)Now read these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Tonks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosemary_Tonks
I think that the trolls have gone away now. WP:FA, anyone?
Full Version: Rosemary Tonks
Those who know my Wikipedia history will know why I keep a wide berth from controversial topics. I thought it was safe enough to write an article on the poet Rosemary Tonks. The most interesting thing about her is that she disappeared. There is no doubt that she has disappeared; I included an extensive quotation from an article by no less an authority than the Poet Laureate, Andrew Motion, saying that she had done so and that he had spent years in vain enquiring about her. WP:V and WP:RS, you will say. (At least, the complete Wikinuts will. )
Now read these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Tonks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosemary_Tonks
I think that the trolls have gone away now. WP:FA, anyone?
)Now read these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Tonks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosemary_Tonks
I think that the trolls have gone away now. WP:FA, anyone?
Having a picture is pretty much de rigueur for featured article status.
Maybe it would be easier to show a post-disappearance picture of her?
Jonny Cheshire
Maybe it would be easier to show a post-disappearance picture of her?
Jonny Cheshire
Well, you just never know when someone's going to object to a perfectly reasonable factual assertion!
Still, this "no public record of her after 1984" thing suggests that Tonks, like me, was distraught over the Washington Redskins' 38-9 loss to the then-Los Angeles Raiders in Super Bowl XVIII, and felt that the result left her with no choice other than to disappear from the public eye for a significant period of time. Clearly, no self-respecting English poet could do otherwise under such catastrophic circumstances...
I'd suggest putting that in the article too, but there's no need to dredge up unpleasant subjects, is there?
Still, this "no public record of her after 1984" thing suggests that Tonks, like me, was distraught over the Washington Redskins' 38-9 loss to the then-Los Angeles Raiders in Super Bowl XVIII, and felt that the result left her with no choice other than to disappear from the public eye for a significant period of time. Clearly, no self-respecting English poet could do otherwise under such catastrophic circumstances...
I'd suggest putting that in the article too, but there's no need to dredge up unpleasant subjects, is there?
I never know Tonks was a real last name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymphadora_Tonks
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Sun 17th December 2006, 12:11am) 
Where do you think J K Rowling got the idea from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonks
Or Lewi Tonks, noted for his discovery (with Marvin D. Girardeau) of the Tonks-Girardeau gas.
Bose-Einstein Condensate, sort of the 5th state of matter, is a new part of physics.
This http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/...27E4BC2EA8D98BB is better than the Wikipedia article.
"Tonks−Girardeau gas of ultracold atoms in an optical lattice
Strongly correlated quantum systems are among the most intriguing and fundamental systems in physics. One such example is the Tonks−Girardeau gas, proposed about 40 years ago, but until now lacking experimental realization"
Bose-Einstein Condensate, sort of the 5th state of matter, is a new part of physics.
This http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/...27E4BC2EA8D98BB is better than the Wikipedia article.
"Tonks−Girardeau gas of ultracold atoms in an optical lattice
Strongly correlated quantum systems are among the most intriguing and fundamental systems in physics. One such example is the Tonks−Girardeau gas, proposed about 40 years ago, but until now lacking experimental realization"
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Sun 17th December 2006, 1:34pm)
Or Lewi Tonks, noted for his discovery (with Marvin D. Girardeau) of the Tonks-Girardeau gas.
I'm prepared to believe that J K Rowling has read poems by Rosemary Tonks. I'm less prepared to believe that she knows what a Tonks-Girardeau gas is.
Her novels seem to be based in say the 1950s. They started in the 1990s before the internet hit but then continued and sort of ignored how technology progressed.
You can also notice the 1950s thing by how when they did a flashback to Voldemort being born it was the horse and buggy era.
Also I looked over the Poet thing and she could have been mugged/robbed somewhere on vacation and murdered. It's too long for kidnapping. I also see "typhoid and polio" afflicting her so she could have lived in obscurity and died from illness. Poetlister, you need to do lots of minor edits and some reverting vandalism so you can be made admin. If you get an article featured, you will qualify for the 1FA qualification that Mailer Diablo suggested and people like Cyde hate as admin qualification.
You can also notice the 1950s thing by how when they did a flashback to Voldemort being born it was the horse and buggy era.
Also I looked over the Poet thing and she could have been mugged/robbed somewhere on vacation and murdered. It's too long for kidnapping. I also see "typhoid and polio" afflicting her so she could have lived in obscurity and died from illness. Poetlister, you need to do lots of minor edits and some reverting vandalism so you can be made admin. If you get an article featured, you will qualify for the 1FA qualification that Mailer Diablo suggested and people like Cyde hate as admin qualification.
Hasn't anyone written a long-form parody of the Harry Potter novels yet? I was thinking I could do it - the title could be something like Perry Otter and the Circle of the Spherical Orb of Roundness, maybe... Or how about Barry Kotter and the Chalice of Marble Fudge Ice Cream?
And then, instead of having characters named after respected English poets, I'd name them all after non-respected American ones, like Rod McKuen and Gregory Corso. (Naturally, all of the really nasty villains and scary creatures would have to be named after Wikipedia admins... it's still a kid's book, after all!)
And then, instead of having characters named after respected English poets, I'd name them all after non-respected American ones, like Rod McKuen and Gregory Corso. (Naturally, all of the really nasty villains and scary creatures would have to be named after Wikipedia admins... it's still a kid's book, after all!)
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 17th December 2006, 10:58am)
Hasn't anyone written a long-form parody of the Harry Potter novels yet? I was thinking I could do it -- the title could be something like Perry Otter and the Circle of the Spherical Orb of Roundness, maybe ... Or how about Barry Kotter and the Chalice of Marble Fudge Ice Cream?
And then, instead of having characters named after respected English poets, I'd name them all after non-respected American ones, like Rod McKuen and Gregory Corso. (Naturally, all of the really nasty villains and scary creatures would have to be named after Wikipedia admins ... it's still a kid's book, after all!)
I still remember a hilarious parody of The Hobbit that I read back in the 60's -- the protagonist was named Dildo Buggins, et sic deinceps ...
Jonny
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 17th December 2006, 8:22am)
I still remember a hilarious parody of The Hobbit that I read back in the 60's -- the protagonist was named Dildo Buggins, et sic deinceps ...
I read it, also -- it perfectly suited my sense of humor in the flowering of adolescence. It was Bored of the Rings, written and published by the Harvard Lampoon. The protagonists were Dildo Bugger and the wizard Goodgulf (a reference that may be lost on younger readers.) Why, look here! It's
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Sun 17th December 2006, 3:28pm)
Poetlister, you need to do lots of minor edits and some reverting vandalism so you can be made admin. If you get an article featured, you will qualify for the 1FA qualification that Mailer Diablo suggested and people like Cyde hate as admin qualification.
Please. Does anyone really believe that the cabal would let me be an admin? 1FA is a daft idea, firstly because while an admin ought to be a good editor, there's no reason for her to be an exceptionally good one, and secondly because it would give the FA wing of the Cabal total control of the RfA process.
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 17th December 2006, 3:58pm)
(Naturally, all of the really nasty villains and scary creatures would have to be named after Wikipedia admins... it's still a kid's book, after all!)
"Can't sleep, clown will eat me" - that will terrify them. (Pity about the name; he's a lovely chap really as admins go. Wonder if he'll make ArbCom.)
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Sun 17th December 2006, 1:44pm)
Poetlister, you need to do lots of minor edits and some reverting vandalism so you can be made admin. If you get an article featured, you will qualify for the 1FA qualification that Mailer Diablo suggested and people like Cyde hate as admin qualification.
You seem to make only good contributions (I haven't looked very hard, though--just how you sound on here all proper policy and all) and your only block log stuff were unfair things that you were found innocent of. The fact that you stuck around instead of switching to a different account also can show evidence of good character.
You can't pass RfA if the cabal don't want you. Poetlister herself drew attention here to the strange case of the RfA for Ambuj.Saxena.
Have a look at this RfA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfA#Ambuj.Saxena
It was running 80:1 in his favour when SlimVirgin added her opposition on the grounds that he had once disagreed with her. Suddenly, by a staggering coincidence, opposing votes started flooding in. Many of them just said "per SlimVirgin". Others claimed that Mr Saxena could not write English well enough to be an admin; as a student of English literature, I am unable to agree with that.
Is this the Hivemind at work?
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Fri 4th August 2006, 10:08am)
Have a look at this RfA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfA#Ambuj.Saxena
It was running 80:1 in his favour when SlimVirgin added her opposition on the grounds that he had once disagreed with her. Suddenly, by a staggering coincidence, opposing votes started flooding in. Many of them just said "per SlimVirgin". Others claimed that Mr Saxena could not write English well enough to be an admin; as a student of English literature, I am unable to agree with that.
Is this the Hivemind at work?
QUOTE(guy @ Mon 18th December 2006, 1:51pm)
You can't pass RfA if the cabal don't want you. Poetlister herself drew attention here to the strange case of the RfA for Ambuj.Saxena.
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Fri 4th August 2006, 10:08am)
Have a look at this RfA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfA#Ambuj.Saxena
It was running 80:1 in his favour when SlimVirgin added her opposition on the grounds that he had once disagreed with her. Suddenly, by a staggering coincidence, opposing votes started flooding in. Many of them just said "per SlimVirgin". Others claimed that Mr Saxena could not write English well enough to be an admin; as a student of English literature, I am unable to agree with that.
Is this the Hivemind at work?
Your link to the RFA is bad.
More importantly: How come SlimVirgin didn't get Malber voted in as an admin with her vote?
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Mon 18th December 2006, 11:05pm)
Your link to the RFA is bad.
More importantly: How come SlimVirgin didn't get Malber voted in as an admin with her vote?
It's not my link. I was quoting an old posting from August and the link worked at the time, while that RfA was still live. If you want to see the RfA, it's easy enough to look in the RfA archive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ip/Ambuj.Saxena
I don't follow the second sentence. I said that the cabal could stop people from passing RfA, not that they could always get people past RfA. Fortunately, they can't always do the latter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...he_Lotus-Eaters
QUOTE(guy @ Mon 18th December 2006, 5:40pm)
I said that the cabal could stop people from passing RfA, not that they could always get people past RfA.
They used to be able to stop people from passing gas, too, but not anymore. Clearly they're not as powerful as they once were, especially after that terrible incident where several editors who were sympathetic to them simply exploded.
Though it was covered up by Wikipedians working for the Trilateral Commission (while on holiday), it's generally believed that this was the real cause of the infamous Tunguska_event.
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 17th December 2006, 7:58am)
Hasn't anyone written a long-form parody of the Harry Potter novels yet? I was thinking I could do it - the title could be something like Perry Otter and the Circle of the Spherical Orb of Roundness, ...
This is the first idea I have heard of for something that a wiki might actually be appropriate for producing! Start it and all the wikignomes will be out there santizing your timelines and constructing consistency theories for your spells! Better yet, start two opposing groups of admins, say the Lils and the Blefs, and then let them duke it out. Tons o' fun!
I hereby apologize in advance for the unfortunate occurence of three (3!) (damn, now four) exclamation points in this post.
They're already in front of you Somey:
"Barry Trotter and the shamesless parody", Barry Trotter and the Unnecessary Sequel", "Barry Trotter and the Dead Horse"
"Barry Trotter and the shamesless parody", Barry Trotter and the Unnecessary Sequel", "Barry Trotter and the Dead Horse"
Well the homoerotic fanfiction of Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy engaging in unmentionable sexual acts to each other is parody enough. This stuff is very popular I'm afraid, too.
To revert to the subject, there's been some more action. For some obscure reason, Badlydrawnjeff put a key reference into microscopic print, with the result that a user called Casey Abell (who, incidentally, doesn't know that you don't go round citing blogs as reliable sources) didn't realise it was there and triumphantly announced his "discovery" of a new reference.
I think it needs at least one picture for it to be featured.
You won't believe it but they're still denying, in the teeth of the evidence, that she's disappeared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=157486866
Who is this Perodicticus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=157486866
Who is this Perodicticus?
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Wed 19th September 2007, 5:43pm)
You won't believe it but they're still denying, in the teeth of the evidence, that she's disappeared.
Rosemary Tonks&diff=157584223&oldid=157486866
Who is this Perodicticus?
Maybe Perodicticus = RosemaryTonks …
Jonny
The Nymphadora Tonks article will probably be featured first.
This thread has been commented on and linked to by Casey Abell as part of the Attack Sites battle.
Why do I let myself get sucked back into this case? All right, I'm about to violate principle #15, MALICIOUSSITES. I'm going to link to an "attack site." Those who are shocked by such things may avert their eyes.
In this thread [26] one of the awful people (just kidding, this user is very competent and reasonable, and I've argued for restoring the user's editing privileges on Wikipedia) on the awful site criticized my editing of a Wikipedia article. Now the criticism is extremely mild and arguably correct. But let's say I was thin-skinned enough to see it as "cyber-stalking" of me and my WP edits. And let's say that this criticism, instead of appearing on the awful site, showed up on another site. And let's say I invoked MALICIOUSSITES and started ripping out every link on Wikipedia to that other site that I could find.
My guess is that after much hoohah my link-destruction spree would be reversed. But why should we encourage such hoohah in the first place? Why write a policy like MALICIOUSSITES, with its condemnation of undefined "substantial" "cyber-stalking"? Why give a new toy for the thin-skinned to disrupt Wikipedia with?
I'm happy to see that two arbs have now voted against MALICIOUSSITES. Other people may be worried about the disruption such a poorly worded policy – and ArbCom is creating policy here – may cause.
And by the way, I just showed how an a link to an "attack site" may be valuable and necessary. Casey Abell 14:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE
Why do I let myself get sucked back into this case? All right, I'm about to violate principle #15, MALICIOUSSITES. I'm going to link to an "attack site." Those who are shocked by such things may avert their eyes.
In this thread [26] one of the awful people (just kidding, this user is very competent and reasonable, and I've argued for restoring the user's editing privileges on Wikipedia) on the awful site criticized my editing of a Wikipedia article. Now the criticism is extremely mild and arguably correct. But let's say I was thin-skinned enough to see it as "cyber-stalking" of me and my WP edits. And let's say that this criticism, instead of appearing on the awful site, showed up on another site. And let's say I invoked MALICIOUSSITES and started ripping out every link on Wikipedia to that other site that I could find.
My guess is that after much hoohah my link-destruction spree would be reversed. But why should we encourage such hoohah in the first place? Why write a policy like MALICIOUSSITES, with its condemnation of undefined "substantial" "cyber-stalking"? Why give a new toy for the thin-skinned to disrupt Wikipedia with?
I'm happy to see that two arbs have now voted against MALICIOUSSITES. Other people may be worried about the disruption such a poorly worded policy – and ArbCom is creating policy here – may cause.
And by the way, I just showed how an a link to an "attack site" may be valuable and necessary. Casey Abell 14:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 30th September 2007, 1:52am)
This thread has been commented on and linked to by Casey Abell as part of the Attack Sites battle.
QUOTE
Why do I let myself get sucked back into this case? All right, I'm about to violate principle #15, MALICIOUSSITES. I'm going to link to an "attack site." Those who are shocked by such things may avert their eyes.
In this thread [26] one of the awful people (just kidding, this user is very competent and reasonable, and I've argued for restoring the user's editing privileges on Wikipedia) on the awful site criticized my editing of a Wikipedia article. Now the criticism is extremely mild and arguably correct. But let's say I was thin-skinned enough to see it as "cyber-stalking" of me and my WP edits. And let's say that this criticism, instead of appearing on the awful site, showed up on another site. And let's say I invoked MALICIOUSSITES and started ripping out every link on Wikipedia to that other site that I could find.
My guess is that after much hoohah my link-destruction spree would be reversed. But why should we encourage such hoohah in the first place? Why write a policy like MALICIOUSSITES, with its condemnation of undefined "substantial" "cyber-stalking"? Why give a new toy for the thin-skinned to disrupt Wikipedia with?
I'm happy to see that two arbs have now voted against MALICIOUSSITES. Other people may be worried about the disruption such a poorly worded policy – and ArbCom is creating policy here – may cause.
And by the way, I just showed how an a link to an "attack site" may be valuable and necessary. Casey Abell 14:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
And it has not been removed... yet.
And Casey Abell has not been blocked or banned. . . yet.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.