrighted in 2019. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Who is saying that? I don't think anyone is saying that. If they are, I cannot imagine that's true. I'm assuming they're saying the translation is copyrighted (which may or may not be true, depending on who did it and when they did it). New translations of public domain material are not automatically public domain. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Just so that you know: It's not a WWW site. It is a late 20th century (volume 3 of Psalms was published in 1991) translation by Avraham J. Rosenberg of New York that comes in 24 volumes in paper form. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The argument is that the translation is copyrighted (not the Hebrew text). The question is: does it need a revdel. The translation is in the article since June 2018, and nobody complained until yesterday. I guess the website's copyright is simply updated every year, regardless of when the text was posted there. - I wouldn't mind a tag such as "The following section is under investigation because of a possible copyright infringement." But telling a reader from the start about "Blatant copyright violations" seems not just "ugly" but counterproductive to "learn something". Psalm 100 is possibly the best-known of all psalms, - readers will perhaps think we don't link the same way as not to Berlin and Finland. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Climate strikesEdit

Thanks for the edit. Regarding your edit summary — WP:BRINT's "Good reasons to bypass redirects" section concludes with Links on the Main Page. In my opinion, one reason to do this is to facilitate use of the pageviews counter: anything on the Main Page will get tons of hits, and if we link to a redirect for an entire day, someone looking at statistics will understandably be confused by the fact that the page got far fewer hits than is common for something linked from the Main Page. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ubiquitous?Edit

I'm not really comfortable with this. I understand you may be away for the weekend ... no rush, let's talk about it when you get back. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Floquenbeam".